I'm amused at Norm's attempt to draw attention away from the discussion at hand by fighting the war before last all over again.
I'm even more amused by the discomfort that the Democratic Party finds itself in. I really, really hope that Hillary wins the call at the convention.
Having said that, as a conservative, I believe that the parties have the perfect right to choose their candidate in any manner they see fit, be it by popular vote, spitting in the air, or counting sheep.
I only hope that they can't find a way to stop the blood-letting before August.
TJM
· 1 year ago
Amen!
Kevin71
· 1 year ago
Couldn't agree more.
Anthony Ragan
· 1 year ago
It's ironic that the Democratic Party seems to have the bigger problem with democratic results.
I've been struck by this several times in the last few years: whether it's superdelegates, reinstating the Fairness Doctrine (Orwell would be proud of the name), eliminating secret ballots in union elections, or erasing any evidence of that a vote ever occurred on an agriculture bill last August, the Democratic Party has a strong anti-democratic streak.
We shouldn't be surprised, however. Despite the name "Democratic," the Party has had a strong elitist, patronizing, top-down attitude since at least 1932, and maybe as far back as Wilson. Whether it's the old "New Deal" progressives or the now aging "New Left" that took power from them in 1972 thinks it knows better than Joe Voter.
--Anthony (Los Angeles)
ss396
· 1 year ago
This points to why I support the Electoral College, and am dismayed by the calls for its demise.
harleycon5
· 1 year ago
The formation of the Superdelegate system was intended to stop far-Left movements such as the McGovern candidacy. Who would have thought that 2 far Left candidates would be running at the same time? I guess it just shows how far out the Democrats have moved.
If Obama loses, it will surely be noted that even Superdelegates could not stop the party's reprehensible seachange of lunacy.
rbj
· 1 year ago
The difference between Democrats and out and out State Socialists: Democrats will at least pretend that the common people have a voice in who their representatives will be, unless, of course, their choice is so bad that their betters have to step in and make sure that the people vote the "correct" way.
TJM
· 1 year ago
By the way, isn't this column duplicative of Gerry Ferraro's of the other day?
The Ace
· 1 year ago
"and a president appointed by a court"
Uh, we've had no Presidents "appointed" by any courts. Ever.
madmax333
· 1 year ago
So it would have better for the very liberal Fla. supreme court to change state electiion laws so that algore's minions could keep counting until they got the result they wanted, declare victory and deify the Goracle? Nevermind that democrat lower courts even found the ex post facto rules changes abhorrent. You far left bozos will complaint about 2000 forever. Ok for the mutant talking heads on network to declare algore winner early in Fla. even before the polls in panhandle were closed. Don't know why I bother after all these years, liberals believe in making their own ever-changing rules and are strangers to any logical thought. Now give us some ad hominem attacks about the evil Bu$hitler and stealing elections. Oh, tell us voter ID is no good too, but preventing counting of military votes is fine? Personally I am very glad that a number of Jewish voters in Palm Beach were too stupid to figure out the democrat party butterfly ballot and proceeded to vote for Pat Buchanan. Call it divine intervention. Libs are lame for sure.
jerry
· 1 year ago
The problem isn't the superdelgates, it's the proportional allocation of delgates that is the problem because in a close race there is no clear winner.
I repeat myself, but the nomination process is not meant to be democratic process. It is a candidate rehearsal, a testing of ideas or an audition to test a candidate’s electability. The allocation of delegates by caucus is no more democratic then a result by superdelegate. Just look at the rules in caucus states.
The candidate selection process is a political party process not a general election. If you wanted to design a nominating process by plebiscite then it would be a closed primary process restricted to registered members of the party.
Don’t be surprised if these superdelgates read the tea leaves and vote for Obama. Hillary has shown herself to be a terrible candidate the elected officials will take note of this.
TJM
· 1 year ago
Bottom line: Hillary is a terrible candidate with a tin ear. She hasn't the political talents of her "husband." I too find it ironic that the Democratic Party is actually run by its elites and the mainstream media. The Dems were for the "popular vote" in 2000 when that would elect Al Gore and they were for the electoral college in 2004 when they thought it would elect Monsieur Kerry. Consistency thou art a jewel.
