This story is archived
The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President »
Posted by: gatitabonitasen 2 years, 11 months agoWith the ongoing crisis of America being held hostage by a rogue, runaway executive branch, we thought it was time to return to the scene of the original crime that made this horror possible: the theft of an election from the American people by five members of the Supreme Court. It may be January of 2007 when we write this updated commentary on
Read Full Story at buzzflash.com »
Submitted By:
gatitabonitasen
Never end a wish without whispering
I Belive ! ... and make 2008 your dream -come -True-Year .
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 201
-
TexasMan
Jan. 29, 2007, 10:35 a.m.Point #1. AT no time did Al Gore lead in Florida despite numberous recounts. It was as if the Dumercrats knew how many ballots they had punched out in mass (i.e. stuffed the ballot boxes). When they punched out dozens of ballots at a time they could not get a clean punch and left Dangling Chads. Which of course they wanted to count.
Point #2. Half truths and out right lies. Unless the term "counted votes" is used as in "Al Gore had 'X' number of 'counted votes' more that President Bush" then it is a half-truth followed by an outright lie.
The Electoral College does not "COUNT" the absentee ballots unless they could make a difference in the election. The Left Coast, California, was already overwhelming in favor of Al Gore. Because of this a multitude of absentee ballots from military personell, which were overwhelmingly in favor of President Bush, were never counted. These votes alone would have swung the popular vote to President Bush.
-
Tango57
Jan. 29, 2007, 6:55 p.m.Let us not forget the states for restructuring districts to favor republican votes, Ohio and Texas..hmmm and look now at how many state reps are being found guilty of corruption. Texas supreme court has found the redistricting illegal, (after the vote and can't reverse it) and must be reversed. (too little too late) I'm surprised the democratic party hasn't challenged Ohio Supreme court, redistricting process as illegal.
-
birddog54Comment has been removed: User banned.
-
jemille-hardy
Jan. 29, 2007, 11:07 a.m.I was in a state of horrified disbelief the whole time the robed ones were allowing the democratic process to be railroaded, continually asking myself how could this be happening n 20th century America. I finally got the message that if they tell lies often enough, the lies become the "new truth" and a(p)resident is (s)elected. Lies repeated equal truth, kind of like in the O.J trial.
-
CharacterCounts
Jan. 29, 2007, 11:58 a.m.Even the liberal New York Times recounted the votes in Florida and came to the same conclusion that Bush won.
-
random1734
Jan. 29, 2007, 12:04 p.m.The reality is that we do not have a one man - one vote system. What we are doing is electing people to vote for the president for us. This is called the electoral college. Until we get rid of this anacranitic way of doing things we will always run into this same problem on a close race. The electoral college was formed to protect states rights form a federal government. That is why it was put into the sysetem in the first place.
This is not the first time this has happened and won't be the last. It is time to get on with life and if we don't want this to happen again than we have to change the law about the electoral college.
-
Archer440
Jan. 29, 2007, 12:21 p.m.Let us not forget that it was the Democrats who contested the legal recount under Florida state law that states that if an election is close then a recount is mandatory. The state did that and the results came out Bush, then Gore whined and demanded another recount and the state agreed. After Bush won again, the Democrats whined again and another recount was issued. Same results. All this time Gore went to court after court and was granted a recount, yet after the Florida Supreme Court there was only one court left the U.S. Supreme Court. I guess the Democrats felt that the Republicans shouldn't challenge them on any thing. As to Gore winning, he won the popular vote, but, as you will understand if you read our constitution, it is the electorial vote that elects a President. Only in a Sentetorial or Congressinal vote is where the majority of those voting elects an individual. Maybe some of you out there needs to go back to school and read up on civics and government affairs.
-
Harbeas
Jan. 29, 2007, 12:53 p.m.I have advocated for many years that the supreme court justices should be elected instead of appointed. They could have more of an impact on our lives than the president or congress ever could.
