Bush will pick a woman to replace O'Connor

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Too bad Bush probably won't talk to Senate Democrats about his nominee like Clinton did with Senate Republicans. An BTW, The Democrats controlled the Senate when Clinton made both his appontments. If Bush can't do this common courtesy, his appointments should be fillibusted. Bush was appointed by the SCOTUS, he shouldn't be allowed to appoint whoever he wants to the SCOTUS.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0465028675/ref=sib_rdr_next3_ex180/103-4499163-7166209?%5Fencoding=UTF8&keywords=orrin%20hatch%20babbitt&p=S05M&twc=&checkSum=JngUWh8FIcWWVHDf47aFli1HuKMNx41qzhXuWYX1TK4%3D#reader-page

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Why do people like jfern say "Bush's daddy's Supreme Court appointed him" when Bush I's justices make up 2/9 and 1 of them dissented?

Anyone? Anyone?

Straw man.

What I said was that the SCOTUS appointed Bush 5-4.
You could also mention that one of those 5 was appointed by his daddy.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You could also mention that the Scotus voted to stop recounts 7-2.

And that Bush was voted against in one of the 3 charges 3-6.

And I wasn't necessarily referring to you, but people like you have definitely made statements like that before.

...then show me where in Bush v. Gore there was an unconstitutional decision.

Read this.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20001218_levine.html

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Read this.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20001218_levine.html

Dude, it's full of misinformation.

Care to refute anything in it, or are you just blindly attacking it?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Care to refute anything in it, or are you just blindly attacking it?

Usually, I only answer those that can see straight, which rules you out...but I'll grant your request this one time:

See straight? What garbage.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Did you expect them to write: "We appoint Bush President"? The effect of the ruling was to appoint him President.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, the media recounts showed that Gore did get the most votes, but they didn't want to be seen as not supporting the President after 9/11. Plus there were the illegal absentee ballots that helped Bush, and the scrub list that hurt Gore.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

No, the media recounts showed that Gore did get the most votes, but they didn't want to be seen as not supporting the President after 9/11.

Dude, check a calendar...the vast majority of the media recounts were finished and published months PRIOR to 9/11.

BUSTED.
Released November 2001. If I remember correctly, it was originally supposed to be released Sept 11th, 2001.

http://www.nytimes.com/images/2001/11/12/politics/recount/

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

No, the media recounts showed that Gore did get the most votes, but they didn't want to be seen as not supporting the President after 9/11.

Dude, check a calendar...the vast majority of the media recounts were finished and published months PRIOR to 9/11.

BUSTED.
Released November 2001. If I remember correctly, it was originally supposed to be released Sept 11th, 2001.

http://www.nytimes.com/images/2001/11/12/politics/recount/

Busted?  On what?  I stated "the vast majority of the media recounts were finished and published months PRIOR to 9/11". 

The media recount example you sited was indeed published after 9/11, but your example does not define a "vast majority".  That's why most people on this forum believe you're a fool - you irrationally attempt to twist definitions.

Again, the vast majority of the recounts were finished and published PRIOR to 9/11.

Here is an example of the The Miami Herald and USA Today media recounts that were published April 3, 2001...proving that the recounts started rolling off the press a full FIVE MONTHS prior to 9/11:  http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/jan-june01/recount_4-3.html

The one that the NY Times was involved with was the biggest one.  The April one didn't do as much. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The one that the NY Times was involved with was the biggest one.  The April one didn't do as much. 

"Biggest" is NOT a synonym for "vast majority".  Here is an article from June 3, 2001 (a full 3 months prior to 9/11), citing FIFTEEN seperate media recounts that had been published by June/2001:

http://www.sptimes.com/News/060301/Worldandnation/Ballot_reviews_agree_.shtml

"Nearly seven months since the historic election, more than 15 newspaper-led reviews of ballots in all or parts of the state reflect the fragility of Bush's victory over Al Gore."

So, your media conspiracy theory, that the press was afraid of Bush post-9/11 to report the results of the recounts is simply unfounded, but I know you like and will probably go on believing it.

I wasn't aware there were so many, but the one the NY Times was involved in looked at many different options. Most ways, Al Gore would have won, but they focused on the ones where Bush won. I'd be surprised if all 15 of those reviews said Bush won.