On Mar 29, 11:14 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , Bud Frawley wrote:

gore act's for the good of his country! even when he conceited the
election to the supreme court's choice oil boy the voter's said keep
going! and he said no it's for the good of the country!

Gore did no such thing. He never conceded anything; quite the opposite, in
fact: he kept on pushing the issue until the Supreme Court finally told him,
in effect, to sit down and shut up. Gore never claimed he was acting for the
good of the country, either.

The Supreme Court didn't "pick" Bush, either. The voters of the United States
did, in accordance with the Constitution. (2000 wasn't the first time someone
was elected President with a minority of the popular vote but a majority of
the electoral vote. It happened in 1992, also, for example.)

What the Supreme Court *did* do is direct the Florida Supreme Court to follow
the law, when the Florida court was attempting to rewrite Florida election law
to suit itself.

The FLSC was trying to rewrite Florida law to conform
to the 14th amendment. The USSC concurred 7 - 2
that the Florida election as it then stood did not meet
the equal protection requirements of the Constitution.

The difference wa that the USSC also issued an injunction
5 - 4, prohibiting remedy.


You are aware, aren't you, that *every* recount taken post-election showed
Gore lost?


You are aware, aren't you, that the circumstances
met the requirements in Florida law that permitted
recounts under both the contest and the protest
yet Bush successfully sued to stop them so that
the only recounts that were conpleted were completed
after the inauguration?

And you are correct, those showed that Gore lost
the popular vote in Florida.

The biggest eye-opener for me was that some
of the counties that reported recounts, did not,
in fact, conduct recounts at all. They simply
retallied and rereported the totals from the
individual machines.

--

FF