• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

O'Connor questions court's decision to take Bush v. Gore

Somerville said:
from the Chicago Tribune, an interview with former Supreme Court Justice, Sandra Day O'Connor



What a different world we would be living in.

Bush v. Gore will be debated for many years to come.
Click to expand...

But the question I have, would there ever have been an end to it. We had the vote, the recount of the vote, the recount of the recount of the vote. Then they started on a recount of the recount of the recount of the vote. They probably would still be recounting the vote for the ten thousandth time today. The craziest aspect of the recount was the ballots in where no one punched a candidate for president. Watching that committee trying to determine which candidate they would have voted for if they had voted for a candidate for president was really, shall I say the last straw.

I was to a point where I didn't care one iota who won, I just wanted it over. The lesson here, if you do not like either major party candidate for president and plan on not voting for the office of president, make sure you either write in a name or vote for a third party. In a close election, some dumb idiot will try to figure out whom you would have voted for even if you didn't want to vote for either one.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Had the Supreme Court not taken up the case, you potentially would have had the State Supreme Court in Florida deciding the Presidential election instead. Would that have been more acceptible? Would it not have been debated for years to come?

People on the country's Supreme Court should not be afraid of controversy. It seems Justice O'Connor was wise to resign before her weakness clouded her judgement.
Click to expand...

The Court improved a lot upon her retirement.
 
Perotista said:
But the question I have, would there ever have been an end to it. We had the vote, the recount of the vote, the recount of the recount of the vote. Then they started on a recount of the recount of the recount of the vote. They probably would still be recounting the vote for the ten thousandth time today. The craziest aspect of the recount was the ballots in where no one punched a candidate for president. Watching that committee trying to determine which candidate they would have voted for if they had voted for a candidate for president was really, shall I say the last straw.

I was to a point where I didn't care one iota who won, I just wanted it over. The lesson here, if you do not like either major party candidate for president and plan on not voting for the office of president, make sure you either write in a name or vote for a third party. In a close election, some dumb idiot will try to figure out whom you would have voted for even if you didn't want to vote for either one.
Click to expand...

I don't know if it's constitutional, but may a slot for "none of the above" would help solve similar problems.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I don't know if it's constitutional, but may a slot for "none of the above" would help solve similar problems.
Click to expand...

Good morning, CJ. :2wave:

And take all the fun out of their lives? That's just plain mean, CJ! :lamo:
 
disneydude said:
Six years of Growth and Jobs under Bush?

Yea that's nonsense.

The economic collapse was due to Clinton's policies that forced lower and "loose " lending standards home mortgages. He also put the GSEs under a " new mission" by putting them under the regulatory control of HUD. HUD placed increasing quotas on Freddie and Fannie to buy up crap loans with a 3% capital requirement.

His BD Attorney General threatened banks with fines and prosecution if they didn't play nice, and then he appointed a criminal to run Fannie Mae.

What, they don't have books in California ?
Click to expand...
 
CanadaJohn said:
I don't know if it's constitutional, but may a slot for "none of the above" would help solve similar problems.
Click to expand...

The constitution leaves it up to the states to make the election laws and the requirements to get on the ballot in any particular state. Nevada has exactly that, none of the above.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom