Log in

No account? Create an account

zuul posted this at anarchy

« previous entry | next entry »
Dec. 15th, 2000 | 07:16 am
mood: cynicalcynical

by Mark H. Levine, Attorney at Law.

Q: I'm not a lawyer and I don't understand the recent Supreme Court
decision in Bush v. Gore. Can you explain it to me?

A: Sure. I'm a lawyer. I read it. It says Bush wins, even if Gore
got the most votes.

Q: But wait a second. The US Supreme Court has to give a reason, right?

A: Right.

Q: So Bush wins because hand-counts are illegal?

A: Oh no. Six of the justices (two-thirds majority) believed the
hand-counts were legal and should be done.

Q: Oh. So the justices did not believe that the hand-counts would
find any legal ballots?

A. Nope. The five conservative justices clearly held (and all nine
justices agreed) "that punch card balloting machines can produce an
unfortunate number of ballots which are not punched in a clean, complete way
by the voter." So there are legal votes that should be counted but can't

Q: Oh. Does this have something to do with states' rights? Don't
conservatives love that?

A: Generally yes. These five justices, in the past few years, have held
that the federal government has no business telling a sovereign state
university it can't steal trade secrets just because such stealing is
prohibited by law. Nor does the federal government have any business telling
a state that it should bar guns in schools. Nor can the federal government
use the equal protection clause to force states to take measures to stop
violence against women.

Q: Is there an exception in this case?

A: Yes, the Gore exception. States have no rights to have their own state
elections when it can result in Gore being elected President. This decision
is limited to only this situation.

Q: C'mon. The Supremes didn't really say that. You're exaggerating.

A: Nope. They held "Our consideration is limited to the present
circumstances, or the problem of equal protection in election processes
generally presents many complexities."

Q: What complexities?

A: They don't say.

Q: I'll bet I know the reason. I heard Jim Baker say this. The votes
can't be counted because the Florida Supreme Court "changed the rules of the
election after it was held." Right?

A. Dead wrong. The US Supreme Court made clear that the Florida Supreme
Court did not change the rules of the election. But the US Supreme
Court found the failure of the Florida Court to change the rules was wrong.

Q: Huh?

A: The Legislature declared that the only legal standard for counting vote
is "clear intent of the voter." The Florida Court was condemned for not
adopting a clearer standard.

Q: I thought the Florida Court was not allowed to change the Legislature's
law after the election.

A: Right.

Q: So what's the problem?

A: They should have. The US Supreme Court said the Florida Supreme
Court should have "adopt[ed] adequate statewide standards for determining
what is a legal vote"

Q: I thought only the Legislature could "adopt" new law.

A: Right.

Q: So if the Court had adopted new standards, I thought it would have
been overturned.

A: Right. You're catching on.

Q: If the Court had adopted new standards, it would have been overturned
for changing the rules. And if it didn't, it's overturned for not
changing the rules. That means that no matter what the Florida Supreme
did, legal votes could never be counted.

A: Right. Next question.

Q: Wait, wait. I thought the problem was "equal protection," that some
counties counted votes differently from others. Isn't that a problem?

A: It sure is. Across the nation, we vote in a hodgepodge of systems.
Some, like the optical-scanners in largely Republican-leaning counties
99.7% of the votes. Some, like the punchcard systems in largely
Democratic-leaning counties record only 97% of the votes. So approximately
3% of Democratic votes are thrown in the trash can.

Q: Aha! That's a severe equal-protection problem!!!

A: No it's not. The Supreme Court wasn't worried about the 3% of
Democratic ballots thrown in the trashcan in Florida. That "complexity" was
not a problem.

Q: Was it the butterfly ballots that violated Florida law and tricked more
than 20,000 Democrats to vote for Buchanan or Gore and Buchanan.

A: Nope. The Supreme Court has no problem believing that Buchanan got
his highest, best support in a precinct consisting of a Jewish old age home
with Holocaust survivors, who apparently have changed their mind about

Q: Yikes. So what was the serious equal protection problem?

