Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck. - Page 219

Gattigap · 10-14-2004, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
The point is that the DEMs instituted a process based on faulty assumptions. Instead of living with the results of a close election, like say 1960, they were so desperate to hold on to power that they jeapardized the very system. Unfortunately, they seem poised to do it again. Aside from my post this morning, I understand that the complaints in several states have already been written and the legal teams already assembled. Unless Bush has some comfort in a win (assuming, that is, that he in fact wins), it is going to be another ugly December.

So what you're saying is that these folks deserve approbation because they proceeded on assumptions that appeared to be true, even if they did not later bear out, and thereby (in your view) fucked up the integrity of the system, eh? Hmmm. Sounds familiar.

And, is it your position that Repbulicans are not similarly gearing up for a fight on the same grounds? I want to make sure I get this right.

sgtclub · 10-14-2004, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Oh well, shit, if Richard "baby broker" Posner said it . . .

What did Posner say? You obviously haven't read too much on this topic if you thought the Dems filed the first suit.

I used the term "filing" losely. I'm a transactional lawyer, remember. I don't know the fucking difference or anything else that YOU PEOPLE do.

Shape Shifter · 10-14-2004, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
I used the term "filing" losely. I'm a transactional lawyer, remember. I don't know the fucking difference or anything else that YOU PEOPLE do.

Seriously, I'm curious to know about Posner's book. Was it analysis of the Bush v. Gore case, or a chronology of election events, or something of a mix of the 2.

sgtclub · 10-14-2004, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Which are?

Peculiarities of Fla election law aside, in your mind is there a point at which the conduct of a hypothetical election would be so tainted so as to justify a recount or court action? Or is it just that the loser has to swallow it if it goes wrong, for the good of the system?

My understanding is that both sides have retained the legal teams. I look forward to reposting your words after Kerry's victory.

edited to fix atrocious grammar

Yes there are. But what I believed happened in 2000 is that the DEMs saw that a mistake was "possible" , rather than "probably," the latter of which should be the standard.

SlaveNoMore · 10-14-2004, 05:44 PM

Quote:

sgtclub
I don't know the fucking difference or anything else that YOU PEOPLE do.

I read that THOSE PEOPLE wear Birkenstocks and buy Babs records and Michael Moore DVDs and stuff.

sgtclub · 10-14-2004, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
So what you're saying is that these folks deserve approbation because they proceeded on assumptions that appeared to be true, even if they did not later bear out, and thereby (in your view) fucked up the integrity of the system, eh? Hmmm. Sounds familiar.

And, is it your position that Repbulicans are not similarly gearing up for a fight on the same grounds? I want to make sure I get this right.

See my post to Larry. I think a party needs more than a possible reason to challenge an election. It should be a far higher burden of proof (internal, not in a court) than that.

And you can mark my words. If the GOP files suit in the event of a Gore win, and the suit is based on typical problematic vote stuff that goes on in every election, I will be singing the same tune.

The Larry Davis Experience · 10-14-2004, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
And you can mark my words. If the GOP files suit in the event of a Gore win, and the suit is based on typical problematic vote stuff that goes on in every election, I will be singing the same tune.

Nice loophole.

Gattigap · 10-14-2004, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
See my post to Larry. I think a party needs more than a possible reason to challenge an election. It should be a far higher burden of proof (internal, not in a court) than that.

And you can mark my words. If the GOP files suit in the event of a Gore win, and the suit is based on typical problematic vote stuff that goes on in every election, I will be singing the same tune.

Due to past events, this is not a possible outcome, but I get your meaning nonetheless.

sgtclub · 10-14-2004, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Seriously, I'm curious to know about Posner's book. Was it analysis of the Bush v. Gore case, or a chronology of election events, or something of a mix of the 2.

Chronology of events + analysis of how fucked up the DEMs arguments were (especially with the benefit of hindsight).

dtb · 10-14-2004, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
And you can mark my words. If the GOP files suit in the event of a Gore win, and the suit is based on typical problematic vote stuff that goes on in every election, I will be singing the same tune.

Well sure -- but how likely is that to happen? I mean, he's not even running this time.

sgtclub · 10-14-2004, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Nice loophole.

What I mean is that it must be something extraordinary for me to back it. No bullshit about hanging chads or bullshit, make-believe stories about voter intimidation. I want video tape evidence of Kerry steering a swiftboat and unloading barrels full of GOP ballots into the sound.

Shape Shifter · 10-14-2004, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
What I mean is that it must be something extraordinary for me to back it. No bullshit about hanging chads or bullshit, make-believe stories about voter intimidation. I want video tape evidence of Kerry steering a swiftboat and unloading barrels full of GOP ballots into the sound.

There were negative 16,000 votes for Gore in Volusia county. I think that's enough to point to some irregularities.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy · 10-14-2004, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
The point is that the DEMs instituted a process based on faulty assumptions.

A different question that the others: are you suggesting the assumptions were faulty, something that could have been disproven by testing them through the process? Or are you suggesting that there was a malignant or dishonest intent?

I believe these are very different things. Because the Supreme Court chose to value finality over certainty, we will never know whether the Dem's assumptions are faulty.

I won't claim to be a big student of the 1960 election, but I do know this - Illinois sent Kennedy over the top, but he would have won even if he had lost Illinois (just later in the night). See this link. You've got to overturn multiple large states to change the outcome. Also, the Republican Party pushed recounts that year in 11 states, and courts cases in a number as well. . So, it's a very different state of affairs. Charging the dems with doing something untoward by looking to be certain of the count when an election is decided by a few hundred votes in one state strikes me as a bit much.

Shape Shifter · 10-14-2004, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Chronology of events + analysis of how fucked up the DEMs arguments were (especially with the benefit of hindsight).

Could you please share that chronology with us? Hon. Posner seems to have left out a fact or two. He has provided a valuable lesson in litigation for the transactional types -- always make sure your facts fit the law.

sgtclub · 10-14-2004, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Could you please share that chronology with us? Hon. Posner seems to have left out a fact or two. He has provided a valuable lesson in litigation for the transactional types -- always make sure your facts fit the law.

I can't. I read the book 3 years ago. This is not stuff that can be boiled down to a 10 page VF spread. I think we can all agree that Posner is no Alterman.