Crybaby sues because he lost election
In a nation chocked full of crybabies, in a political party of largely crybabies, how do you manage to stand out as a the biggest crybaby in history? Well, you sue because you lost an election because of your voting record which adhered slavishly to the party line, like crybaby Ohio’s Steve Driehaus.
It seems, according to US News, that the Susan B. Anthony List pro-life group campaigned against Driehaus because of his pro-abortion voting record, so Driehaus, using th president’s executive order, written to give cover to Democrats who voted for his healthcare regorm plan, to call Susan B. Anthony List’s attacks “lies”.
And you’d think that a judge with half a brain would toss out the case, right? Well, not Obama appointee U.S. District Court judge Timothy S. Black who allowed Driehaus to go forward in an attempt to enforce the Lawyers’ Employment Act.
What is equally curious, however, is why Judge Black has allowed the case to move forward and why he did not recuse himself from it since, as Barbara Hollingsworth reported Friday in The Washington Examiner, he apparently is the former president and director of the Planned Parenthood Association of Cincinnati. As seeming conflicts of interest go this one is a real humdinger.
And as TSO says, they say the Stolen valor Act has a chilling effect on political speech, but they allow this crybaby shit go forward.
Thanks to ROS and Old Trooper for the link.
Category: Legal, Liberals suck, Shitbags
No, it does not. The standard was the same throughout Florida- the intent of the voters. The fact that it was counted differently from county to county was necessitated by the fact that there were different machines from county to county and it is presumed that the counters in each district know their machines better than other districts. As stated earlier there are different ways of measuring “reasonable doubt” from one Jury to the next. However the standard remains the same. This is the ONE time in SC history that the court ever decided that varying methods of interpreting the same standard was not allowed. It’s also the last time because the SC, in their blatant dishonesty, limited it to the the present circumstances. I defy you to find ONE other time, before or since where the SC stated that you can’t use different methods to judge one standard. Apples and Oranges. First off the Constitution makes it crystal clear that ONLY the states should be responsible for the manner in choosing its electors. The Florida SC was acting within its proper scope in deciding this case the United State SC was not. Secondly Gore was arguing a genuine ambiguity in the law, something which the Courts are designed to decide. In this case the legislature called for 1 A recount and 2. An unworkable deadline. It is the State courts duty to resolve issues like this. It’s NOT the SC duty to stop state functions in favor of cronyism. The standard for Bush to cause a stop was much higher, he had to prove irreperable harm. How is he irreperably harmed by a recount? Even if we were to argue that some votes might be counted wrong, he still must prove that this would damage him somehow more than Gore. The fact is this: if the shoe were on the other foot, and it were a liberal SC that had stopped the vote with only 150 vote difference between the two you’d all be outraged, and justifiably so. And, though i’m sure none of you will believe me, i’d… Read more »
@42
I’m hesitant to cite wikipedia, but some newspapers went ahead and finished the recount under various standards. The only circumstances which would have seen Gore win involved a recount of ALL ballots, which of course Gore never requested (or wanted).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Florida,_2000#Post_election_studies
I was trying to quote passages from #34 above. I guess i shouldn’t of used the second > at the end
Sorry about the confusion.
I honestly don’t care who “would of won” that’s not my argument My arguemen is that the 5 violated their oaths of office when they stated they would rule irrespective of persons My argument is that all 5 should of been impeached and that there was a crime.
I mean, Dred Scott was eventually set free, does that mean you think it was a good decision?
<I get that some of guys enjoy going’ round with a moron for yucks. Me, I lose my patience too quickly. As I like to say, When the Good Lord handed out patience, I wasn’t about to wait on that line.
So i guess when Reagan got divorced he must of been cheating too? Cause only cheaters get divorced.
