# 1969, 14 have come from Republican presidents, and only four from Democrats.



## Penelope (Jul 24, 2021)

Of the 18 justices confirmed since 1969, 14 have come from Republican presidents, and only four from Democrats. A few GOP appointees, notably Harry Blackmun and David Souter, in time voted consistently with the liberal wing. But conservatives have dominated. (Senate Republicans in 2016 prevented a vote on Democrat Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland.)








						Analysis: The Supreme Court hasn't been this conservative since the 1930s
					

The US Supreme Court is on the verge of a historic transformation that could wind back the law in America for decades, in some cases to the 1930s, pre-New Deal approach.




					www.cnn.com
				




If they repeal Roe verses Wade, that would make the judges in error when they ok'd it, or would deny it. They were right the first time.
-------------------------------------------------

The reality is that in 1973, *Roe vs.* *Wade* was decided by a Court that was comprised of a majority of justices who were nominated by Republican presidents. The vote on Roe vs. Wade was 7-2.Nov 6, 2016
Roe v. Wade Was Decided By A Republican-Nominated Supreme Court
Roe v. Wade Was Decided By A Republican-Nominated ...​--------------------------------------------

and its been republican nominated ever since.


----------



## Anathema (Jul 24, 2021)

Penelope said:


> Of the 18 justices confirmed since 1969, 14 have come from Republican presidents, and only four from Democrats. *A few GOP appointees, notably Harry Blackmun and David Souter, in time voted consistently with the liberal wing*. But conservatives have dominated


That is why ALL future Republican nominees need to give up a minimum of three family members to be held hostage against the Justice’s inability to vote properly on the court.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Jul 24, 2021)

If Roe V. Wade was going to be overturned, it would've happened by now...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 24, 2021)

Penelope said:


> If they repeal Roe verses Wade, that would make the judges in error when they ok'd it,



Exactly!
Just like the Justices were in error in the Dred Scott case and in Plessy v. Ferguson


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 24, 2021)

Penelope said:


> Of the 18 justices confirmed since 1969, 14 have come from Republican presidents, and only four from Democrats. A few GOP appointees, notably Harry Blackmun and David Souter, in time voted consistently with the liberal wing. But conservatives have dominated. (Senate Republicans in 2016 prevented a vote on Democrat Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland.)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That’s one reason 2000 was so important they stole the election. Who decided Florida? That’s right. The Supreme Court and Jeb bush cronies.


----------



## deannalw (Jul 24, 2021)

If the court has been dominated by Republicans, why have they not abolished roe vs wade like you freaky little lemmings have been screeching about for decades and are still screeching about to this day?


----------



## Penelope (Jul 24, 2021)

Anathema said:


> That is why ALL future Republican nominees need to give up a minimum of three family members to be held hostage against the Justice’s inability to vote properly on the court.





sealybobo said:


> That’s one reason 2000 was so important they stole the election. Who decided Florida? That’s right. The Supreme Court and Jeb bush cronies.


Jeb Bush was never Potus.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 24, 2021)

deannalw said:


> If the court has been dominated by Republicans, why have they not abolished roe vs wade like you freaky little lemmings have been screeching about for decades and are still screeching about to this day?


Because they understand it’s a necessary evil. But each of the judges appointed have been heritage foundation members. They pledge to overturn roe one day if they can. They just know better.

Republicans have made it harder to abort on a state level. Probably the smartest way to lower the number of abortions since they know they can never ban the practice. Suddenly women would be voting democratic.

But i too ask this question. If abortion is murder why do all the conservative judges allow it to continue? And why didn’t trump make this his first priority when he had majorities in both house and senate. It would have been the perfect time. But nope


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 24, 2021)

Penelope said:


> Jeb Bush was never Potus.


No just the governor of Florida. Interesting fact. The woman in charge, not Catherine Harris, the other one. She was a Republican. But before 2000 she changed to democrat and jeb put her in charge of the election. Shady af


----------



## Penelope (Jul 24, 2021)

sealybobo said:


> Because they understand it’s a necessary evil. But each of the judges appointed have been heritage foundation members. They pledge to overturn roe one day if they can. They just know better.
> 
> Republicans have made it harder to abort on a state level. Probably the smartest way to lower the number of abortions since they know they can never ban the practice. Suddenly women would be voting democratic.
> 
> But i too ask this question. If abortion is murder why do all the conservative judges allow it to continue? And why didn’t trump make this his first priority when he had majorities in both house and senate. It would have been the perfect time. But nope


Yes while they decry freedom and not to wear a mass or vaccinate.


----------



## Penelope (Jul 24, 2021)

sealybobo said:


> No just the governor of Florida. Interesting fact. The woman in charge, not Catherine Harris, the other one. She was a Republican. But before 2000 she changed to democrat and jeb put her in charge of the election. Shady af


Jeb Bush was gov of Forida in 2000, that why Bush Jr. won with under 600 votes.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 24, 2021)

Penelope said:


> Of the 18 justices confirmed since 1969, 14 have come from Republican presidents, and only four from Democrats. A few GOP appointees, notably Harry Blackmun and David Souter, in time voted consistently with the liberal wing. But conservatives have dominated. (Senate Republicans in 2016 prevented a vote on Democrat Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland.)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This illustrates how rightwing ideologues began to take over the process of appointing justices to the Supreme Court.

By GWB that process was complete.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 24, 2021)

Penelope said:


> Jeb Bush was gov of Forida in 2000, that why Bush won with under 600 votes.


This is why Republicans seek to enact laws undermining the right to vote, suppress votes, and disenfranchising those whom Republicans perceive to be likely Democratic voters.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jul 24, 2021)

deannalw said:


> If the court has been dominated by Republicans, why have they not abolished roe vs wade like you freaky little lemmings have been screeching about for decades and are still screeching about to this day?


Because Roe V Wade is constitutional, and saying it is not would be a total disregard of our rights.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Jul 24, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Because Roe V Wade is constitutional, and saying it is not would be a total disregard of our rights.


Please show us where in the Constitution there is a written "right to privacy" or anything that gives the Federal Government the right to regulate ANY medical procedure?  The Tenth Amendment bans the Federal Government from doing anything not SPECIFUCALLY allowed by the Constitution.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jul 24, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> Please show us where in the Constitution there is a written "right to privacy" or anything that gives the Federal Government the right to regulate ANY medical procedure?  The Tenth Amendment bans the Federal Government from doing anything not SPECIFUCALLY allowed by the Constitution.


