Bush v. Gore

[J. J.]

What's with all the DINOs? Democrats don't support Bush stealing the election.

No, unlike the loony leftists, they don't support Gore's blatant attempt to disenfranchise an entire state.

Interestingly, I would have dissented on the grounds that the majority found.  My problem was the "safe harbor" provision, which ironically could have been met if Gore & Co. had not fought the state's initial certification.  Also, ironically, I would have supported the a full recount if it could have been conducted prior to the "safe harbor" date.

[J. J.]

What's with all the DINOs? Democrats don't support Bush stealing the election.

No, unlike the loony leftists, they don't support Gore's blatant attempt to disenfranchise an entire state.

While not counting Florida's EVs at all was basically the constitutional solution in this mess, that's not what Gore wanted.

Well, by delaying the count, he would have accomplished that.  He delays the counting so the safe harbor deadline cannot be met, he can legitimately challenge the selection of the electors.  Consider also that, at no point during the process, was Gore ever leading in the count in FL.

There were also some statements, by the Gore campaign, about Gore leading in both the popular and the electoral vote.  Further, a recount could not be requested until the election was certified.  Who filed a suit to delay the certification?  Gore.

It was perhaps the only strategy that Gore had.  If he can't win by getting the electors in FL he wants, he can win by not getting any electors from FL chosen.  And, it would be constitutional.

[J. J.]

Well, by delaying the count, he would have accomplished that.  He delays the counting so the safe harbor deadline cannot be met, he can legitimately challenge the selection of the electors.  Consider also that, at no point during the process, was Gore ever leading in the count in FL.

Uh - Republicans delayed the count. At just about every step. Including a certain partisan judge impounding ballot boxes so noone could recount them, and including a staged riot to stop recounts in Dade.

As a factual matter, no.

Here is Wiki:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now, if the certification had gone through on the on 11/18, Gore could have filed the same suit he did on 11/27, more than a week earlier.  The same issues could have been adjudicated, but after that, the votes could have been counted prior to the safe harbor deadline.

The "staged riot" did not "stop" any recounting, nor did a "partisan judge" impound the ballot boxes.  Gore filed a suit to prevent certification, which was successful, delaying any suit regarding the recount for over a week.

As I said, I would have supported the recount if it could have been done prior to the safe harbor deadline.  Gore cut the chances of that through his own action.

[J. J.]

Let me do a quick summary of the Bush v. Gore decision.

On December 9th, 2000, in a 5-4 ruling, they issued a stay ending the recount.
On December 12th, 2000, they noted that somehow the recount hadn't finished by that day's non-binding deadline, and so ended in a 5-4 ruling said that the recount was ended, there can be no more recounts, and that the pre-recount numbers must be used (which caused Bush to "win" by 537 votes instead of 180 or so when the recount was ended).

Let's a more complete quick summary.  Election Day:   November 7, 2000.  Date Harris wanted to certify the election:  November 18, 2000.

[J. J.]

Let me do a quick summary of the Bush v. Gore decision.

On December 9th, 2000, in a 5-4 ruling, they issued a stay ending the recount.
On December 12th, 2000, they noted that somehow the recount hadn't finished by that day's non-binding deadline, and so ended in a 5-4 ruling said that the recount was ended, there can be no more recounts, and that the pre-recount numbers must be used (which caused Bush to "win" by 537 votes instead of 180 or so when the recount was ended).

Let's a more complete quick summary.  Election Day:   November 7, 2000.  Date Harris wanted to certify the election:  November 18, 2000.

Harris doesn't determine sh**t.
Date 1876 election decided: March 2nd, 1877
Date JFK was awarded Hawaii's electors: January 2nd, 1961

The problem is, you cannot file for a recount until the election is certified, so delay it, delayed the time for a recount.  The certification would not have finalized the election, because Gore (or Bush for that matter) could then have petitioned for a recount.

The safe harbor provision wasn't in statute at the time, so 1877 is totally irrelevant.

Nixon did not challenge the recount in HA; in fact, there were no challenges to it in Congress.  Such a challenge might have invalidated them.  Gore was the one challenging everything in 2000.

Had Gore not challenged everything, the effect would have been about nine more days for a recount.

[J. J.]

Let me do a quick summary of the Bush v. Gore decision.

On December 9th, 2000, in a 5-4 ruling, they issued a stay ending the recount.
On December 12th, 2000, they noted that somehow the recount hadn't finished by that day's non-binding deadline, and so ended in a 5-4 ruling said that the recount was ended, there can be no more recounts, and that the pre-recount numbers must be used (which caused Bush to "win" by 537 votes instead of 180 or so when the recount was ended).

Let's a more complete quick summary.  Election Day:   November 7, 2000.  Date Harris wanted to certify the election:  November 18, 2000.

Harris doesn't determine sh**t.
Date 1876 election decided: March 2nd, 1877
Date JFK was awarded Hawaii's electors: January 2nd, 1961

The problem is, you cannot file for a recount until the election is certified, so delay it, delayed the time for a recount.  The certification would not have finalized the election, because Gore (or Bush for that matter) could then have petitioned for a recount.

The safe harbor provision wasn't in statute at the time, so 1877 is totally irrelevant.

Nixon did not challenge the recount in HA; in fact, there were no challenges to it in Congress.  Such a challenge might have invalidated them.  Gore was the one challenging everything in 2000.

Had Gore not challenged everything, the effect would have been about nine more days for a recount.

Wrong, it was Bush who was challenging things in federal court, not Gore.

Well, if were bright enough to realize what I was saying, you'd realize that didn't make any difference.  One of the grounds that the court ruled was that it was now too late to do a recount.  That ground would not have been there had the certification taken place on 11/18/00.  It would have sped up the entire process by nine days.  The court could not have rules on  12/9 to stop the recount because of the time factor.

They may have ruled that standards should be set, but they might have ruled it on 11/29/00 or so.  There would have been enough time to do a full recount and meet the safe harbor deadline.

The question of why Gore blocked the certification is like one of why Kerry didn't release his military records.

Keep one other thing in mind, I, for one, would have supported a full recount, if it could have been done prior to the safe harbor date.

[J. J.]

Because the 2nd section of the 14th Amendment was a misguided attempt to preserve the 3/5 rule of the original Constitution. 

The 3/5 rule actually would have hurt any state that tried to enact it.

Let's say that one representative could be elected per 100,000 residents, at least.  State A has 1,000,000 inhabitants.  Let's say that 40% are ex-slaves, 400,000.  They'd 6 Reps for the 600,000 "Old Free" population, plus 2 for the "Ex Slave" population.  It if was one to one, it would be 10.  The Southern states were not going to cut their own congressional representation.