I SOOO wish we could edit. I meant to quote this passage:
I think he was getting happy endings from a massage therapist, but apparently everything was “go green” and recycled so he thought his wife would be okay with it….
insipid, uh, you DO realize that the SCOTUS ruled that the recounts as Gore wanted them were unconstitutional was a 7-2 vote, right? It was the 5-4 vote that sent it back to the Florida Supreme Court that effectively ended Gore’s “selective” bid. Facts. Try using them.
And for the record, I was pretty apolitical until that point. I had left active duty the year before, but didn’t think much of politics until I saw GORE supporters shitcanning military ballots for the flimsiest of reasons, and they knew damned well what they were doing.
Yes, Gore was trying to molest massage therapists, but when you have a she said/he said kind of scenario, criminal prosecution is unlikely at best. No, he didn’t get divorced, but lots of people do for myriad reasons, infidelity being just one of them. Then again, I’ve seen marriages where BOTH partners cheated on each other and they stayed together. Go figure.
>insipid, uh, you DO realize that the SCOTUS ruled that the recounts as Gore wanted them were unconstitutional was a 7-2 vote, right?
But Sparky instupid read a left wing article so he knows what equal protection is better than SEVEN justices of the Supreme Court.
If it was a 9 to 0 decision, i would STILL argue that it was a near treasonous decision. The idea that a majority opinion cannot be wrong, is a supposition that even the SC disagrees with. There are times where 9-0 decisions are overturned by later courts. You’re also hiding from the fact that this decision is the ONLY non-precedential SC decision in history. This was the ONLY time where the Court decided an election in this way. Whili i do consider Breyer and Souter wrong for siding with the other 5 on ANYTHING, i do understand why they did it First this case was decided in a huge rush, since the heinous five wanted to make sure their guy was put in office as soon as possible thus limiting questions as to why they were unconstitutionally taking this case in the first place. When decisions that normally take weeks are decided in a day, mistakes are made. Secondly they realized that this decsion, like no other in history, was not precedent. They wanted to use that fact to preserve whatever kind of dignity they could from the court. Also, if your trying to argue that Breyer and Souter somehow agree with you you’d get EXTREMELY strong arguments from Bryer and Souter: First Souter: Unlike the majority, I see no warrant for this Court to assume that Florida could not possibly comply with this requirement before the date set for the meeting of electors, December 18…. But as JUSTICE BREYER has pointed out, no showing has been made of legal overvotes uncounted, and counsel for Gore made an uncontradicted representation to the Court that the statewide total of undervotes is about 60,000. To recount these manually would be a tall order, but before this Court stayed the effort to do that the courts of Florida were ready to do their best to get that job done. There is no justification for denying the State the opportunity to try to count all disputed ballots now. Now Bryer: The Court was wrong to take this case. It was wrong to grant… Read more »
You know, if you could spell “presidential”, I might give a shit what you have to say.
<But Sparky instupid read a left wing article so he knows what equal protection is better than SEVEN justices of the Supreme Court.
Thats apparently one more article than you did
<You know, if you could spell “presidential”, I might give a shit what you have to say.
Really? You're so out of amunition that you're resorting to faulting typos and spelling mistakes? Really? Sad.
Oh, by the way, i wasn’t misspelling presidential. I was spelling- correctly- precedential. Which means, Of, relating to, or constituting a precedent, according to the freedictionary.com.
Sorry to use such big words, i forget i’m talking to Conservatives sometimes. I know, low blow, but it’s not like i haven’t been getting them. Serves me right for going to a Conservative site i guess.
Whili i do consider Breyer and Souter wrong for siding with the other 5 on ANYTHING
You know, that statement is more instructive than anything else you’ve written, since it indicates that you do, in fact, believe that the SCOTUS should act in a partisan manner.
No, child, but your typos are an indicator of the greater problem you have, which is the issue of your ignoring facts and logic which don’t fit your agenda.