I'll refer you to the Supreme Court for that answer, since they are the ones tasked with interpreting the constitution. Seems my opinion and even yours don't count in comparison to that constitutionally created body.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jul 24, 2021)

Penelope said:


> Of the 18 justices confirmed since 1969, 14 have come from Republican presidents, and only four from Democrats. A few GOP appointees, notably Harry Blackmun and David Souter, in time voted consistently with the liberal wing. But conservatives have dominated. (Senate Republicans in 2016 prevented a vote on Democrat Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland.)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


republicans and democrats are political parties,,
SCOTUS is constitutional based not party based,,

so to have a liberal view is in violation of the constitution where constitutional conservative view is what a judge is supposed to have,,


----------



## BULLDOG (Jul 24, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> republicans and democrats are political parties,,
> SCOTUS is constitutional based not party based,,
> 
> so to have a liberal view is in violation of the constitution where constitutional conservative view is what a judge is supposed to have,,


So where did you find that RULE?


----------



## progressive hunter (Jul 24, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> So where did you find that RULE?








						The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription
					

[get-content name="print-page-left" include-tag="false" /] Note: The following text is a transcription of the Constitution as it was inscribed by Jacob Shallus on parchment (the document on display in the Rotunda at the National Archives Museum.) The spelling and punctuation reflect the original.




					www.archives.gov


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 24, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This is why Republicans seek to enact laws undermining the right to vote, suppress votes, and disenfranchising those whom Republicans perceive to be likely Democratic voters.


Recently I’ve heard republicans support two things. Only property owners should be allowed to vote and you should have to pass a test. they know millions less would vote if they could do these things.


----------



## airplanemechanic (Jul 24, 2021)

sealybobo said:


> Recently I’ve heard republicans support two things. Only property owners should be allowed to vote and you should have to pass a test. they know millions less would vote if they could do these things.



I've long thought that it wasn't fair for someone with no skin in the game (no job) to be able to vote for someone who would raise my income taxes. You don't have to own property in my mind to vote, but you do need to be employed or have some kind of income, even disability. SOMETHING that you pay income taxes on to put you in the same boat as the people you're voting to raise income taxes on.

I mean if I got no job WTF does it matter to me if I vote for someone who will raise income taxes on those suckers who actually go to work, ya know? It's no different than you not having a vote on the board of a company if you don't own stock in it. You have no skin in the game.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 24, 2021)

sealybobo said:


> Recently I’ve heard republicans support two things. Only property owners should be allowed to vote and you should have to pass a test. they know millions less would vote if they could do these things.



Well, duh, that'd exclude 30% of the Dem base, easily.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jul 24, 2021)

sealybobo said:


> Recently I’ve heard republicans support two things. Only property owners should be allowed to vote and you should have to pass a test. they know millions less would vote if they could do these things.


At this point, I would no longer oppose a return to only property owners voting.


----------



## ummmmmm (Jul 24, 2021)

deannalw said:


> If the court has been dominated by Republicans, why have they not abolished roe vs wade like you freaky little lemmings have been screeching about for decades and are still screeching about to this day?


(1) Sorry if I am duplicating other posts that have happened, just jumping in.
(2) IMO -- and AGAIN, just saying IMO -- RvW was absurd constitutional (mis-)interpretation.  But once it was interpreted that way, SCOTUS is reluctant to argue with precedent.  And the longer it stays in place, the more powerful the force of that precedent.  There really are important benefits to SCOTUS not re-doing every past decision as if it was a fresh debate; reluctance to overturn prior decisions make sense as one critical factor (albeit among many critical factors).
(3) RvW is probably gone imminently, either by being directly overturned (which I prefer from an intellectual honesty perspective) or through silly games where they overturn it while pretending not to (probably the politically smarter path).  Previously that didn't happen because the public opinion backlash would have knocked Rs out of office.  Currently I think the R party is comfortable being politically unpopular overall, playing to its base, and instead relying on mechanisms like voting restrictions, gerrymandering, small state structural biases, and procedural gamesmanship to try to keep control of an unconsenting nation, so I think now is when conservative SCOTUS makes its move on RvW.  (And if any Rs aren't comfortable with that, too late to change the approach, that ship has sailed.)  No crystal ball here, just predicting.


----------



## Michael1985 (Jul 25, 2021)

sealybobo said:


> That’s one reason 2000 was so important they stole the election. Who decided Florida? That’s right. The Supreme Court and Jeb bush cronies.



Your guy lost fair and square. It was some twenty years ago. It's beyond time you got over it and moved on with your life.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 26, 2021)

airplanemechanic said:


> I've long thought that it wasn't fair for someone with no skin in the game (no job) to be able to vote for someone who would raise my income taxes. You don't have to own property in my mind to vote, but you do need to be employed or have some kind of income, even disability. SOMETHING that you pay income taxes on to put you in the same boat as the people you're voting to raise income taxes on.
> 
> I mean if I got no job WTF does it matter to me if I vote for someone who will raise income taxes on those suckers who actually go to work, ya know? It's no different than you not having a vote on the board of a company if you don't own stock in it. You have no skin in the game.


I'm trying to see it your way.  You make a good point.  But eventually it's going to come down to this.  And to me, this is the only real battle every country has.  It's called class warfare. And right now the workers in America are getting hosed.  Not all of us but too many of us.  So in your scenario, eventually the workers will vote to raise wages and taxes on the rich who rule us.  What will they do then?  Then they'll say only property owners should be allowed to vote.  So that will tip elections more in favor of the rich again.  And if that doesn't do it, start making everyone take a test in order to vote.  You have to know how many branches of government we have and who's 3rd in line to be POTUS?  

Our elected officials decide on a lot more things than income taxes.  Guns, gays, religion, etc.  

One more thing.  I notice most republicans deny class warfare exists.  But don't you view poor people voting to raise rich people's taxes as class warfare?  Of course you do.  So then you do admit class warfare exists.  And since Reagan, we've been losing.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 26, 2021)

Michael1985 said:


> Your guy lost fair and square. It was some twenty years ago. It's beyond time you got over it and moved on with your life.


