Bush vs. Gore Supreme Court 10 Years Later...

The premise of the article is in error. It assumes that the number of times that a SCOTUS decision is referenced is some function of its validity. No wonder you Democrats are so retarded: you actually read this stuff.
 
Damn Yankee said:
The premise of the article is in error. It assumes that the number of times that a SCOTUS decision is referenced is some function of its validity. No wonder you Democrats are so retarded: you actually read this stuff.
Click to expand...

Whatever Conservative apologist... What it means is that the Justices didn't think the original ruling was right... they realize that they messed it up and that it was wrong.... which is WHY they never referenced it......

Unlike the other rulings where they realized they had it right, so they referenced those rulings.

The Supreme Court of the US is a conservative, politicized, judicial activist court...and Judge Roberts is unqualified and a partisan hack.

Take that to the bank!

CK
 
CanadianKid said:
Whatever Conservative apologist... What it means is that the Justices didn't think the original ruling was right... they realize that they messed it up and that it was wrong.... which is WHY they never referenced it......

Unlike the other rulings where they realized they had it right, so they referenced those rulings.

The Supreme Court of the US is a conservative, politicized, judicial activist court...and Judge Roberts is unqualified and a partisan hack.

Take that to the bank!

CK
Click to expand...

Or, perhaps no subsequent presidential election has come down to a recount of a few counties...

Unlike Roe V. Wade, which has actually been superseded by later decisions. In fact the original decision is nothing like the current laws that allow partial birth abortions.

Now, since the premise of the article is untrue, any conclusions drawn are meaningless.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Or, perhaps no subsequent presidential election has come down to a recount of a few counties...

Unlike Roe V. Wade, which has actually been superseded by later decisions. In fact the original decision is nothing like the current laws that allow partial birth abortions.

Now, since the premise of the article is untrue, any conclusions drawn are meaningless.
Click to expand...

Stop with your lies buddy.... There is no current law that specifically calls for partial birth abortions...

You are just being disingenious with your fake analogies...

It doesn't matter if a recount is for a PRESIDENTIAL election or a Senate race or Governors race or lower....

The premise or legal reasoning that led to the B vs. G decision was flawed.... Thats why there has NEVER been any reference to it by the Supreme Court when it looked at disputes in other elections....

For example the Coleman vs. Franken race in Minnesota... This was a perfect race to use the ruling from B.V.G. but the Conservative Supreme Court wouldnt dare to use their Bush vs. Gore ruling as the foundation...because they knew what they did was wrong.

CK
 
SmarterThanYou said:
pfffft, WTF ever. both sides are about as anti freedom as you get. the sooner you learn this, the better off you'll be.
Click to expand...

The Conservative Supreme Court wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade, overturn Brown vs. Board of Education, etc....

It overturned 100 years of ruling for its Citizens United case... Sure looks like an activist court, that doesn't give a fuck about precedent.

CK
 
Supreme Court voted 7-2 that the Florida recount violated equal protection clause of the Constitution

7-2

The vote is hardly one sided.....in the majority'

but definitely one sided in the minority...
 
CanadianKid said:
The Conservative Supreme Court wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade, overturn Brown vs. Board of Education, etc....

It overturned 100 years of ruling for its Citizens United case... Sure looks like an activist court, that doesn't give a fuck about precedent.

CK
Click to expand...

and that liberal supreme court overturned the 2nd Amendment, expanded a congressional power beyond it's very conception which has infringed on the rights of every American since then, and elevated a class of citizens to super status affording them more rights and protections than we the people.

so yes, BOTH sides are activist.
 
CanadianKid said:
Stop with your lies buddy.... There is no current law that specifically calls for partial birth abortions...

You are just being disingenious with your fake analogies...

It doesn't matter if a recount is for a PRESIDENTIAL election or a Senate race or Governors race or lower....

The premise or legal reasoning that led to the B vs. G decision was flawed.... Thats why there has NEVER been any reference to it by the Supreme Court when it looked at disputes in other elections....

For example the Coleman vs. Franken race in Minnesota... This was a perfect race to use the ruling from B.V.G. but the Conservative Supreme Court wouldnt dare to use their Bush vs. Gore ruling as the foundation...because they knew what they did was wrong.

CK
Click to expand...

Again, partial birth abortions were not allowed under Roe v. Wade, yet now they are. What does that say about the original decision?

A Senate race does not involve the Electoral College, which is what Bush v Gore was about.

Don't they have Google in Canada? You should know this stuff.
 
CanadianKid said:
The Conservative Supreme Court wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade, overturn Brown vs. Board of Education, etc....

It overturned 100 years of ruling for its Citizens United case... Sure looks like an activist court, that doesn't give a fuck about precedent.

CK
Click to expand...

Why haven't they, then?
 
Damn Yankee said:
A Senate race does not involve the Electoral College, which is what Bush v Gore was about.
Click to expand...


Again, Damn Yankee needs to lie about the principle of the law... The ruling in Bush vs. Gore basically said that they weren't going to allow a recount because there wasn't enough time...

This principle could have easily been applied to the Coleman vs. Franken race....But it wasn't BECAUSE the Supreme Court realized they were wrong when they made the initial decision.

So they don't want to reference a mistake.

Simple enough for most people to understand, that is unless your a troll like Damn Yankee who is a Republican apologist...

I cant help you with that, and neither can God.

CK
 
CanadianKid said:
Again, Damn Yankee needs to lie about the principle of the law... The ruling in Bush vs. Gore basically said...
Click to expand...
The devil is in the details, which is about electoral college voting procedures. Perhaps you don't have that in Canada which would explain why you fail to understand the concept.
 
Damn Yankee said:
The devil is in the details, which is about electoral college voting procedures. Perhaps you don't have that in Canada which would explain why you fail to understand the concept.
Click to expand...

No dumbass... the devil is in the principle/precedent that was set with the ruling....

Hence this principle has NEVER been used anywhere else again...

So keep on mumbling Bush apologist!

CK
 
CanadianKid said:
No dumbass... the devil is in the principle/precedent that was set with the ruling....

Hence this principle has NEVER been used anywhere else again...

So keep on mumbling Bush apologist!

CK
Click to expand...
Oh look, ad hominems since you FAILED to prove your point. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top