Oh goody–he used a big word he learned on Teh Google or Teh Wiki. Too bad he doesn’t know how to APPLY said knowledge. What exactly is it about casting a ballot that can be interpreted in different ways, exactly? All the bullshit I heard from the left about “divining voter intent” was just that–BULLSHIT. Once the ballot is cast, it’s not up to someone else to go, “Did they or didn’t they?” If I can’t be bothered to make my intentions (vote) clear, should it count, regardless of who I vote for?
Why is it that Gore supporters were so eager to shitcan military ballots? In the 11 years since that, I’ve yet to run into a liberal who can explain that to me, or at least be honest about it. I’m guessing you’ll ignore that little tidbit as well.
I wouldn’t call everyone on here a conservative. Just sayin.
<You know, that statement is more instructive than anything else you’ve written, since it indicates that you do, in fact, believe that the SCOTUS should act in a partisan manner.
No, that's not true. There's been plenty of times where they sided with the other 5 and I was in full agreement, the flag burning issue, the recent Hamas decision. I was referring to only this case that involved 5 justices purposely subverting the law to appoint their guy. As "your guy" Breyer said, they were "wrong to take [the} case." I think Breyer was wrong to give them any cover
Subverting the law–so you’ll tell us which one got subverted, right? You mean the one where Harris was supposed to certify the election until Gore stopped her? Or that whole pesky 14th Amendment deal?
Again, notice how our boy here avoids any discussion of the actual (not alleged) disenfranchising of military voters simply because they knew good and well they’d break for Bush by a 3-1 margin or so.
<Oh goody–he used a big word he learned on Teh Google or Teh Wiki. Too bad he doesn’t know how to APPLY said knowledge. What exactly is it about casting a ballot that can be interpreted in different ways, exactly? All the bullshit I heard from the left about “divining voter intent” was just that–BULLSHIT. Once the ballot is cast, it’s not up to someone else to go, “Did they or didn’t they?” If I can’t be bothered to make my intentions (vote) clear, should it count, regardless of who I vote for?
Why is it that Gore supporters were so eager to shitcan military ballots? In the 11 years since that, I’ve yet to run into a liberal who can explain that to me, or at least be honest about it. I’m guessing you’ll ignore that little tidbit as well.
I agree with Lieberman on the military ballots. The benefit of the doubt should be given to them. However the fact that poll workers altered these ballots so that they could count gives MUCH more legitimacy to the Democrats being upset then the use of different standards.
I find your contempt for people and their ability to read documents and to determine intent "curious". I assume you want to get rid of juries and judges too? Cause much of what they do is determining intent. I guess, according to you, we should only trust machines. You probably watched the Terminator and were rooting for Cyberdine.
<Again, notice how our boy here avoids any discussion of the actual (not alleged) disenfranchising of military voters simply because they knew good and well they’d break for Bush by a 3-1 margin or so.
I didn't, i said they should count (and they did by the way, but that doesn't stop you from being a "sore winner"). But the Democrats complaint was much less controversial then the Scotus decision. Gore's argument was that every LEGAL vote should count. Not illegal votes.
As i stated earlier, there was a legitimate conflict of the statutes that the courts are created to moderate.
In regards to the 14th amendment, it is obscene that Conservatives are abusing this amendment in such a way as to legitimize the disenfranchisement of black voters. Shame.
No, son. You are incorrect. Military ballots were shitcanned wholesale for the flimsiest of reasons for the very reason I stated above–it wouldn’t have helped Gore’s case to count them. Only the insistence of Harris and the Florida AG kept those votes from all being thrown out, but even then Herron and the Gore supporters shitcanned as many as they could.
http://old.nationalreview.com/babbin/babbin200408190823.asp
My contempt, as you put it, is for those who see something that isn’t clear or isn’t there at all. Juries and even judges are only allowed to deal with facts in evidence, not “intent”. As the movie line goes, it doesn’t matter what I know, it only matters what I can prove.