Bishop
· 1 year ago
The mindset of the DFL party elite shouldn't surprise anyone, their entire platform is built on being a nanny for the downtrodden masses.
If you are too stupid to make healthcare decisions, figure out how to get a job or generally function as anything other than a victim then you certainly can't be trusted to vote the "proper" way. Better that you just relax, collect your weekly government check and let Dear Leader decide what is best.
Scott
· 1 year ago
Captain, I know you are being sarcastic, but really, the title is more accurate than you want to present. The super delegates are there to prevent another McGovern-like meltdown. If they can do that this time, then obviously they are smarter than the average Democrat.
IMHO, the Dems are looking at exactly that possibility. Obama is not weak on defense, he is anti-defense. He is also socialist in a way that few other Dems are socialist. If elected, he could do as much damage to the party as Carter, and I think we could say that the Dems have not fully recovered from Carter. Clinton was their hope of losing the Carter legacy, but recent statements by both Clintons on Iraq have raised the issue of weak on defense. Not only have the Clintons adopted the anti-Iraq meme, but Hillary has been pushed further to the left because of Obama's success.
Yes, the Dems are afraid of the democratic process, but that should be expected. After all, if they don't think the masses are capable of managing their own lives with regard to health, education, employment, et al., why would they trust the proles to select the leadership? Benign control is a part of liberal thought. Kinda goes without saying, don't you think?
Dave
· 1 year ago
Bob Beckel was on Hannity a few weeks ago stating that the super delegate structure was also a firewall ot halt Jesse Jackson.
Strange thing, Obama may be to one caught in the trap.
Tom_Shipley
· 1 year ago
Hunt tries to explain it in small words, so that Democratic primary voters can understand it.
Warming up for Hot Air, eh?
Kevin K.
· 1 year ago
Of course, had he been warming up for Daily Kos, he would have dropped the "F" bomb.
sharinlite
· 1 year ago
Huh??
Bishop
· 1 year ago
You didn't understand the Captain's take on the article, did you? That the Party understands things better than the average dem voter, which in essence says, "We are smarter than you".
Tom_Shipley
· 1 year ago
I didn't see that the guy who wrote this was part of the "establishment..." I see now what he was doing with this line.
NoDonkey
· 1 year ago
"Because The Establishment Is Smarter Than The Voters"
Pretty low bar to clear hear. I mean, when the bar is sitting on the floor.
Uno the beagle would give most Democrats a run for their euros, if it came to an IQ test.
chsw
· 1 year ago
What is unsaid in Gov. Hunt's column was that the superdelegate and proportional representation system is a direct result of the disastrous Carter presidency. JC Himself beat Rep. Mo Udall narrowly in large states and lost in many small ones. As a result, Udall had almost as many primary votes as Carter, but only half the delegates. Therefore, the Democratic party elders came up with this new construct. Perhaps if the superdelegate system had been in place in 1976, the country might have been spared the worst presidency of the 20th century.
chsw (I confess, I volunteered for Carter in 1976)
Mike M.
· 1 year ago
Given the number of times in the last several years I've heard calls from the left wing for abolishing the electoral college and making the presidential election a pure national popular vote, it's pretty damn funny to see them having their own "selected, not elected" dilemma.
It helps expose them nationally for the dirty hypocrits that they are. But some of us knew that already.
quickjustice
· 1 year ago
The primary process of the Democrat Party is an undemocratic farce? Has anyone reported this to those Democrats naive enough to have voted in a caucus or primary election? Maybe Democrats should have asked Jimmy Carter to monitor their primary elections!
As Ted Olson has pointed out, the electoral college is more democratic than the "Democratic" Party.
NoDonkey
· 1 year ago
They are every bit as Democratic as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
Or the old East Germany, AKA the German Democratic Republic.
NoDonkey
· 1 year ago
A good marketing trick is to name or market a product by what it most severely lacks.
