Email address obfuscation in effect -- please
click here to turn it off.
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
- To: MLUG Off-Topic Discussion <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
- Subject: Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] [POLITICS] what next?
- From: Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
- Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 10:00:14 -0600 (CST)
- Delivery-date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 10:00:51 -0600
- Envelope-to: EMAIL:PROTECTED
- In-reply-to: <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
- References: <EMAIL:PROTECTED> <EMAIL:PROTECTED> <EMAIL:PROTECTED> <EMAIL:PROTECTED> <EMAIL:PROTECTED> <EMAIL:PROTECTED> <EMAIL:PROTECTED> <EMAIL:PROTECTED> <EMAIL:PROTECTED> <EMAIL:PROTECTED> <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
- Reply-to: MLUG Off-Topic Discussion <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
- Sender: EMAIL:PROTECTED
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005, Vern Green wrote:
Mike, what exactly was the supreme court ruling and why did they reach
that ruling? Do you really know? Do you really care? Or is this just
another bash on republicans without merit or clear understanding.
It was a split decision - split in a predictable way politically.
Maybe you should read what the decision was that placed the death nail
in Al Gore's hopes of becoming President. A decision that WAS clearly
based in Constitutional law.
One can always find a basis in constitutional law for any justice's
decision, but there was a split on this case, so the constitution would
have supported either side.
One thing that is odd about the case, as I indicated and you ignored, is
that justices like Scalia supposedly believe in "states' rights" and
limiting federal authority over state matters. Well, the election is run
by the state and should not be interfered with by federal authorities, or
does that logic only apply when the state will definitely choose your guy?
The other really odd thing is that the justices declared that this was not
to set a precedent. Why not? *Everything* else they decide sets a
precedent.
Try reading the dissenting opinion and tell me what you think of it.
Just like I apparently cannot let the Clinton administration go, you
cannot seem to let the 2000 election go, and clearly part of your bias
against Bush is still based in an illogical sense that he "stole" the
election. Something that has been disproved time and time again.
I don't understand your problem with Clinton. I don't know what you mean
by "letting go." I think we should not forget what happened, but it's not
like I spend any time thinking about it. I've said before that I felt the
election was essentially tie and it is not such a bad thing that it went
to Bush, but that doesn't mean that I think Bush has been anywhere near as
competent as Gore would have been.
Mike
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion