I swear to Christ, if I have to keep printing this over & over...can't I just use it as my signatur file, please?
I'll take it for granted that you know there was a Media Consortium that investigated the count ( at least I hope you know)
Palm Beach Post: Gore wins under six of nine scenarios
( All covering statewide recount = Gore)
Monday, November 12, 2001
Chicago Media Watch: "Gore Wins!
One year later, the truth finally comes out. So why is the media refusing to admit Bush's defeat? " "
The truth is the recount clearly establishes that Al Gore would have been president if the Supreme Court had allowed the recount. "
A good comprehensive site
From the Miami Herald: Miami Herald: With flawless ballots, Gore wins by 23,000 votes ( note: Miami Republicans make Thomas look like Ralph Nader,
they're so Right Wing...and this is their paper!!)
The USSC over ruled the FLSC on the select county recount...good move. They stopped the statewide recount...bad & partisan move. Go to the 14th
Amendment and read it.
Here it is:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws.
No matter the debate variables, this is the legal reason that the USSC stated to install GW Bush as president. I'm still waiting for someone to
explain to me how a statewide recount with no predetermined winner DEPRIVED BUSH OF 'LIFE, LIBERTY, PROPERTY or DUE PROCESS'!?!?!?!?!
"Now, in the equal protection cases I've seen, the aggrieved party, the one who is being harmed and discriminated against, almost invariably brings
the action. But no Florida voter I'm aware of brought any action under the equal protection clause claiming he was disfranchised because of the
different standards being employed. What happened here is that Bush leaped in and tried to profit from a hypothetical wrong inflicted on someone else.
Even assuming Bush had this right, the very core of his petition to the Court was that he himself would be harmed by these different standards.
But would he have? If we're to be governed by common sense, the answer is no. The reason is that just as with flipping a coin you end up in rather
short order with as many heads as tails, there would be a "wash" here for both sides, i.e., there would be just as many Bush as Gore votes that
would be counted in one county yet disqualified in the next. (Even if we were to assume, for the sake of argument,! that the wash wouldn't end up
exactly, 100 percent even, we'd still be dealing with the rule of de minimis non curat lex--the law does not concern itself with trifling matters.)
So what harm to Bush was the Court so passionately trying to prevent by its ruling other than the real one: that he would be harmed by the truth as
elicited from a full counting of the undervotes?"
That the Consortium had the answers and held off releasing the data till nicely after Sept. 11th is lost on everyone, I suppose?
[Edited on 18-12-2002 by Bout Time]