A: The problem was neither the butterfly ballot nor the 3% of Democrats
(largely African-American) disenfranchised. The problem is that somewhat
less than .005% of the ballots may have been determined under slightly
different standards because judges sworn to uphold the law and doing their
best to accomplish the legislative mandate of "clear intent of the voter"
have a slightly different opinion about the voter's intent.

Q: Hmmm. OK, so if those votes are thrown out, you can still count the
votes where everyone agrees the voter's intent is clear?

A: Nope.

Q: Why not?

A: No time.

Q: No time to count legal votes where everyone, even Republicans,
agree the intent is clear? Why not?

A: Because December 12 was yesterday.

Q: Is December 12 a deadline for counting votes?

A: No. January 6 is the deadline. In 1960, Hawaii's votes weren't
until January 4.

Q: So why is December 12 important?

A: December 12 is a deadline by which Congress can't challenge the

Q: What does the Congressional role have to do with the Supreme Court?

A: Nothing.

Q: But I thought ---

A: The Florida Supreme Court had earlier held it would like to complete
work by December 12 to make things easier for Congress. The United States
Supreme Court is trying to help the Florida Supreme Court out by forcing the
Florida court to abide by a deadline that everyone agrees is not binding.

Q: But I thought the Florida Court was going to just barely have the votes
counted by December 12.

A: They would have made it, but the five conservative justices stopped the
recount last Saturday.

Q: Why?

A: Justice Scalia said some of the counts may not be legal.

Q: So why not separate the votes into piles, indentations for Gore,
chads for Bush, votes that everyone agrees went to one candidate or the
so that we know exactly how Florida voted before determining who won? Then,
if some ballots (say, indentations) have to be thrown out, the American
people will know right away who won Florida.

A. Great idea! The US Supreme Court rejected it. They held that such
counts would likely to produce election results showing Gore won and Gore's
winning would cause "public acceptance" and that would "cast[] a cloud" over
Bush's "legitimacy" that would harm "democratic stability."

Q: In other words, if America knows the truth that Gore won, they won't
accept the US Supreme Court overturning Gore's victory?

A: Yes.

Q: Is that a legal reason to stop recounts? or a political one?

A: Let's just say in all of American history and all of American law, this
reason has no basis in law. But that doesn't stop the five conservatives
from creating new law out of thin air.

Q: Aren't these conservative justices against judicial activism?

A: Yes, when liberal judges are perceived to have done it.

Q: Well, if the December 12 deadline is not binding, why not count the

A: The US Supreme Court, after admitting the December 12 deadline is not
binding, set December 12 as a binding deadline at 10 p.m. on December 12.

Q: Didn't the US Supreme Court condemn the Florida Supreme Court for
arbitrarily setting a deadline?

A: Yes.

Q: But, but --

A: Not to worry. The US Supreme Court does not have to follow laws it
for other courts.

Q: So who caused Florida to miss the December 12 deadline?

A: The Bush lawyers who first went to court to stop the recount, the mob
Miami that got paid Florida vacations for intimidating officials, and the US
Supreme Court for stopping the recount.

Q: So who is punished for this behavior?

A: Gore, of course.

Q: Tell me this: Florida's laws are unconstitutional, right?

A: Yes

Q: And the laws of 50 states that allow votes to be cast or counted
differently are unconstitutional?

A: Yes. And 33 of those states have the "clear intent of the voter"
that the US Supreme Court found was illegal in Florida.

Q: Then why aren't the results of 33 states thrown out?

A: Um. Because...um.....the Supreme Court doesn't say...

Q: But if Florida's certification includes counts expressly declared
by the US Supreme Court to be unconstitutional, we don't know who really
won the election there, right?

A: Right. Though a careful analysis by the Miami Herald shows Gore won
Florida by about 20,000 votes (excluding the butterfly ballot errors).

Q: So, what do we do, have a re-vote? Throw out the entire state?
Count all ballots under a single uniform standard?

A: No. We just don't count the votes that favor Gore.