For example, I used to buy a cheap beer in steel 16oz. cans by the case for $5. It was basically bottom of the barrel Iron City and it was called "Old German".
The beer's slogan was, "The World Knows No Finer".
So if the Democrat Party were a beer, it would be Olde Democrat - "America Knows No Finer".
TomB
· 1 year ago
Did anybody notice the difference between extremely elaborate process to elect party officials, or candidates, usually with many rounds of voting a lot of "invisible" dealing and the general elections for the public, usually run along "winner-takes-all-see-you-in-four-years" line? It looks like two different Democracies to me.
sharinlite
· 1 year ago
Democratic Party?? Why don't we just call 'em what they are: Tinfoil Hatted Leftist Loonies, or, THLL's. That solves that problem!
Bookworm
· 1 year ago
This whole thing reminds me of the elections in Europe over the EU Constitution. The EU had been functioning with the elite managing the whole thing. They then placed their Constitution before the voters, confident that the voters would rubber stamp the elites' decisions. To their surprise, the voters did not do so -- and the elites responded by discounting the voters and announcing that they would go forward regardless with their plans. The further left one moves, the less faith the party hierarchy has in the people it purports to represent.
Laz
· 1 year ago
Yes, you are right, just take a look what's in going on in Cuba.
Steve Z
· 1 year ago
To be honest, the nominating processes of both parties have lots of unfairness in them, but there's more in the Democrat party than in the Republican party.
In the Republican party, there are some "winner-take-all" primaries in big states like NY, FL, NJ, and MO, which give a disproportionate number of delegates, and a competitor needs to win "proportional" states by a lopsided margin to make up for a narrow loss in "winner take all" states. Rudy Giuliani tried to "game the system" by having "winner-take-all" primaries in states where he was strong, only his candidacy faded out too fast, and McCain ended up sweeping them to the nomination.
Both parties have unfairness in the allocation of delegates between caucus states and primary states. In caucus states, a comparatively small number of dedicated zealots can win more delegates than a large number of voters in primary states, and Barack Obama won lopsided margins of delegates in small, "red" caucus states like ND, KS, ID, and Alaska, where only about 400 votes were cast in the entire Democrat caucus! But could Obama ever win in the general election in such overwhelmingly Republican states?
The Democrats have more unfairness with their "super-delegates", some of whom were elected by states or Congressional districts, but some were "selected" as leaders of special-interest groups favorable to Democrats. We hear Obama denouncing special-interest groups, but he might need their leaders to get the nomination--that should be interesting! Another wild card: who will get Edwards' delegates? Will they be needed at the convention to decide the winner?
Then come those famous "punished primaries" in FL and MI. Clinton probably shouldn't get the Michigan delegates, since she ran essentially unopposed, but what about the 1.7 million Democrats who voted in a competitive primary in Florida--should they be disenfranchised by the party of "count every vote (for Gore) in Florida"? Why is running an early primary a sin in Florida but not in South Carolina or New Hampshire? Florida and Michigan represent 44 electoral votes, or about 8.2% of the national total. That can easily swing an election, but will the Democrat Party ignore them when selecting their nominee? Will the Florida Supreme Court nominate Hillary for the Democrat party?
There is unfairness all over the Democratic nomination system, in many different directions, and it's not democratic. Leave it to the designers of such Rube Goldberg rules to figure it out!
N. O'Brain
· 1 year ago
So, if Hillary can bribe enough of the super delegates, she wins anyway?
Boy, is that gonna tick off your average black voter.
norm
· 1 year ago
in a country that has the electoral college, and a president appointed by a court, i'm not sure i see an unique issue here. you seem to be implying that the s.delegates may go with clinton even if obama wins the popular vote. i don't see that happening because of the schism it would cause within the party. i suppose it's possible. i don't think dodd's endorsment has gotten the notice it deserves. it may be an indication of the democratic leadership falling in line, and now that he has "broken the seal" watch for others to follow.