-
tryingtofindmyway
Jan. 29, 2007, 1:16 p.m.I cannot believe this is still a topic of discussion. The Florida State Supreme court made the controversial decision to extend the deadline for manual vote recounts past the constitutional December 12 deadline. Furthermore, the Court ordered that 215 votes in favor of Al Gore that were cast after the November 26 deadline be counted in the grand total. The state supreme court also ignored the equal protection clause, which would have forced the manual vote recount to cover every vote within the state of Florida; the court however ruled that only certain votes be counted within a select few Florida counties. The Supreme Court put an end to the recounts because they were flat out unconstitutional. The Florida state supreme court made an illegal decision.
-
tryingtofindmyway
Jan. 29, 2007, 1:17 p.m.The United States Supreme Court made the following statement about the Florida State Supreme Court's ruling: "[The] Florida Supreme Court established new standards for resolving Presidential election contests, thereby violating Art. II, §1, cl. 2, of the United States Constitution and failing to comply with 3 U.S.C. § 5."
-
tryingtofindmyway
Jan. 29, 2007, 1:22 p.m.The real issue here is that people cannot stomach that a man who garnered the lesser portion of the popular vote won. To make matters worse, this president is incredibly unpopular. If that's the case, then attack the electoral college system, not the outcome of the Bush/Gore election. Under the current system, Bush legally won. The Supreme Court did not skirt the rule of law or constitution in any way, unlike the Florida state surpreme court. Plus, every recount done after the election left Bush ahead, so even if the Supreme Court had ruled differently, it only would have delayed the inevitable. I hate to quote Scalia, but he is right. Bush fairly won the election. Get over it people. If you want to get rid of Bush, impeach him. Stop whining about what can't be controlled.
-
Bobcat6
Jan. 29, 2007, 1:29 p.m.I need to know something. Do these weirdos all come from different places or the same place? Do people who come up w/this kind of BS have a real job and a real life? Or are they escapees w/a computer? It's amazing the kind of crap nazi liberals come up with and believe. I'll give them a "D" for creativity.
-
prpldwg0507
Jan. 29, 2007, 2:12 p.m.I think it's funny how the left loves to blame everyone but themselves. Ohit's the Supreme Courts fault. What about the fact Fl would not even have mattered if Al Gore won his own state. Maybe that should say something if you can't even win your home state maybe they knew something the rest of us didn't. Even Walter Mondale won his home state.
-
Renep
Jan. 29, 2007, 2:28 p.m.The Truth is that the US Supreme Court had no constitutional right to get involved in the election. That matter was for the Florida State Court to decide. The rightwingers on the Supreme Court saw their chance to select their preferred candidate. And that's what happened. None of you neo-con or right winger BS will ever change that.
-
Harbeas
Jan. 29, 2007, 2:35 p.m.They should not be appointed for life. I won't change my opinion on that.
-
-
donald51
Jan. 29, 2007, 5:04 p.m.#2 most all Dems would have us go and finish the job with OBL and Afghanistan. Most Dems don't believe that merely condemning a nation from afar fits the description of diplomacy.
All Dems I think oppose the defining of torture as only that which kills (thank you Gonzales). Most Dems are infuriated that a US Officer (CPT Yee, former Gitmo Moslem Cleric) was incarcerated for 76 days in solitary confinement and then all charges were dropped, but not before his marriage was ruined.
-
B1BLancer
Jan. 29, 2007, 5:52 p.m.The fact is, racial profiling WORKS. Sorry if you don't like the truth, but it is the truth.
-
TexasMan
Jan. 29, 2007, 4:50 p.m.Hey SageXparadox, in reply to your #6, let's review the real history of this conflict.