Q: That's completely bizarre! That sounds like rank political
favoritism! Did the justices have any financial interest in the case?

A: Scalia's two sons are both lawyers working for Bush. Thomas's wife is
collecting applications for people who want to work in the Bush

Q: Why didn't they recuse themselves?

A: If either had recused himself, the vote would be 4-4, and the Florida
Supreme Court decision allowing recounts would have been affirmed.

Q: I can't believe the justices acted in such a blatantly political way.

A: Read the opinions for yourself:
(December 9 stay stopping the recount), and
(December 12 final opinion)

Q: So what are the consequences of this?

A: The guy who got the most votes in the US and in Florida and under our
Constitution (Al Gore) will lose to America's second choice who won the
all important 5-4 Supreme Court vote.

Q: I thought in a democracy, the guy with the most votes wins.

A: True, in a democracy. But America is not a democracy. In America, in
the year 2000, the guy with the most US Supreme Court votes wins.

Q: Is there any way to stop the Supreme Court from doing this again?

A: YES. No federal judge can be confirmed without a vote in the Senate.
It takes 60 votes to break a filibuster. If only 41 of the 50 Democratic
Senators stand up to Bush and his Supremes and say that they will not
a single judge appointed by him until a President can be democratically
elected in 2004, the judicial reign of terror can end... and one day we can
hope to return to the rule of law.

Q: What do I do now?

A: E-mail this to everyone you know, and write or call your senator,
reminding him that Gore beat Bush by several hundred thousand votes (three
times Kennedy's margin over Nixon) and that you believe that VOTERS rather
than JUDGES should determine who wins an election by counting every vote.
to protect our judiciary from overturning the will of the people, you want
them to confirm NO NEW JUDGES until 2004 when a president is finally chosen
by most of the American people.

-- MarkLevineEsq@aol.com

Link | Leave a comment | | Flag

Comments {39}

speaker of an esoteric language


from: sammystudio
date: Dec. 15th, 2000 08:16 am (UTC)

i dont know which is better...........for me to have read that and been informed.........or to have stayed ignorant of the matter............makes me want to spearhead a revolution.............i will pre qualify this statement first........SOME LAWYERS ARE OK...........BUT THE TWISTING OF LAWS........THE TWISTING OF TRUTHS........THE TWISTING OF EVEN JUST WORDS.........should be a punishable offense...........and a firing squad would be to easy...........im gonna move to canada.........fucking old rich muther fuckers are gonna be dead soon and we will be left with there fucking policies and stupid decisions............

Reply | Thread


Re: shit...............

from: i
date: Dec. 15th, 2000 08:29 am (UTC)

i'd already be in canada if it wasn't so damn cold. maybe everyone will get off their lazy bitch asses and vote next time...

Reply | Parent | Thread | Expand

Pale Orchid


from: starlazdaze
date: Dec. 15th, 2000 08:27 am (UTC)

my head hurts.

Seriously, all the bullshit fall-out of this election makes me head hurt. I stayed glued to CNN for days...until they started with the back and forth court cases. I felt like a cat watching a tennis match, couldn't take it...so I stopped watching. But I can't stop caring about what happens....I almost wish I could.

I know I will never be able to acknowledge G. W. Bush as the president...

This all makes me feel so...pissedoffhelpless, that is the best "word" I can come up with...it almost fits.

Reply | Thread


(no subject)

from: shoo
date: Dec. 15th, 2000 08:29 am (UTC)

to protect our judiciary from overturning the will of the people, you want them to confirm NO NEW JUDGES until 2004 when a president is finally chosen by most of the American people.

now THAT is what I'm talking about!

Reply | Thread


Yeah, this is great

from: serendipity
date: Dec. 15th, 2000 08:40 am (UTC)

I cut and pasted it in its entirety and forwarded it to many in my email list. Thanks for posting it in your LJ.

Reply | Thread



from: whorlpool
date: Dec. 15th, 2000 08:40 am (UTC)

Doesn't the blatant rhetorical bias of this kind of bother you farbel?