MarkTheGreat
· 1 year ago
You're going to have to get used to this, but out here in the real world we can recognize that the voters elected Bush. The courts by a vote of 7 to 2, stopped Gore from trying to steal it.
krome
· 1 year ago
Gore attempted a coup through the FL state courts - which the federal courts stopped. And of course, those GOP mouthpiece newspapers like the NYT did eventually figure out that Bush did indeed win in FL.
But some people are happier with delusions.
NoDonkey
· 1 year ago
I forgot just how much I despised Al Gore for contesting his obvious loss.
It's good America was saved from a Gore Presidency. Thinks aren't rosy now, but I'm positive things would be much worse now if that mentally ill jackass had managed to steal the Presidency.
always_right
· 1 year ago
However, the precedence had been set. Gore will go down history for this infamy. Not for his Nobel piece price, his oscar, or his quasi-religion.
Steve Z
· 1 year ago
Does anybody really care about Dodd's endoresement? He also endorsed Ned Lamont in the 2006 Senate race in CT, but Lieberman won as an Independent. Dodd's endorsements don't even carry weight in his own state!
TomB
· 1 year ago
which president was appointed by a court?
Mike
· 1 year ago
Do you mean "Which President won the Electoral Vote after it was determined by the highest court of law in the United States that he had fairly won the popular vote in the state in question?"
I'm sure I can remember if I think about it long enough.
you retard.
norm
· 1 year ago
the worst one.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
Hey Nawm, did it ever occur to you that if Gore had succeeded in his attempt to steal the 2000 election, he would have been "appointed" by TWO courts?
In reality, SCOTUS did NOT appoint Shrub in 2000. They simply sided with his legal argument, 7-2.
Please enlighten yourself and read the best objective look at that election, written by a couple of poli-sci professors. It's called "The Perfect Tie".
norm
· 1 year ago
you tell me to read an "objective" book written by a contributer to the weekly standard? why didn't you recomend something by sean hannity?
Bishop
· 1 year ago
Don't bother recommending anything that is to the right of Chomsky, norm will just lambaste the idea.
norm
· 1 year ago
again with the distortions. del called the book objective. i compared the standard to fox news as a way of saying i doubt it. i did not lambaste the idea of reading anything that leans right. given your inability to understand the most basic concepts you political stands are not suprising.
TomB
· 1 year ago
norm, as far as i remember the court decided on stopping recounting the votes. they were already recounted many times and the worst president was winning each time. are you suggesting that the votes should be recounted forever??
Note to all: I know capitals, but didn't want to additionally confuse norm.
norm
· 1 year ago
actually by a vote of 7-2, the court held that floridas method for recounting ballots was unconstitutional, and by a vote of 5-4 the court held that no alternative method could be established within the time limits established by the florida legislature. 7 years later i could care less but i knew i could get you guys going. and in case you wondered...i know capitols.
MarkTheGreat
· 1 year ago
In other words, you prefer lying to accurate dialog.
No wonder you are a liberal.
norm
· 1 year ago
actually what happened amounted to appointment because there was no time issue. but if it makes you happier to make personal attacks have at it.
Math_Mage
· 1 year ago
"I could care less but I knew I could get you guys going."
Folks, this is the heart and soul of a troll. Unwilling to have productive discussion, but perfectly happy to screw with a blog by rehashing the same unproductive arguments again and again and again. Moreover, he is doing it FOR THE SAKE OF SCREWING WITH THE BLOG. As someone who is seeking merely to p*** people off rather than actually have a discussion, norm does not deserve to be replied to. I submit that CQ commenters should simply ignore norm until he has established a record of non-troll posting, or alternatively that all replies to norm's trolling be sarcastic one-liners along the lines of MarktheGreat's "Clinton or Carter?" below.
TomB
· 1 year ago
you mean there was no elections (twice)??
norm
· 1 year ago
of course there were...you must have been out of town...but 5 justices decided because of personal and political affiliations that their opinion was more important than the voters. as logic would expect...the worst supreme court decision in history led to the worst presidency and biggest foreign policy blunder in history. but this is off topic...so enough of this ancient history.