Maybe in 20 you'll get over Trump's fair and square loss.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 26, 2021)

ummmmmm said:


> (1) Sorry if I am duplicating other posts that have happened, just jumping in.
> (2) IMO -- and AGAIN, just saying IMO -- RvW was absurd constitutional (mis-)interpretation.  But once it was interpreted that way, SCOTUS is reluctant to argue with precedent.  And the longer it stays in place, the more powerful the force of that precedent.  There really are important benefits to SCOTUS not re-doing every past decision as if it was a fresh debate; reluctance to overturn prior decisions make sense as one critical factor (albeit among many critical factors).
> (3) RvW is probably gone imminently, either by being directly overturned (which I prefer from an intellectual honesty perspective) or through silly games where they overturn it while pretending not to (probably the politically smarter path).  Previously that didn't happen because the public opinion backlash would have knocked Rs out of office.  Currently I think the R party is comfortable being politically unpopular overall, playing to its base, and instead relying on mechanisms like voting restrictions, gerrymandering, small state structural biases, and procedural gamesmanship to try to keep control of an unconsenting nation, so I think now is when conservative SCOTUS makes its move on RvW.  (And if any Rs aren't comfortable with that, too late to change the approach, that ship has sailed.)  No crystal ball here, just predicting.


Instead of overturning Roe V Wade conservative states are all out assaulting abortion rights.  So when anyone in that state challenges the law, the Supreme Court sides with the state.  So they don't have to ban it nationally instead they'll just make it really hard to get at a state level.  Which won't stop rich people from getting abortions they want.  Just poor people.


----------



## airplanemechanic (Jul 26, 2021)

sealybobo said:


> Maybe in 20 you'll get over Trump's fair and square loss.



Maybe in 20 he'll have one.


----------



## Michael1985 (Jul 26, 2021)

sealybobo said:


> Maybe in 20 you'll get over Trump's fair and square loss.



Oh, I believe totally he lost. I've never been a Trump supporter. I spent four years referring to him as the "orange buffoon in the White House".


----------



## ummmmmm (Jul 26, 2021)

sealybobo said:


> Instead of overturning Roe V Wade conservative states are all out assaulting abortion rights.  So when anyone in that state challenges the law, the Supreme Court sides with the state.  So they don't have to ban it nationally instead they'll just make it really hard to get at a state level.  Which won't stop rich people from getting abortions they want.  Just poor people.


Background: I am *not* an expert on this.  Pretty confident what I think of RvW, constitutionally and as a policy matter, but as to laws that have been passed since, I follow very little.  

That said, the point of RvW was to prevent the states from deciding for themselves, and the immediate goal of overturning it would be to let states decide for themselves.  (Not saying conservatives wouldn't then want to prevent states from making any decision they don't like, just as liberals wanted and enshrined in law in the opposite direction.)  And I think letting states decide is the right result on this issue, even if (i.e., even though) rich people can still opt out of their home state's laws via money.


----------



## ummmmmm (Jul 27, 2021)

Michael1985 said:


> Your guy lost fair and square. It was some twenty years ago. It's beyond time you got over it and moved on with your life.


I think Rs slapped on "Sore Loserman" bumper stickers about a minute after SCOTUS gave them the white house.  Pretty sure a year later Dems were not still denying the outcome and demanding partisan recounts (after literally dozens of courts and same-party election officials told them they were full of ****).  Seems there are two standards.


----------



## Michael1985 (Jul 27, 2021)

ummmmmm said:


> I think Rs slapped on "Sore Loserman" bumper stickers about a minute after SCOTUS gave them the white house.  Pretty sure a year later Dems were not still denying the outcome and demanding partisan recounts (after literally dozens of courts and same-party election officials told them they were full of ****).  Seems there are two standards.



Despite what Gore claimed, I have never believed what he said of wanting "every vote counted". There is no question in my mind that all he wanted was to count the votes over and over and over again in Florida until it produced a vote count in that state that showed him as the winner. Likewise, there is no reason for Trump to demand recount after recount and audit after audit of so many different states unless he's desperate to do anything to cling to power when the math just isn't there. I'd like to say it's every bit as asinine as the stunt the Gore campaign team tried to pull twenty years ago, but the sad reality is that he seems desperate to flip one state, any state, and the EC college result would still have Biden as the winner,, so what Trump's doing is even more pathetic. I'd like to hope that someday he'd finally come to terms with the fact that the American people didn't want him to be their president after 2020, but I very much doubt it.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 27, 2021)

ummmmmm said:


> Background: I am *not* an expert on this.  Pretty confident what I think of RvW, constitutionally and as a policy matter, but as to laws that have been passed since, I follow very little.
> 
> That said, the point of RvW was to prevent the states from deciding for themselves, and the immediate goal of overturning it would be to let states decide for themselves.  (Not saying conservatives wouldn't then want to prevent states from making any decision they don't like, just as liberals wanted and enshrined in law in the opposite direction.)  And I think letting states decide is the right result on this issue, even if (i.e., even though) rich people can still opt out of their home state's laws via money.


A lot of young women just take the morning after pill now.  If they have unprotected sex or the condom breaks.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 27, 2021)

Michael1985 said:


> Despite what Gore claimed, I have never believed what he said of wanting "every vote counted". There is no question in my mind that all he wanted was to count the votes over and over and over again in Florida until it produced a vote count in that state that showed him as the winner. Likewise, there is no reason for Trump to demand recount after recount and audit after audit of so many different states unless he's desperate to do anything to cling to power when the math just isn't there. I'd like to say it's every bit as asinine as the stunt the Gore campaign team tried to pull twenty years ago, but the sad reality is that he seems desperate to flip one state, any state, and the EC college result would still have Biden as the winner,, so what Trump's doing is even more pathetic. I'd like to hope that someday he'd finally come to terms with the fact that the American people didn't want him to be their president after 2020, but I very much doubt it.


A lot of people looked into the Florida vote in 2000.  If you counted all the votes, including the ones tossed because of Hanging Chads, Gore won Florida.  They did so many shady things in Florida.  But ultimately, the Brooks Brother Riot ended the recount.  Yes that's right, 2020 wasn't the first time Republicans rioted because they didn't like the election results.  So then it went to the Supreme Court and they decided who our president would be in 2000.  Not Florida voters.  Sad but true.  

Some say Bush would have won but that's bullshit.  Jeb and Katherine Harris and





__





						Theresa LePore - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




I find this very interesting.

In 1996 LePore changed her political party registration to Democratic after deciding to run for the position of Supervisor of Elections.

She designed the infamous "butterfly ballot" used in the 2000 presidential election.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 27, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Well, duh, that'd exclude 30% of the Dem base, easily.


Why is what I wrote funny?  In 2000 they were counting up all the votes.  Republicans sent operatives down including Roger Stone to start a riot and cause so much havoc that it forced the recount to stop and it got sent to the Supreme Court.  True or not?