In 1990 Sadam attacked Kuwait and occupied it. He was a distinct threat to the entire UAE and Saudi Arabia. President George (Daddy) Bush mounted an offensive that destroyed a great part of Sadam's army. After Sadam was driven from Kuwait and the US forces were advancing on Bagdad, the UN brokered a cease fire that was contingent establishing a no-fly zone and ALLOWING UN WEAPONS INSPECTORS COMPLETE ACCESS TO ANY AND ALL INSTALLATIONS, INDUSTRIAL AND MILITARY. Sadam began violating the terms of the cease fire almost immediately and the UN began passing sanctions and condemnation of these actions but no one had the intestinal fortitude to do anything until 9/11 and President George W. Bush.
The UN resolution allowing military force to be used against Sadam was still in effect and should have been used long before 9/11.
President George W. Bush DID NOT START this war, he finished it.
-
Bruedaddy
Jan. 29, 2007, 4:53 p.m.thanks for the clarification Sage!
Absolutely. If people just read the "patriot act" they might get it...
-
walden3
Jan. 29, 2007, 3:52 p.m.Then why was bush going to sell our ports to mideasterners? Why do the democrats have to put in place the recommendations of the 9/11 commission when the republicons have had the chance to do it for six years?
It's not as simple as you make it out to be and it's going to require more than just parroting talking points.
-
nakedtruth
Jan. 29, 2007, 4:18 p.m.{#1 Demorats oppose the patriot act}
Unfortunately that's not true. Many more voted for it than against it. GOOD Republicans like Ron Paul voted AGAINST the patriot act.
{#2 They oppose us fighting in the middle east to stop terrorists}
Bush supports terrorists. That's why he approved Pakistan's "safe haven" for Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
{#3 They oppose racial profiling}
I guess you long for the "good old days" when dems were racist?
{#4 They oppose tracking terrorists money}
So does Bush. He took FBI agents OFF the 9/11 money trail.
{#5 They oppose placing terrorists into Gitmo}
There are more goat herders than terrorists at Gitmo.
{#6 They oppose efforts to strengthen the Border}
Three words. BUSH AMNESTY PROGRAM
{#7 They oppose oil drilling in Alaska so we don't need to be so dependent on the Middle east oil}
Go watch "Who killed the electric car" and then come back and try to talk.
(continued)
-
nakedtruth
Jan. 29, 2007, 4:20 p.m.{#8 They oppose wire taps} Again unfortunately many did not. But good CONSITUTION LOVING Republicans like Ron Paul do.
{#9 They oppose interrogation of terrorist prisoners} No you're flat out lying. No one has EVER said no interrogation. Just no torture. Even REPULICAN John McCain has come out against torture because it does NOT work. Much of the MISinformation in the "war on terror" comes from torture.
{#10 They even oppose Democrat Joe Lieberman because Lieberman doesn't oppose all the above.}
So a democrat needs to be a racist who goes along with Bush's support for Islamic marxist terrorism in order to get your respect?
{Odd isn't?} Yes. You are odd.
-
joemont
Jan. 29, 2007, 5:36 p.m.secondchance
Now you've done it!
Your post is just flat out too extreme. How dare you put FACTS in front of the mindless, Liberal, Leftist, Dems here at Loonscape.
How dare you confuse them with facts--Your a big, old, nasty meannie!!
Go Jayhawks!!!
(:>)
-
Beeboppin71
Jan. 29, 2007, 6:06 p.m.This will be a long series of posts. Grab a cup of coffee.
#1 - The Patriot Act is a threat to a number of your constitutional rights. Section 802 defines domestic terrorism so broadly that it could apply to an individual exercising his or her freedom of speech, expression, and assembly through acts of civil disobedience.
In addition, section 215 of the PATRIOT Act permits the FBI to seek records from bookstores and libraries of books that a person has purchased or read, or of his or her activities on a library's computer. This change puts people at risk for exercising their free speech rights to read, recommend, or discuss a book, to write an email, or to participate in a chat room, and thus could have the effect of chilling constitutionally protected speech. It also denies booksellers and library personnel the free speech right to inform anyone, including an attorney, that the FBI has asked for someone's reading list.
Patriot Act cont. in next post:
The first 96 comments are shown. Show all 201 comments »
Submit a Story
Advertisement