WildPointer
· 1 year ago
Norm: Gore tried to have the laws on vote counting changed after the election had been held. I am sure yuo know this but you like to get your dumber comrades excited and that is why you lie about the election. There were numerous recounts and Bush won every one. SCOTUS only pointed out that you cannot change the laws after the election has been held but before the votes are counted. Like a typical socialist you choose to lie about recent history if it displeases you.
Bishop
· 1 year ago
Get that guys? If Gore had been "appointed" by the court, everything would be fine.
Always remember the democrat mantra: If dems win the people have spoken, if Repubs win then someone must have cheated.
Steve Z
· 1 year ago
It's a good thing that SCOTUS ended the charade of endless recounts in Florida in 2000, and they could intervene, because the Presidency is a Federal election. We saw what happens when SCOTUS doesn't intervene, in Washington State, where Dino Rossi was slightly ahead, and they kept doing recounts and "finding" new votes until Democrat Christine Gregoire was slightly ahead, then everybody stops counting. Some people (Dino Rossi and his supporters) might be wondering who cast the newly "found" votes and when (on or after Election Day), and did these people vote more than once?
Since Democrats run Washington State, and SCOTUS couldn't intervene in a state election, we'll never know.
norm
· 1 year ago
again...show me where i said that. if your point depends on distorting what is said it is not much of a point.
Bishop
· 1 year ago
I know I know, your favorite cut/paste to deflect from your inability to elucidate in any manner other than simple whining.
E1701
· 1 year ago
It's also patently untrue. The Presidency has *never* been determined by the popular vote, whatever delusions some people have been laboring under.
The Supreme Court did not choose Bush - they ended a ludicrous neverending recount effort conducted on some fairly absurd grounds. End of story. Gore simply lost that recount repeatedly and wouldn't accept the result. Nixon showed a helluva lot more class than that in an even closer election against JFK, even though it was an open secret that the vote was signed, bought, and paid for by Joe Kennedy and the Chicago Democratic Machine.
MarkTheGreat
· 1 year ago
In reality, it was 7 justices that stopped Gore. 5 felt that there was not enough time left to order a 16th recount.
The justices followed the clear dictates of the constitution. I realize that as a liberal, this comes as a shock to you, but the court is supposed to follow the Constitution, not the NYT.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
Sorry, Nawm, but your law professors at Moe Howard U. obviously forgot to tell you that it wasn't the 5-4 SCOTUS ruling that ended Gore's challenge. It was the 7-2 ruling just before it on the same day
The 5-4 ruling had to do with the remedy. Nothing more.
Lurking Observer
· 1 year ago
You mean James Buchanan was appointed by a court?
sharinlite
· 1 year ago
Jimmy Carter! Right?
NoDonkey
· 1 year ago
FDR?
Kevin71
· 1 year ago
Carter?
MarkTheGreat
· 1 year ago
Clinton or Carter?
quickjustice
· 1 year ago
Let me educate you, Norm. The Clinton Dynasty is threatening the Kennedy Dynasty in this election cycle. If Hillary succeeds, it means the Clintons have deposed the Kennedys as the family that controls the Democrat Party. Obama is a proxy for the Kennedys in this election cycle.
Dodd is a long-time Kennedy supporter. Of course he'll support Obama when his own candidacy fails. You'll see an identical result from the superdelegates. Those who support the Clintons will vote for Hillary. Those who support the Kennedys will vote Obama.
norm
· 1 year ago
thanks for that education. you understanding and insight is amazing to say the least.
All Comments
I'm even more amused by the discomfort that the Democratic Party finds itself in. I really, really hope that Hillary wins the call at the convention.
Having said that, as a conservative, I believe that the parties have the perfect right to choose their candidate in any manner they see fit, be it by popular vote, spitting in the air, or counting sheep.
I only hope that they can't find a way to stop the blood-letting before August.
I've been struck by this several times in the last few years: whether it's superdelegates, reinstating the Fairness Doctrine (Orwell would be proud of the name), eliminating secret ballots in union elections, or erasing any evidence of that a vote ever occurred on an agriculture bill last August, the Democratic Party has a strong anti-democratic streak.
