Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, July 01, 2022

Nitish Pahwa: The Supreme Court intervention in the 2000 election changed the course of history.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Realistically speaking it's kind of an out-of-context and hollow victory that will be reversed because life demands it.

There are 8 billion people on the planet and we're frying ourselves.

The old farts need to take their noses out of this discussion.

#1 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2022-07-01 02:44 PM | Reply

Did the record snow fall in texas get everyone's attention?

#2 | Posted by Tor at 2022-07-01 02:50 PM | Reply

Bush v. Gore AND Citizens United. The latter, IMO, had far greater ramifications, as it opened the door for Russian dark money to take over the GOP.

#3 | Posted by chuffy at 2022-07-01 03:33 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

The Constitution is the ultimate culprit.

#4 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-07-01 03:36 PM | Reply

The Constitution is the ultimate culprit.
#4 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Signed,
Dred Scott

#5 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-07-01 05:16 PM | Reply

Bush v Gore paved the way for the end of america.

#6 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-07-01 05:41 PM | Reply

Ralph Nader/Jill Stein 2024!

#7 | Posted by censored at 2022-07-01 06:15 PM | Reply

I believe Ted Kennedy sitting on the bank of the Chappaquiddick had more to do with it.

#8 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2022-07-01 08:30 PM | Reply

Bush v. Gore AND Citizens United. The latter, IMO, had far greater ramifications ...

Then you don't know much about either case or dark money.

Bush v. Gore dealt with unequal counting. www.oyez.org

Citizens United v. FEC dealt with who could say what when. www.oyez.org

If you want to------- about transparency of who said what when then see the the Tax Code. After that ask why the f**k Congress hasn't done a d**n thing about it in 12 years.

#9 | Posted by et_al at 2022-07-02 03:31 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Then you don't know much about either case or dark money.

I don't really know what you're arguing here. The common denominator in the two cases were that an activist court decided on both cases. I wasn't making any connection to the two, except that both had a significant impact on today's political climate.

Bush lost in 2000, but the SCOTUS extra-Constitutionally stopped the vote count and essentially appointed him as president. We are still paying for that disaster.

Citizens United reversed a hundred years of campaign finance laws, and enabling corporations and special interest groups to spend unlimited money on campaigns with little or no oversight. Leading up to Citizens United, SCOTUS eroded transparency laws, so now "Individual donors" can be from anywhere, and loopholes in the various laws have basically allowed anyone, including foreign actors like Russia, to influence our elections.

I'd be happy to hear you expand upon whatever point you're making about the Tax Code. I'm not sure what connection you're making here, although it's clear to me that you didn't really get the point of my comment. But I'm glad you understand how little I know about either case, LOL.

#10 | Posted by chuffy at 2022-07-02 05:08 PM | Reply

"Bush lost in 2000, but the SCOTUS extra-Constitutionally stopped the vote count and essentially appointed him as president. "

False. This was studied at great length, and it was concluded "If the statewide recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court had not been interrupted by the U.S. Supreme Court, Bush would have won by 493 votes."

www.chicagotribune.com

#11 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-07-02 06:58 PM | Reply

#11

Did you even READ the article you linked to?:

Bush wins, Gore wins -- depending on how ballots are added up

If Florida's ballots had been recounted using a restrictive standard that some Bush lawyers said they could accept, the study found that Gore would have won the state by 105 votes -- as long as optical scanner overvotes showing clear intent were included.

If a recount had been performed under the standards of a 1996 Texas election law signed by then-Gov. George W. Bush, Gore might have won by 42 votes. The Texas law provides that a vote should be counted if it reflects "a clearly ascertainable intent of the voter," including dimpled chads and overvotes on optically scanned ballots.

So no, quite frankly either Bush or Gore could have rightly been determined the winner of Florida depending upon the ballot standards adopted for counting the votes. But there is one unmistakable fact that too often gets overlooked:
The study provides evidence that more Florida voters attempted to vote for Gore than for George W. Bush -- but so many Gore voters marked their ballots improperly that Bush received more valid votes.
Florida voters were disenfranchised due to the incompetence of county voting officials who either designed confusing ballots and failed to properly maintain the punchcard holders that led to thousands of overvotes and undervotes.

#12 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-07-02 07:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Did you even READ the article you linked

From a logical point of view.

The situations you and the article bring up are irrelevant.

One is Texas, and the other is a hypothetical.

Sentinel's post is dealing with reality.

Argue reality, not fantasy.

#13 | Posted by oneironaut at 2022-07-02 08:11 PM | Reply

"Did you even READ the article you linked to?"

I did, and I my reading comprehension is obviously superior to yours. If the Supreme Court had not taken up the case and the votes had continued to be re-re-recounted the way the Florida Supreme Court had approved, Bush still won. It's only by speculating with state-wide counting methods that never had any legal basis or recognition that would have given Gore a victory. He lost. Get over it. It makes you as sad as the Trumpers who were too lazy to be insurrections and sit on the internet all day complaining that Trump actually won in 2020 if the votes had been counted the "correct" way.

#14 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-07-02 08:34 PM | Reply

I did, and I my reading comprehension is obviously superior to yours.

Hilarious. I guess that's why the article's TITLE says completely the opposite of what you say and exactly what I noted with direct quotations from the article.

What a maroon.

#15 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-07-02 09:12 PM | Reply

In 2001, the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago, sponsored by a consortium of major United States news organizations, conducted the Florida Ballot Project, a comprehensive review of 175,010 ballots that vote-counting machines had rejected from the entire state, not just the disputed counties that were recounted.[3] The project's goal was to determine the reliability and accuracy of the systems used in the voting process, including how different systems correlated with voter mistakes. The study was conducted over a period of 10 months.

Based on the review, the media group concluded that if the disputes over the validity of all the ballots in question had been consistently resolved and any uniform standard applied, the electoral result would have been reversed and Gore would have won by 60 to 171 votes.[4] On the other hand, under scenarios involving review of limited sets of ballots uncounted by machines, Bush would have kept his lead.

en.wikipedia.org

IOW, "Bush wins, Gore wins -- depending on how ballots are added up." Wow. It's almost like the article's authors were trying to make a statement or something based on later research and analysis of actual votes that the SCOTUS shut down with their ruling.

#16 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-07-02 09:35 PM | Reply

"Based on the review, the media group concluded that if the disputes over the validity of all the ballots in question had been consistently resolved and any uniform standard applied,"

IOW, if a new method had been retroactively applied statewide to determine and count the "actual" votes, as you call them. Gee, where does that sounds familiar?

" Wow. It's almost like the article's authors were trying to make a statement or something based on later research and analysis of actual votes that the SCOTUS shut down with their ruling."

Wow, it's like you've never heard of misleading headlines before to try to draw as many people in as possible to look at an article, even though many people like yourself are too lazy to read beyond the headline and first few lines. Again, since you have poor reading comprehension, if the SCOTUS had not "shut down" what the FLSC was doing, Bush still would have won by the method that they had ordered. So, what recourse would Gore have had then? Going back to the same court and demanding another method be applied after losing the third recount? He lost. Get over it. Stop being a proto-Trumper.

#17 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-07-03 03:32 AM | Reply

Bush still would have won by the method that they had ordered.

You miss the fact that different methods were being used in different counties. There was not ONE method being used throughout the entire state which was part of the basis for the SCOTUS finding in the first place.

Everyone KNOWS what actually happened, the point of contention is what would have been the result if different methods of ascertaining what was a valid vote was established across the entire population of Florida votes, ie. both Gore and Bush may have won based on a SINGLE standard, not the mishmash that was used.

Are you really this fricking stupid that you cannot understand this?

This has never been about going back and requesting anything. For one, if the STRICTEST standard had been used - one which the Bush team pushed in court - Gore would have won. In almost every case, the selective location recounts Gore pushed for would have left Bush ahead. Whole state recounts could have named EITHER winners based upon the validity standard the votes would have been counted under - all of which were valid standards for tallying votes.

It's called a thought experiment, something obviously foreign to your lack of intellect and simple understanding. It has little to do with drawing eyes when the information is indeed factual and based on extensive research - unlike your insipid juvenile drivel.

#18 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-07-03 08:52 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

#18 - you do you. You're talking about "what if" thought experiments. I'm talking about what actually happened. You're trying to have it both ways, whinging about how the "activist" SCOTUS stepped in and stopped the re-re-recount. The article clearly states that if SCOTUS had not been "activist" and left things alone, Bush still would have won under the method that was already under way. They would have had to stop the existing recount either way. So your complaint is that the "activist" Supreme Court was not activist enough in the way you wanted them to be.

Good grief. You know I've said that Trump is a bigger sore loser than Gore was, but you're showing me that Gore supporters are no less sore losers than Trump supporters.

#19 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-07-03 02:54 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2022 World Readable

Drudge Retort