Reply | Thread


Re: ..

from: i
date: Dec. 15th, 2000 08:42 am (UTC)


Reply | Parent | Thread | Expand

(Deleted comment)


2 sense

from: low_delta
date: Dec. 15th, 2000 01:02 pm (UTC)

I initially thought the same thing as Whorlpool about the tactics used here (and still do, to a point). There is some good information in there though.
It started out ominously, got interesting in the middle, and then turned bad, near the end.

"A: No. We just don't count the votes that favor Gore.

Q: That's completely bizarre! That sounds like rank political favoritism! Did the justices have any financial interest in the case?

A: Scalia's two sons are both lawyers working for Bush. Thomas's wife is collecting applications for people who want to work in the Bush

Give me a break. And how 'bout:

"Q: What do I do now?

A: E-mail this to everyone you know..."

I agree that we can't stoop to their level. We can only work to expose the rhetoric.

And I find this paper very sonsistent with what you'd expect from a lawyer. He gets to ask the questions that he wants answered. That's rather one sided.

When you do this kind of rhetoric, who are you hoping to sway? All you're going to get are the naiee and ignorant liberals. It won't do anything to get the ignorant conservatives - they've already made up their minds - and it will only anger the intelligent conservatives (and no, that's not an oxymoron). THEY are the ones we need to concentrate on. If they can see their hypocrisy, maybe they will not spew as much rhetoric of their own.

Reply | Thread


Re: 2 sense

from: i
date: Dec. 15th, 2000 01:16 pm (UTC)

so how do you get to them? the intelligent conservatives are conservative because it is in their own best interests, or because there is one issue, usually guns or abortion, that means more to them than anything else. the only people we can hope to sway are those who are voting conservative because they have been misdirected by the rhetoric of the other side.

Reply | Parent | Thread | Expand



from: shoo
date: Dec. 15th, 2000 02:06 pm (UTC)

I admire the passion in you all.....
I wonder how this would have played out if you were all face to face....

great dialog...btw...

I have to say that my husband once was one of *those* people that believed in what he was told....I finally got him to start listening to what the politicians were saying and getting him to follow up on what they said....it didn't take long....16 years...lol...but he now is an informed voter...and that is all one can ask....
be informed and vote your conscious....

Reply | Thread


Re: Wow!

from: whorlpool
date: Dec. 15th, 2000 06:39 pm (UTC)

If we were face to face, do you think we'd be discussing any of this at all?? No way! We'd be hiking the Grand Canyon.

Reply | Parent | Thread | Expand

I think whorlpool is correct here

from: anonymous
date: Dec. 15th, 2000 02:06 pm (UTC)

It's the way the thing is presented that insults ones intellegence.

The underlying facts may be secure, or not, but the format assumes the listener is a complete idiot.
I hope this whole event changes things. But truthfully if you have high expectations, for government to solve all our deepest problems, you will be dissappointed, over and over again.

Reply | Thread


Re: I think whorlpool is correct here

from: i
date: Dec. 15th, 2000 04:20 pm (UTC)

if, as i believe, WE are the government, who better to solve our collective problems?

Reply | Parent | Thread | Expand


I may have missed something, but...

from: serendipity
date: Dec. 15th, 2000 02:45 pm (UTC)

...has anyone mentioned anything about *humor* in the original post? Did any part of it make any of you laugh at all? I thought it was quite funny, and although I don't know if it's mostly accurate, mostly propaganda, or a blend of the two, it doesn't really matter to me. It did bring out quite clearly how ludicrous and Keystone-Cop-like the events of the last two months have been. The questioner could be any of us - it's all been so utterly confusing - the Q & A simply documents the confusion in an amusing way, albeit highly sympathetic to Gore supporters. Anyway, I'm all for anything that can help me laugh through my tears.

Reply | Thread


Re: I may have missed something, but...

from: i
date: Dec. 15th, 2000 04:22 pm (UTC)

:) although our discussion is anything but funny, i agree with you about the original post.

Reply | Parent | Thread