We shouldn't be surprised, however. Despite the name "Democratic," the Party has had a strong elitist, patronizing, top-down attitude since at least 1932, and maybe as far back as Wilson. Whether it's the old "New Deal" progressives or the now aging "New Left" that took power from them in 1972 thinks it knows better than Joe Voter.
--Anthony (Los Angeles)
If Obama loses, it will surely be noted that even Superdelegates could not stop the party's reprehensible seachange of lunacy.
Uh, we've had no Presidents "appointed" by any courts. Ever.
I repeat myself, but the nomination process is not meant to be democratic process. It is a candidate rehearsal, a testing of ideas or an audition to test a candidate’s electability. The allocation of delegates by caucus is no more democratic then a result by superdelegate. Just look at the rules in caucus states.
The candidate selection process is a political party process not a general election. If you wanted to design a nominating process by plebiscite then it would be a closed primary process restricted to registered members of the party.
Don’t be surprised if these superdelgates read the tea leaves and vote for Obama. Hillary has shown herself to be a terrible candidate the elected officials will take note of this.
"husband." I too find it ironic that the Democratic Party is actually run by its elites and the mainstream media. The Dems were for the "popular vote" in 2000 when that would elect Al Gore and they were for the electoral college in 2004 when they thought it would
elect Monsieur Kerry. Consistency thou art a jewel.
If you are too stupid to make healthcare decisions, figure out how to get a job or generally function as anything other than a victim then you certainly can't be trusted to vote the "proper" way. Better that you just relax, collect your weekly government check and let Dear Leader decide what is best.
IMHO, the Dems are looking at exactly that possibility. Obama is not weak on defense, he is anti-defense. He is also socialist in a way that few other Dems are socialist. If elected, he could do as much damage to the party as Carter, and I think we could say that the Dems have not fully recovered from Carter. Clinton was their hope of losing the Carter legacy, but recent statements by both Clintons on Iraq have raised the issue of weak on defense. Not only have the Clintons adopted the anti-Iraq meme, but Hillary has been pushed further to the left because of Obama's success.
Yes, the Dems are afraid of the democratic process, but that should be expected. After all, if they don't think the masses are capable of managing their own lives with regard to health, education, employment, et al., why would they trust the proles to select the leadership? Benign control is a part of liberal thought. Kinda goes without saying, don't you think?
Strange thing, Obama may be to one caught in the trap.
Warming up for Hot Air, eh?
Pretty low bar to clear hear. I mean, when the bar is sitting on the floor.
Uno the beagle would give most Democrats a run for their euros, if it came to an IQ test.
chsw (I confess, I volunteered for Carter in 1976)
It helps expose them nationally for the dirty hypocrits that they are. But some of us knew that already.
As Ted Olson has pointed out, the electoral college is more democratic than the "Democratic" Party.
For example, I used to buy a cheap beer in steel 16oz. cans by the case for $5. It was basically bottom of the barrel Iron City and it was called "Old German".
The beer's slogan was, "The World Knows No Finer".
So if the Democrat Party were a beer, it would be Olde Democrat - "America Knows No Finer".
In the Republican party, there are some "winner-take-all" primaries in big states like NY, FL, NJ, and MO, which give a disproportionate number of delegates, and a competitor needs to win "proportional" states by a lopsided margin to make up for a narrow loss in "winner take all" states. Rudy Giuliani tried to "game the system" by having "winner-take-all" primaries in states where he was strong, only his candidacy faded out too fast, and McCain ended up sweeping them to the nomination.
Both parties have unfairness in the allocation of delegates between caucus states and primary states. In caucus states, a comparatively small number of dedicated zealots can win more delegates than a large number of voters in primary states, and Barack Obama won lopsided margins of delegates in small, "red" caucus states like ND, KS, ID, and Alaska, where only about 400 votes were cast in the entire Democrat caucus! But could Obama ever win in the general election in such overwhelmingly Republican states?