So this year Trump and his cronies tried to get a bunch of nuts to go down and stop Congress from certifying Biden as the next POTUS.  I believe Trump wanted the Supreme Court to decide.  Or some weird rule where it could go to the House of Representatives and each state would get 1 vote.  Trump tried to pull a fast one but not enough Republicans went along.  Like Pence.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 27, 2021)

When you have "republicans" like Warren, O'Connor, Souter, Kennedy, and Roberts, who needs democrats?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 27, 2021)

sealybobo said:


> Why is what I wrote funny? In 2000 they were counting up all the votes.



You think Gore wanted to recount all the votes? That's funny.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 27, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You think Gore wanted to recount all the votes? That's funny.



Yes it's a fact.

If the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed Florida's courts to finish their abortive recount of last year's deadlocked presidential election, President Bush probably still would have won by several hundred votes, a comprehensive study of the uncounted ballots has found.

But if the recount had been conducted under new vote-counting rules that Florida and other states now are adopting -- rules aimed at recording the intentions of as many voters as possible -- Democratic candidate Al Gore probably would have won, although by an even thinner margin, the study found.

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. As a result, under rules devised by the Florida Supreme Court and accepted by the Gore campaign at the time, Bush probably would have won a recount, the study found.

And don't forget the woman who devised the butterfly ballots was a Republican but then suddenly in 1996 she changed over to Democrat and was in charge of the election?  Shady as fuck.  Especially when you know that Catherine Harris purposely went with really thin paper ballots that they knew would cause hanging chads.  Then they went to the black neighborhoods and threw out all the votes that had hanging chads.

YOU think 2020 was stolen?  All 5 states?  It's very clear and obvious the many ways Republicans stole Florida in 2000 including hacked Diebold voting machines.  You didn't care back then but boy do you believe Dominion cheated, when they didn't.  A lot of shady shit happened with those Diebold machines though.

So there are 4 ways Republicans stole 2000.  The final tactic was the Brooks Brother Riots.  Just like Trump's failed attempt to stop the election results from happening in 2020.  

Now explain how 5 states stole the election for Biden.  A lot harder to steal 5 states than 1.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 27, 2021)

sealybobo said:


> Yes it's a fact.
> 
> If the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed Florida's courts to finish their abortive recount of last year's deadlocked presidential election, President Bush probably still would have won by several hundred votes, a comprehensive study of the uncounted ballots has found.
> 
> ...



*Yes it's a fact.*

You're confused. Gore never asked for a state-wide recount.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 27, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Yes it's a fact.*
> 
> You're confused. Gore never asked for a state-wide recount.


Bottom line, he got fucked and the wrong guy won.  Then comes 9-11, the Iraq war and the Greatest Recession since the Great Depression.  And you supported that loser until Trump told you not to.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 27, 2021)

sealybobo said:


> Bottom line, he got fucked and the wrong guy won.



Every recount showed Bush won Florida.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 27, 2021)

sealybobo said:


> And you supported that loser until Trump told you not to.



Is that like Dems fellating Russia until Hillary needed an excuse for losing?


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 27, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Every recount showed Bush won Florida.


Sure after butterfly ballots and hanging chads correct.

And if that's true, why did Republicans send operatives down to disrupt the recount?  They weren't as confident as you are.  Brooks Brother Riots.  This year's insurrection was not your first.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 27, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Is that like Dems fellating Russia until Hillary needed an excuse for losing?


No we still support our former president's.

You know what's funny about you brainwashed Republicans?  You can't see that it was actually Carter/Clinton/Obama who cared about middle class America and it was indeed deep state globalist RINO's who obstructed every one of them.

You guys love to say Carter was a shitty president.  Yea, because he was a good man and the globalist deep state Republicans sabotaged his presidency.  But this you will laugh off.  And then in the next breath claim this is what happened to Trump.  What a joke.  Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan and all the other Republicans protected the Trump crime family for 4 years.  Trump should have been thrown out of office at least 5 times.  And he doubled the number of mega corporations that now pay zero taxes.  You guys cried Obama gave GE tax breaks.  Trump DOUBLED the number of companies who now pay zero taxes.

And Trump himself was an illegal employer.  I bet Carter didn't hire illegals on his peanut farm.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 27, 2021)

sealybobo said:


> Sure after butterfly ballots and hanging chads correct.



Hanging chads should count? What about dimpled chads? Why?
What about the butterfly ballots?


*And if that's true, why did Republicans send operatives down to disrupt the recount? *

Dems were trying to keep changing the counts until they won.
They finally got that to work with Franken.

*This year's insurrection was not your first.*

You've always been drama queens.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 27, 2021)

sealybobo said:


> You can't see that it was actually Carter/Clinton/Obama who cared about middle class America



Is that why CLinton raised middle class taxes, after promising to cut them?
He cared?

*You guys love to say Carter was a shitty president. *

Yeah, it's safe to say he sucked. So weak, but he cared all right.

*Yea, because he was a good man *

And a terrible president.

*And he doubled the number of mega corporations that now pay zero taxes. *

I know, deducting business expenses is horrible!!! LOL!


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 27, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Is that why CLinton raised middle class taxes, after promising to cut them?
> He cared?
> 
> *You guys love to say Carter was a shitty president. *
> ...


He doubled the number of corporations who now pay no taxes.  That's good?  Idiot.  Well I guess it's true if the debt really doesn't matter. 

Trump was a bad man and even worse president.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 27, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Is that why CLinton raised middle class taxes, after promising to cut them?
> He cared?
> 
> *You guys love to say Carter was a shitty president. *
> ...


I don't cry about the taxes I paid in the 1990's.  That was the best decade of our lives.  Maybe in all of human history.  8 great boom years.  Dot com or not.  He did a great job.  Only he gave in to Republicans too much.  He signed their media deregulations bill.  Now the media is no longer free.  It's controlled by corporations.  He signed Bush's NAFTA.  And a few other times Clinton went along with Republicans and really fucked us good.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 27, 2021)

sealybobo said:


> He doubled the number of corporations who now pay no taxes.



Why do you feel that?
What possible way is there for a corporation to pay no taxes? Spell it out.
Be as specific as you can.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 27, 2021)

sealybobo said:


> I don't cry about the taxes I paid in the 1990's.  That was the best decade of our lives.  Maybe in all of human history.  8 great boom years.  Dot com or not.  He did a great job.  Only he gave in to Republicans too much.  He signed their media deregulations bill.  Now the media is no longer free.  It's controlled by corporations.  He signed Bush's NAFTA.  And a few other times Clinton went along with Republicans and really fucked us good.