Trust machines? Why not–they are only as smart as the people operating them. If you don’t trust them, I’ll be happy to take your credit cards, ATM card, etc.
legitimize the disenfranchisement of black voters
Post proof or retract.
Rules. Put there Before the election for a reason.
The whole “what was the voter’s intent?” psychic hotline bullshit during the recount was the problem. On each ballot there was a notice that stated, to cast a vote, the voter had to push out the chad. ONLY AFTER GORE LOST did it become important to become Simon Baker and fucking GUESS what the voter “really meant to vote for” like some $2 Side Show.
Bush won by the rules and you fucking whiners have been bitching about it ever since because, even when you tried to cheat, you still lost.
Seems somewhere between my laundry and dinner instupid got smoked.
<No, son. You are incorrect. Military ballots were shitcanned wholesale for the flimsiest of reasons for the very reason I stated above–it wouldn’t have helped Gore’s case to count them. Only the insistence of Harris and the Florida AG kept those votes from all being thrown out, but even then Herron and the Gore supporters shitcanned as many as they could.
Any effort by ANYONE- including Democrats- to disenfranchise voters is wrong. You'll forgice me though if I completely distrust the National Review.
,,The whole “what was the voter’s intent?” psychic hotline bullshit during the recount was the problem. On each ballot there was a notice that stated, to cast a vote, the voter had to push out the chad. ONLY AFTER GORE LOST did it become important to become Simon Baker and fucking GUESS what the voter “really meant to vote for” like some $2 Side Show.
Actually, voter intent was Florida law going back about 100 years. Recounts are what was standard in extremely close races, the SC stopping a recount is the thing that is unhear of. Thus the need to make sure that this case was not precedent.
Again, none of you think the SC would of made this decision if the show were reversed. Furthermore if the SC really thought their bullshit opinion on the SC had any merit why didn’t they allow the decision to be precedent. The fact is, this “Principle” was important only for the purposes of electing George W. Bush.
<Seems somewhere between my laundry and dinner instupid got smoked.
Kind of reminds me of the after-debates. No matter how poorly your side does, loudly proclaim you won.
I did what i said i'd do: kicked your collective asses. Not because I'm so smart, but because your case is so damn poor.
yeah, smoked. Like I said.
Yeah, you so “smoked” me that you were brining up straw man arguments (imagine if i started bringin up voter purging in arguing a SC case) and also trying to argue imagined spelling mistakes (it’s funny that when someone mistakenly accused me of spelling something wrong- it meant i was a dummy and shouldn’t be trusted. Then when it turned out that i spelled an unusual word correctly- it meant i was a smarty pants and shouldn’t be trusted.
If i’m so getting smoked, why is it that i’m still arguing the issue and so many of you are trying to argue straw men and spelling?
Doesn’t strike me as the actions of people very confident of their case. Strikes me as an illustration of the old axiom, if the law is against you, argue the facts, if the facts are against you argue the law, if both the facts and the law are against you, yell like hell.
Is that what it was? It kinda sounds like you’re doing just that when you talk about all the ass you supposedly kicked. Do carry on though, unintentional humor can be just as funny…
It’s ok man, you win some, you lose some. Now don’t go away mad, just go away.
Instupid does what every liberal does– He sets up an argument and then change the goal post in the middle of the argument…
His first argument was that “Conservatives” used the court to steal the election, but when you point out that Al Gore was the first to use the court in Florida–then he will tell you “that was perfectly fine, and a legitamate use of the court.
Then he says that SCOTUS voted across partisan lines, butw hen when you tell him that even two of the liberal memberss of the court voted that the recount violated equal protection. He tell you they were wrong, because instupid read a few articles that said they were wrong….
You cannot argue or even debate with someone that addicted to the koolaid.
Never Argue With A Fool – They Will Drag You Down To Their Level, Then Beat You With Experience!
Talk about straw man argument. 1. My argument was never that the courts should not of gotten involved, obviously ALL recounts involve courts I had no problem with Coleman arguing his case for instance. My argument was with the SCOTUS getting involved. And if any of you gave a fig about States rights, you would too. If Bush had argued that a liberal Secretary of State was doing her job improperly i’d have no issue with that. Elections, are SUPPOSED to be decided ONLY by the States according to the Constitution. This election, though it had national implications should not of been treated any differently then a mayoral or governors race. It was strictly a state matter. Thus it is far from hypocritical for me to argue that it is proper for Gore to appeal to the FLORIDA Supreme Court but improper for Bush to appeal to the FEDERAL Supreme Court. Remember when you guys used to believe in States rights? Furthermore, the issue was about whether or not there would be a recount AT ALL. You’re just pretending that it was about uniformity of votes because you think that sounds better. Not whether or not counting votes by different standards is unconstitutional. Make no mistake- i think that Breyer and Souter were wrong to side with the other 5 on that one issue. However it is a big fat honking lie to suggest that it was a 7 to 2 decision. If you asked them they would certainly say the same thing. In fact they said it in the quotes i gave above. If they had gotten their wish, and the rcounts had proceeded under uniform standards, the entire world would of seen that as a defeat for Bush, not gore. They were hell bent on stopping the recount. They didn’t, and don’t, give a flying fuck about uniformity of counting If they did they’d of let Breyer and Souter have their way. I also love the way Conservatives think: It’ such a horror that some votes MAY be miscounted (no one gave any evidence that such an even… Read more »
And the empty can rattles the most. You’re still smoked bub.
<Is that what it was? It kinda sounds like you’re doing just that when you talk about all the ass you supposedly kicked. Do carry on though, unintentional humor can be just as funny…
So true, like Conservatives strenuously arguing that they're SOOOO concerned that the Black vote MAY be miscounted that they need to throw out ALL the votes to prevent that That would be funny, if it weren't so sad.
Or conservatives arguing AGAINST a State from being able to choose its own officials! HYSTERICAL!
Instupid– Do you even know what happened down there…
They recounted the whole state at which time Gore could challenged. He challenged for four counties which everyone was uncomfortable with at the time(because Most EVERYONE thought it disenfranchised the voters in the rest of the state). Yet they went ahead with the recounts anyway. THese recounts had a deadline– deadlines that are HARD based on the constitution. 3 of the four recounts did not make the deadline. Harris then certified the election because she also had a HARD constitutional deadline. Federally there is also a HARD constitutional deadline that the states need to abide by to certify their nominee. You cannot recount until you magically become president which was NEVER going to happen.
<And the empty can rattles the most. You’re still smoked bub.
Ok, i'll call your bluff, where did someone explain why this case should be without precedent, as i repeatedly asked people to do? If i got smoked, as you say, SOMEONE, should of done that. If you side track with another decleration that i "got smoked" you're simply chicken shit.
If i got smoked then where is the ONE guy stating how those 5 would of made the same decision FOR Gore (and yes, i am prepared to argue 1. that the Florida court would of ruled for Bush and that the 4 "liberal" would of ruled substantially the same). If you can't do that, then you're a limp wristed pussy.
If i got so slaughtered, where did i try and bring up outside issues like the alleged purging of votes? You can't show a time when i did that, nor can you point to a time where i desperately went after peoples spelling and grammer.
I can declare i have a 13 inch penis, doesn't make it so. Declare you smoked me all you want, but it doesn't make it reality.
In fact it was the Florida court that made up the law as it went becoming a partisan shill mmmkay…
“The court’s conclusions with respect to the other two issues were similarly
implausible. The Floridacourtresolvedthe apparent conflictbetweenthe “shall ignore”and
“may ignore” provisions by inventing a new meaning inconsistent with themboth, namely
that the Secretarymay not ignore late returns. The court thenwent on to give the counties
an entirely new deadline of nineteen days after the election. This deadline had no basis
anywhere in the statutes, and it was adopted without any explanation except a vague
allusion to “the equitable powers of this Court.”44
http://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/publications/working_papers/01-17.pdf
“For almost forty years, the Supreme Court has treated the stuffing of ballot boxes
as a paradigmatic violationof the Equal Protection Clause. Much more subtle and indirect
forms of vote dilutionhave also been outlawed. Like some of those practices, the selective
and partial recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court may have beenan inadvertent
form of vote dilution. But that recount had effects that were virtually indistinguishable from
those in the paradigmatic case. There is no meaningful difference between adding illegal
votes to the count and selectively adding legal votes, whichis what the Florida court was
doing. The Supreme Court rightlyconcludedthatthe vote dilutionin this case violated wellestablished
equal protection principles.”
http://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/publications/working_papers/01-17.pdf
< Melle, even the SC did not argue that the procedure was wrong. The procedure had been going on for 40 years. The SC was arguing that Florida law was wrong.
Furthermore, the deadline issue is more bullshit then the bullshit equal protection issue. 1. The deadline was not a hard and fast one. 2. even if it were the purpose of the court is to weigh two competing issues. Here we have one issue being a meaningless deadline (the presidential signing in was still over a month away) against meaningful votes And you're trying to justify a deadline over voters? The fact is that deadlines are moved all the time in issues MUCH less important than a Presidential election. Only this time and this time only a deadline, even a stupid one, couldn't be moved Because they needed to appoint their guy.
Keep goin man, you’re only proving my point.
<No matter how poorly your side does, loudly proclaim you won. <——–You're doing a great job at this part.
So the POSSIBILITY that a vote MAY be counted wrong is somehow similar to stuffing a ballot box? God, you might pull your groin muscle with a stretch like that.
Stuffing a ballot box is designed to hurt ONE part only. If some votes get miscounted (i can’t stress enough that this was never proven to happen) it’s going to hurt both sides equally. And if it happens to hurt one side more, the SC has said on numerous occaisions that it doesn’t decide on minutia.
Don’t bother, people–he’s smarter than all of you, and knows more about the law than the members of the Supreme Court.
Just ask him.
So basically you’re saying we should all bow and scrape to the men in robes even if they’re deciding STATE elections.
Even though i agree with Roe v Wade i do admire those that legally dissent the opinion. It’s amazing how through 40 years of constant effort they’ve made it so difficult in so many places to have an abortion. In fact i wish those that were for Roe would argue and dissent with the same tenacity. I don’t think any government officials, including the SC should be above criticism. Apparently you do. Of course judging from your reactions to OWS you all aren’t so keen on the freedom to dissent and assemble.
<Of course judging from your reactions to OWS you all aren’t so keen on the freedom to dissent and assemble. <- I'm fine with this as long as said dissenters and assemblers bathe regularly. The OWS crowd seems to have a problem with this.
By the way, i’m not saying i know more about the law than the SC. I’m saying Rhenquist and Co. knowingly broke the law and didn’t care. Hence the percuriem decision, hence it not being precedent They didn’t want to sign it and they didn’t want to hear anything like it again. But they did want to get their guy in there.
There weren’t a lot of bathrooms and showers in the army of independence either. You ever serve in the military? It can get pretty dirty there too. The constitution isn’t just for clean folks. (not that i’m buying your premise that they’re “dirty hippies”, just saying that even if true- it’s stupid.)
You ever serve?! Give me a fuckin break pal. you’re honestly going to try to compare not showering for weeks, sometimes months on end in a combat zone to the filth cluttering up city centers nation wide? There’s a difference, and if you can’t figure out what that difference is that’s your problem. And yes, they’re dirty hippies.
I’m done with this troll.
Yeah but the tea party manages to keep up with their personal hygiene somehow. Never heard anyone complaining about them stinking during their rallies. And no, there is no comparison between dirty hippies and men serving their country. None what so ever.