The Democrats have more unfairness with their "super-delegates", some of whom were elected by states or Congressional districts, but some were "selected" as leaders of special-interest groups favorable to Democrats. We hear Obama denouncing special-interest groups, but he might need their leaders to get the nomination--that should be interesting! Another wild card: who will get Edwards' delegates? Will they be needed at the convention to decide the winner?
Then come those famous "punished primaries" in FL and MI. Clinton probably shouldn't get the Michigan delegates, since she ran essentially unopposed, but what about the 1.7 million Democrats who voted in a competitive primary in Florida--should they be disenfranchised by the party of "count every vote (for Gore) in Florida"? Why is running an early primary a sin in Florida but not in South Carolina or New Hampshire? Florida and Michigan represent 44 electoral votes, or about 8.2% of the national total. That can easily swing an election, but will the Democrat Party ignore them when selecting their nominee? Will the Florida Supreme Court nominate Hillary for the Democrat party?
There is unfairness all over the Democratic nomination system, in many different directions, and it's not democratic. Leave it to the designers of such Rube Goldberg rules to figure it out!
Boy, is that gonna tick off your average black voter.
But some people are happier with delusions.
It's good America was saved from a Gore Presidency. Thinks aren't rosy now, but I'm positive things would be much worse now if that mentally ill jackass had managed to steal the Presidency.
Not for his Nobel piece price, his oscar, or his quasi-religion.
I'm sure I can remember if I think about it long enough.
you retard.
In reality, SCOTUS did NOT appoint Shrub in 2000. They simply sided with his legal argument, 7-2.
Please enlighten yourself and read the best objective look at that election, written by a couple of poli-sci professors. It's called "The Perfect Tie".
as far as i remember the court decided on stopping recounting the votes. they were already recounted many times and the worst president was winning each time. are you suggesting that the votes should be recounted forever??
Note to all: I know capitals, but didn't want to additionally confuse norm.
7 years later i could care less but i knew i could get you guys going.
and in case you wondered...i know capitols.
No wonder you are a liberal.
Folks, this is the heart and soul of a troll. Unwilling to have productive discussion, but perfectly happy to screw with a blog by rehashing the same unproductive arguments again and again and again. Moreover, he is doing it FOR THE SAKE OF SCREWING WITH THE BLOG. As someone who is seeking merely to p*** people off rather than actually have a discussion, norm does not deserve to be replied to. I submit that CQ commenters should simply ignore norm until he has established a record of non-troll posting, or alternatively that all replies to norm's trolling be sarcastic one-liners along the lines of MarktheGreat's "Clinton or Carter?" below.
Like a typical socialist you choose to lie about recent history if it displeases you.
Always remember the democrat mantra: If dems win the people have spoken, if Repubs win then someone must have cheated.
recounts in Florida in 2000, and they could intervene, because
the Presidency is a Federal election. We saw what happens when
SCOTUS doesn't intervene, in Washington State, where Dino Rossi
was slightly ahead, and they kept doing recounts and "finding"
new votes until Democrat Christine Gregoire was slightly ahead,
then everybody stops counting. Some people (Dino Rossi and his
supporters) might be wondering who cast the newly "found" votes and
when (on or after Election Day), and did these people vote more than once?
Since Democrats run Washington State, and SCOTUS couldn't
intervene in a state election, we'll never know.
The Supreme Court did not choose Bush - they ended a ludicrous neverending recount effort conducted on some fairly absurd grounds. End of story. Gore simply lost that recount repeatedly and wouldn't accept the result. Nixon showed a helluva lot more class than that in an even closer election against JFK, even though it was an open secret that the vote was signed, bought, and paid for by Joe Kennedy and the Chicago Democratic Machine.
The justices followed the clear dictates of the constitution. I realize that as a liberal, this comes as a shock to you, but the court is supposed to follow the Constitution, not the NYT.
The 5-4 ruling had to do with the remedy. Nothing more.
Dodd is a long-time Kennedy supporter. Of course he'll support Obama when his own candidacy fails. You'll see an identical result from the superdelegates. Those who support the Clintons will vote for Hillary. Those who support the Kennedys will vote Obama.