*I don't cry about the taxes I paid in the 1990's.*

And I don't care about your claims that Dems "cared" about the middle class.

*Dot com or not.  He did a great job.  Only he gave in to Republicans too much. *

Well, after you do such a great job that you lose 10 seats in the Senate and 54 seats in the House, 
you can't expect to carry on as before, eh?


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 27, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Why do you feel that?
> What possible way is there for a corporation to pay no taxes? Spell it out.
> Be as specific as you can.











						Twice as many companies paying zero taxes under Trump tax bill
					

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act lowered the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent. In its first year, the number of companies paying no taxes went from 30 to 60.




					www.nbcnews.com
				




The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act lowered the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent. In its first year, the number of companies paying no taxes went from 30 to 60.

*This story was originally published by The Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit, nonpartisan investigative news organization in Washington, D.C.

At least 60 companies reported that their 2018 federal tax rates amounted to effectively zero, or even less than zero, on income earned on U.S. operations*

Among them are household names like technology giant Amazon.com Inc. and entertainment streaming service Netflix Inc., in addition to global oil giant Chevron Corp., pharmaceutical manufacturer Eli Lilly and Co., and farming and commercial equipment manufacturer Deere & Co.

The identified companies were "able to zero out their federal income taxes on $79 billion in U.S. pretax income," according to the ITEP report, which was released today. "Instead of paying $16.4 billion in taxes, as the new 21 percent corporate tax rate requires, these companies enjoyed a net corporate tax rebate of $4.3 billion, blowing a $20.7 billion hole in the federal budget last year."


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 27, 2021)

sealybobo said:


> Twice as many companies paying zero taxes under Trump tax bill
> 
> 
> The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act lowered the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent. In its first year, the number of companies paying no taxes went from 30 to 60.
> ...



*The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act lowered the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent. *

Ummm....thanks?
That doesn't explain how they paid zero.






Depreciation and stock options reduce corporate income.
So they had zero taxable income.

How much tax should be paid on zero income?


----------



## ummmmmm (Jul 28, 2021)

Michael1985 said:


> Despite what Gore claimed, I have never believed what he said of wanting "every vote counted". There is no question in my mind that all he wanted was to count the votes over and over and over again in Florida until it produced a vote count in that state that showed him as the winner. Likewise, there is no reason for Trump to demand recount after recount and audit after audit of so many different states unless he's desperate to do anything to cling to power when the math just isn't there. I'd like to say it's every bit as asinine as the stunt the Gore campaign team tried to pull twenty years ago, but the sad reality is that he seems desperate to flip one state, any state, and the EC college result would still have Biden as the winner,, so what Trump's doing is even more pathetic. I'd like to hope that someday he'd finally come to terms with the fact that the American people didn't want him to be their president after 2020, but I very much doubt it.


Fair about Gore.  I think I read analysis back when that recounts wouldn't have helped Gore anyway, though that wasn't known until later; too bad SCOTUS set such bad precedent to block them from happening.  But yes, a single challenge is massively less bad than an across-the-board legal and PR assault on every exercise of democracy the loser's ego can't stand.


----------



## ummmmmm (Jul 28, 2021)

sealybobo said:


> A lot of people looked into the Florida vote in 2000.  If you counted all the votes, including the ones tossed because of Hanging Chads, Gore won Florida.  They did so many shady things in Florida.  But ultimately, the Brooks Brother Riot ended the recount.  Yes that's right, 2020 wasn't the first time Republicans rioted because they didn't like the election results.  So then it went to the Supreme Court and they decided who our president would be in 2000.  Not Florida voters.  Sad but true.
> 
> Some say Bush would have won but that's bullshit.  Jeb and Katherine Harris and
> 
> ...


There's certainly no doubt I'm aware of that the butterfly ballot and the ludicrous concentration of Buchanan voters changed the results, and that more voters were *attempting* to vote for Gore than for Bush.  Amazing how much history turns on crappy ballot design.  And, as to the paid khaki mob, yeah, that was a sad joke.  Rs do always seem willing to violate every foundational norm that matters and rely on adults to somehow preserve democracy in the face of their gamesmanship; it's a sad pattern that has grown much more dramatic in the Trump era.  Maybe they could be the adults for once, instead of playing along with a con man would-be dictator and making excuses for insurrection that threaten our entire way of life.


----------



## Michael1985 (Jul 28, 2021)

ummmmmm said:


> There's certainly no doubt I'm aware of that the butterfly ballot and the ludicrous concentration of Buchanan voters changed the results, and that more voters were *attempting* to vote for Gore than for Bush.  Amazing how much history turns on crappy ballot design.  And, as to the paid khaki mob, yeah, that was a sad joke.  Rs do always seem willing to violate every foundational norm that matters and rely on adults to somehow preserve democracy in the face of their gamesmanship; it's a sad pattern that has grown much more dramatic in the Trump era.  Maybe they could be the adults for once, instead of playing along with a con man would-be dictator and making excuses for insurrection that threaten our entire way of life.



It was a terrible ballot design. I think we can all agree on that. I can't think of any arrangement of the names of candidates where placing Buchanan between Bush and Gore would make any sense. But I do also think that voters did bear some responsibility to be careful and take the time to ensure that they were indeed indicating on the ballot which candidate they had wanted to vote for, and not going so fast and jumping to conclusions about how the candidates were listed.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 28, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act lowered the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent. *
> 
> Ummm....thanks?
> That doesn't explain how they paid zero.
> ...


They pay zero Federal.  Maybe you should ask an accountant how this works.  Loopholes, deductions, write offs, etc.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 28, 2021)

ummmmmm said:


> too bad SCOTUS set such bad precedent to block them from happening.



Bad example?  They enforced the existing law by stopping endless additional recounts.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 28, 2021)

sealybobo said:


> They pay zero Federal.



On zero taxable income. 
Yeah, deductions are the worst.......writing off business expenses.
It's just outrageous. LOL!


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 28, 2021)

Penelope said:


> Of the 18 justices confirmed since 1969, 14 have come from Republican presidents, and only four from Democrats. A few GOP appointees, notably Harry Blackmun and David Souter, in time voted consistently with the liberal wing. But conservatives have dominated. (Senate Republicans in 2016 prevented a vote on Democrat Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland.)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If our government doesn't represent everyone it is hardly a democracy.  Ours is in need of some serious fixing.


----------



## Penelope (Jul 28, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> If our government doesn't represent everyone it is hardly a democracy.  Ours is in need of some serious fixing.


If a Pres. gets 2 elections then you'd get 2, 1 election you get 1
The court should be made bigger, that way if could say 20, that way an equal vote should be null and void and it would take up the slack of being really small.


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 28, 2021)

Penelope said:


> If a Pres. gets 2 elections then you'd get 2, 1 election you get 1
> The court should be made bigger, that way if could say 20, that way an equal vote should be null and void and it would take up the slack of being really small.


Not a bad idea.  Or maybe have the longest serving justice retire at the end of the new President's term (assuming none have died in the previous 4 years).  If he gets re-elected the same thing happens at the end of his second term.


----------



## Penelope (Jul 28, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Not a bad idea.  Or maybe have the longest serving justice retire at the end of the new President's term (assuming none have died in the previous 4 years).  If he gets re-elected the same thing happens at the end of his second term.


Yes. I wish we would vote in SC judges.


----------



## ummmmmm (Jul 29, 2021)

Michael1985 said:


> It was a terrible ballot design. I think we can all agree on that. I can't think of any arrangement of the names of candidates where placing Buchanan between Bush and Gore would make any sense. But I do also think that voters did bear some responsibility to be careful and take the time to ensure that they were indeed indicating on the ballot which candidate they had wanted to vote for, and not going so fast and jumping to conclusions about how the candidates were listed.


Respectfully disagree.  Democracy is about letting people vote for their choice, not imposing some kind of puzzle on how to do so.


----------



## ummmmmm (Jul 29, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Bad example?  They enforced the existing law by stopping endless additional recounts.


Don't think so.  They completely reversed course on an expansionist equal protection clause, which they had opposed roughly forever, and then used their suddenly-expanded EP clause to jut into states' ability to control their own elections, which they had always said was one of the most basic rights states had thanks to federalism.  

In simple terms, they contradicted everything conservativism had ever said before to prevent a recount.  Not endless recounts, but one recount that they feared might lead to GWB losing to Gore.  (Which it wouldn't have anyway, but they didn't know that.)  It was intellectual dishonesty, on the scale of RvW, to serve a Republican political purpose.


----------



## ummmmmm (Jul 29, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Bad example?  They enforced the existing law by stopping endless additional recounts.



Sorry, spamming multiple replies is generally bad, but I do wonder if you have any basis for this.  "[E]ndless additional recounts is really a Trump 2020 thing, no prior pol I am aware of attacked every result they didn't like, launched dozens of lawsuits, and when those failed supported partisan "recounts" of every close-ish state result they didn't like.  

By contrast, in 2000, Florida law, per Florida SCOTUS, demanded a single recount, which SCOTUS prevented from happening.  It was not "additional" recounts, much less "endless" "additional" recounts -- Rs on SCOTUS used a judicial philosophy totally in contradiction to all their prior philosophy and decisions to block that one recount so the result they liked could not be challenged.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jul 29, 2021)

Penelope said:


> Of the 18 justices confirmed since 1969, 14 have come from Republican presidents, and only four from Democrats. A few GOP appointees, notably Harry Blackmun and David Souter, in time voted consistently with the liberal wing. But conservatives have dominated. (Senate Republicans in 2016 prevented a vote on Democrat Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland.)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The whole political system is creaking, it's so out of date it's ridiculous.


----------



## ummmmmm (Jul 29, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Not a bad idea.  Or maybe have the longest serving justice retire at the end of the new President's term (assuming none have died in the previous 4 years).  If he gets re-elected the same thing happens at the end of his second term.


There are 1000 better ways to run SCOTUS, that's not the hard part.  The issue is that when one party has control (Rs, in recent decades), they don't want to find a better way, they just want to take advantage of their upper hand to force their politics on the rest of the country.


----------



## Markle (Jul 29, 2021)

Penelope said:


> Of the 18 justices confirmed since 1969, 14 have come from Republican presidents, and only four from Democrats. A few GOP appointees, notably Harry Blackmun and David Souter, in time voted consistently with the liberal wing. But conservatives have dominated. (Senate Republicans in 2016 prevented a vote on Democrat Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland.)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Roe v. Wade should never have been decided by the Supreme Court.  It was and is a state issue.


----------



## Markle (Jul 29, 2021)

ummmmmm said:


> There are 1000 better ways to run SCOTUS, that's not the hard part.  The issue is that when one party has control (Rs, in recent decades), they don't want to find a better way, they just want to take advantage of their upper hand to force their politics on the rest of the country.


Specifically, what is a better way to run the SCOTUS?


----------



## Markle (Jul 29, 2021)

sealybobo said:


> That’s one reason 2000 was so important they stole the election. Who decided Florida? That’s right. The Supreme Court and Jeb bush cronies.



That is a lie and one that probably makes you feel comfortable.









						Media Recount: Bush Won the 2000 Election
					

More than three months after Democrat Al Gore conceded the contested 2000 election, an independent hand recount of Florida's ballots released Tuesday says he would have lost anyway, even if officials would have allowed the hand count he requested.




					www.pbs.org


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 29, 2021)

Markle said:


> Roe v. Wade should never have been decided by the Supreme Court.  It was and is a state issue.


Would you say the same about Civil Rights laws?  Jim Crow might be alive and well if left to the states.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 29, 2021)

ummmmmm said:


> In simple terms, they contradicted everything conservativism had ever said before to prevent a recount.



Baloney. They ended endless recounts by enforcing state law.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 29, 2021)

ummmmmm said:


> By contrast, in 2000, Florida law, per Florida SCOTUS, demanded a single recount, which SCOTUS prevented from happening.



What recounts did they have before SCOTUS butted in?


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 29, 2021)

Markle said:


> That is a lie and one that probably makes you feel comfortable.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yea so they had to throw out thousands of black votes because of hanging chads.  And many people voted for Pat Buchanan when they meant to vote for Gore.  

Remember, the woman in charge was a Republican but switched parties in 1996.  That means they were planning this for 4 years.

Don't believe that?  Well look at PNAC.  They were also planning out the Iraq war in the 90's too.  So Bush KNEW he was going to be president.  Or he had one ace up his sleeve.  His brother was Governor of Florida.

Imagine if Hunter Biden was Governor of Georgia.  You guys think a Republican Governor in Georgia stole the election from you.  Now imagine if Biden's son was in charge of the state.  You're a fucking moron.  You'll believe 5 states were stolen but ignore the facts on how the Bush's stole Florida.  They even had their own "insurrection".  The Brooks brother riots.  Republicans rioted to stop the count.  Fuck off you stupid bitch.


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 29, 2021)

sealybobo said:


> Yea so they had to throw out thousands of black votes because of hanging chads.  ....


That lie was debunked decades ago.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 29, 2021)

Unkotare said:


> That lie was debunked decades ago.


They did throw out votes because of hanging chads.  What the fuck are you talking about clown?


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 29, 2021)

Unkotare said:


> That lie was debunked decades ago.


Was it?  When?  History says otherwise.









						How the 2000 Election Came Down to a Supreme Court Decision
					

As Florida's electoral votes fell under dispute, controversy ensued over hanging chads, dimpled chads and butterfly bullets.




					www.history.com
				




At issue: Some holes were not completely punched out of the ballots. “A chad that was not punched out all the way—i.e. was still hanging by one, two or even three corners to the ballot—was called a ‘hanging chad.’” Busch says. “Election officials had to devise standards by which to count the ballots with hanging chads. Do you count it as a valid vote as long as there is some evidence that a voter tried to cast a vote? Do you only count it if three of the four corners are knocked out? Something in between? No consistent standard was developed, which was a key issue in _Bush v. Gore_.”

After lawsuits, challenges and recounts, the Florida Supreme Court ordered a recount of undervotes in all of Florida's 67 counties, which was quickly appealed by Bush, and the case headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 29, 2021)

sealybobo said:


> Was it?  When?  History says otherwise.
> .....


Wrong. History and the Supreme Court agree with me.


----------



## ummmmmm (Jul 29, 2021)

Markle said:


> Roe v. Wade should never have been decided by the Supreme Court.  It was and is a state issue.


Totally agree.


----------



## ummmmmm (Jul 29, 2021)

Markle said:


> Specifically, what is a better way to run the SCOTUS?


I could suggest MANY, but to name one ... more justices.  Make it less a lottery of which party gets to appoint 1 of 9.  And, equally importantly (though it's not as dramatic appoint in these partisan times), less of a lottery depending on the intellectual biases and quirks of a small handful of human beings.  Whether "more justices" is achieved by rotation, term limits, a bigger bench with those who serve on any given case determined by lottery, whatever, pretty much anything would be better than 9 lifetime appointments dictating (in many ways) the direction of an entire nation of several hundred million.


----------



## AMart (Jul 29, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This is why Republicans seek to enact laws undermining the right to vote, suppress votes, and disenfranchising those whom Republicans perceive to be likely Democratic voters.


Like an ID to prove who you are? You evil satanic fuck faces would send mail in ballots to Honduras if you could.


----------



## AMart (Jul 29, 2021)

sealybobo said:


> Recently I’ve heard republicans support two things. Only property owners should be allowed to vote and you should have to pass a test. they know millions less would vote if they could do these things.


I've heard Demorats suggest legalizing a gazillion illegals to vote who can't even speak English.


----------



## ummmmmm (Jul 29, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Baloney. They ended endless recounts by enforcing state law.


Respectfully, please look it up and adjust your position accordingly.  They did not in any way enforce state law.  They prevented the highest law of the land in that state from having a say, in order to block a recount that state authority demanded.  It was an unequivocal abrogation of supposed state's rights.  Basically, SCOTUS said it didn't trust Florida's chosen authorities to conduct a recount that would not violate EP (i.e., the very same clause conservatives had always previously sought to limit, because it mandated policing southern states in their endless attempts to block black voting), so they weren't permitted to try.  This was the very exact opposite of "enforcing state law" -- it was saying Florida didn't even get to try.


----------



## ummmmmm (Jul 29, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> What recounts did they have before SCOTUS butted in?


So frustrated that I'm new and trying to figure out the back and forth on the site.  Apologies for my newness, and I don't want to double up on responses.  If you maintain your position after seeing replies I *think* I have already made, please lmk and I'll elaborate.  But I *think* I already covered this in replies.


----------



## ummmmmm (Jul 29, 2021)

AMart said:


> Like an ID to prove who you are? You evil satanic fuck faces would send mail in ballots to Honduras if you could.


Thanks for that.  OMG you have some anger built up.  

You think your party is indifferent to which voters of both parties will not make the cut when EACH proposed extra layer is imposed?  Like they are in pursuit of pure democracy, just a bunch of good faith patriots indifferent to the political consequences?  Rs want to make it like a mail-in rebate for likely D voters -- clip the original coupon, mail it in by this exact date, enclose a SASE for the refund, cash it within X days, etc. -- because it is a statistical fact that every layer of extra procedure will make some would-be voters fall out.  It's a very simple strategy, strange that you don't see it -- or that phantom voter fraud makes it all worthwhile to you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 30, 2021)

ummmmmm said:


> Respectfully, please look it up and adjust your position accordingly.  They did not in any way enforce state law.  They prevented the highest law of the land in that state from having a say, in order to block a recount that state authority demanded.  It was an unequivocal abrogation of supposed state's rights.  Basically, SCOTUS said it didn't trust Florida's chosen authorities to conduct a recount that would not violate EP (i.e., the very same clause conservatives had always previously sought to limit, because it mandated policing southern states in their endless attempts to block black voting), so they weren't permitted to try.  This was the very exact opposite of "enforcing state law" -- it was saying Florida didn't even get to try.



* They did not in any way enforce state law. *

What did state law say about recounts?
What did state law say about dates?


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 30, 2021)

AMart said:


> I've heard Demorats suggest legalizing a gazillion illegals to vote who can't even speak English.


I think Reagan and Bush also pushed for amnesty.


----------



## ummmmmm (Jul 30, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> * They did not in any way enforce state law. *
> 
> What did state law say about recounts?
> What did state law say about dates?


You can read all about the lower court battles yourself.  Ultimately the Florida Supreme Court ordered manual recounts in specific counties.  This is where SCOTUS stepped in to block them.  In doing so it went directly against the previous conservative conviction that states running their own elections was one of the most critical state rights.


----------



## meaner gene (Jul 30, 2021)

AMart said:


> I've heard Demorats suggest legalizing a gazillion illegals to vote who can't even speak English.





sealybobo said:


> I think Reagan and Bush also pushed for amnesty.


Ronad Reagan was he only president to grant amnesty to illegal aliens.  Millions of them. He also signed the medicare law that required hospitals to provide free medical treatment to illegals.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 30, 2021)

ummmmmm said:


> You can read all about the lower court battles yourself.



I have. That's why I know you're wrong.

*In doing so it went directly against the previous conservative conviction that states running their own elections was one of the most critical state rights.*

I thought you said they failed to enforce state law?


----------



## ummmmmm (Jul 30, 2021)

meaner gene said:


> Ronad Reagan was he only president to grant amnesty to illegal aliens.  Millions of them. He also signed the medicare law that required hospitals to provide free medical treatment to illegals.


It goes quite a ways back, but my recollection is he generally saw immigrants as a benefit to our country.  The anti-immigration crowd's takeover of the R party is fairly recent.  On the other hand, I think the majority opposition to loose immigration has LONG existed in the R party (and, a couple decades back, in the D party too) -- the politicians would just never follow what their voters wanted on the issue.


----------



## ummmmmm (Jul 30, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I have. That's why I know you're wrong.
> 
> *In doing so it went directly against the previous conservative conviction that states running their own elections was one of the most critical state rights.*
> 
> I thought you said they failed to enforce state law?


Oh good, you know of a state authority for interpreting state law that is higher than the state supreme court?  Please share.


----------



## meaner gene (Jul 30, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I have. That's why I know you're wrong.
> 
> *In doing so it went directly against the previous conservative conviction that states running their own elections was one of the most critical state rights.*
> 
> I thought you said they failed to enforce state law?


In Bush V Gore the USSC presumed that Florida intended to take advantage of the "safe harbor", when in fact Florida law required that election boards try to determine the "intent" of the voter, when counting votes, which would have taken longer than the deadline for the "safe harbor".

The Florida supreme court said that Florida election law didn't require recounts be finished by the deadline the USSC imposed.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 30, 2021)

ummmmmm said:


> Oh good, you know of a state authority for interpreting state law that is higher than the state supreme court?  Please share.



Which law was the state supreme court interpreting? Be specific.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 30, 2021)

meaner gene said:


> The Florida supreme court said that Florida election law didn't require recounts be finished by the deadline the USSC imposed.



Which recounts?


----------



## ummmmmm (Jul 31, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Which law was the state supreme court interpreting? Be specific.


It depends whether you are talking about the constitutional branch of their opinion or their foray into Florida law.  Which one are you trying to elicit with your question, or do you have something else in mind that you want to set up with your question?  Oh, and be specific, lol.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 31, 2021)

ummmmmm said:


> It depends whether you are talking about the constitutional branch of their opinion or their foray into Florida law.  Which one are you trying to elicit with your question, or do you have something else in mind that you want to set up with your question?  Oh, and be specific, lol.



* Which one are you trying to elicit with your question*

You said....... 

"you know of a state authority for interpreting state law that is higher than the state supreme court?"

Which state law in this case? Be specific.


----------



## meaner gene (Jul 31, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> * Which one are you trying to elicit with your question*
> 
> You said.......
> 
> ...


The Florida supreme court interpreted Florida election law.   The USSC against the principle that they would let the states highest court interpret state law, overstepped by the USSC interpreting the "intent" of Florida election law, and declared the legislature "intended" but didn't codify meeting the December 6th deadline.

Florida election law specified the same procedures to election protests and contests, whether they were for president, federal office, or state office.   It was one procedure for all of them.


----------



## ummmmmm (Jul 31, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> * Which one are you trying to elicit with your question*
> 
> You said.......
> 
> ...


I would really prefer you make your point directly instead of trying to get there through questioning and "be specific" imperatives.  You clearly want to say something.  Quite trying to puppeteer and just make your point.  (If you must, you can do the thing where you pretend to ask yourself questions like an invisible interviewer and then answer them, I'll try to look past it to the substance.)


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 31, 2021)

sealybobo said:


> That’s one reason 2000 was so important they stole the election. Who decided Florida? That’s right. The Supreme Court and Jeb bush cronies.



The lies go on and on..... give it up.


----------



## ummmmmm (Jul 31, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> The lies go on and on..... give it up.


Well, factually, there was essentially a tie vote and SCOTUS decided who won.  That's just ... obviously true.  As to cronyism, seems equally obvious, you had brothers and campaign chairs supposedly making "impartial" decisions and so forth.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 31, 2021)

ummmmmm said:


> Well, factually, there was essentially a tie vote and SCOTUS decided who won.  That's just ... obviously true.  As to cronyism, seems equally obvious, you had brothers and campaign chairs supposedly making "impartial" decisions and so forth.



I was referring to events BEFORE SCOTUS ended the bullshit.

The Miami Herald a far left paper admitted long ago that Bush won the election fair and square.

The Networks declared Gore the winner One hour BEFORE the voting was schedule to end thus depriving Bush a lot of votes in the Florida panhandle area.


----------



## ummmmmm (Aug 1, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> I was referring to events BEFORE SCOTUS ended the bullshit.
> 
> The Miami Herald a far left paper admitted long ago that Bush won the election fair and square.
> 
> The Networks declared Gore the winner One hour BEFORE the voting was schedule to end thus depriving Bush a lot of votes in the Florida panhandle area.



So just say that.  I'm no expert, but I think under any recount scenario Bush won.  And I'm pretty damn sure networks calling the vote before the panhandle was done voting deterred lots of Bush votes.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Aug 1, 2021)

ummmmmm said:


> So just say that.  I'm no expert, but I think under any recount scenario Bush won.  And I'm pretty damn sure networks calling the vote before the panhandle was done voting deterred lots of Bush votes.



The last recount demanded by Bore was for Democrats votes only and in democrat heavy counties which already had multiple recounts, and every time there was one they gained yes votes, that is when it was time to stop it.


----------



## ummmmmm (Aug 1, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> The last recount demanded by Bore was for Democrats votes only and in democrat heavy counties which already had multiple recounts, and every time there was one they gained yes votes, that is when it was time to stop it.


Oh, I liked the previous post, but now you go to the weird R fetish for schoolyard namecalling and bogus reality.  OK.  You be you.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Aug 1, 2021)

ummmmmm said:


> Oh, I liked the previous post, but now you go to the weird R fetish for schoolyard namecalling and bogus reality.  OK.  You be you.


Have you heard Al Gore give a speech?

He is a boring speaker with a monotonic voice.

Bogus reality is what?


----------



## MadChemist (Aug 1, 2021)

Canon Shooter said:


> If Roe V. Wade was going to be overturned, it would've happened by now...



It has effectively been negated.

People have been very quietly hemming it in at the state level.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Aug 1, 2021)

MadChemist said:


> It has effectively been negated.
> 
> People have been very quietly hemming it in at the state level.


Perhaps, but I wasn't addressing thingsa at the state level...


----------

