Stretch 8
Topic Author
Posts: 2468
Joined: Fri May 28, 1999 4:00 am

Ms. Harris In Florida

Fri Nov 17, 2000 5:21 am

You have to admit it even if you don't agree with her position, Sec. of State Harris has balls to ignore the State Supreme Court in Florida.

Perhaps President Bush will appoint her ambassador to Chad.
Maggs swings, it's a drive deep to left! The Tigers are going to the World Series!!!
 
Guest

RE: Ms. Harris In Florida

Fri Nov 17, 2000 6:55 am

Ms. Harris' decision was unethical, un-called for, uneducated, unpopular, abusive, and has already destroyed her marginal credibility. It will be thrown out of a court faster than it took her to think it through (now that's fast!). She is now the most hated woman in Florida, which makes me wonder if she has ANY advisors?
 
N312RC
Posts: 2584
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2000 10:58 am

RE: Ms. Harris In Florida

Fri Nov 17, 2000 7:09 am

Were Nuts:
Gore's credibility is LONG GONE, he's such a lier (it's not even marginal)!

Ms. Katherine Harris is upholding the laws of the State Of Florida. All the sudden Gore has to start sueing everybody under the sun because things arent going his way! Gore cant go ahead and try to change the rules now because he isnt winning! I think Ms. Harris is doing the RIGHT, ETHICAL, POPULAR thing.

P.S. People always point the fingers at the Republicans when it's not our fault, its the Democrats. Come try us, youll be pleasantly suprised.
N/A
 
Guest

RE: Ms. Harris In Florida

Fri Nov 17, 2000 7:20 am

The Republicans are just playing   because they want to make the Democrats look bad. Of course if the tables were turned, it would be perfectly okay for the Republicans to whine, cry and sue people left and right until they got their way, right? The Republicans are making absolute asses of themselves, and are the butt of every joke up here in the great, Democratic Northwest.

Ms Harris is against the Supreme Court and many smaller district courts, you think she can actually win? She just trying to stop it now so she gets a comfy seat in Washington. Her decision is VERY unpopular, and will be thrown out immediately. She's only making this unlawful ruling because she's a Republican and Bush is offering her a nice job, so she naturally wants him to win. She's a corrupt, inane, and stupid woman That's what you get when you let the Reps take control.

The Republicans can play the   all they want, they won't silence the will of the people now matter how many illegal, corrupt, and unfair callings they make.
 
woody
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2000 3:14 am

RE: Ms. Harris In Florida

Fri Nov 17, 2000 7:32 am

Let's not forget that Bush was the first of the two to file lawsuit!
 
cba
Posts: 4228
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2000 2:02 pm

RE: Ms. Harris In Florida

Fri Nov 17, 2000 1:21 pm

Bush is going to make Ms. Harris an ambassador if he becomes president. Ms. Harris decides not to count the manually recounted votes in the state total. Coincidence? I don't think so.
 
BranVan3K
Posts: 163
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2000 6:58 am

RE: Ms. Harris In Florida

Fri Nov 17, 2000 1:34 pm

"Ms. Katherine Harris is upholding the laws of the State Of Florida. "

Whoaaaaaa....... Easy there N312RC,

Did you fall asleep during Civics class, every day?
Its COMMON knowledge that the U.S. Supreme court overpowers the state supreme court, and all lower courts must abide by a higher court in the echelon's ruling.

So, if she really was upholding the state law of Florida, she was doing so illegally. Furthering her character into the definition of DOLT.
 
L-188
Posts: 29874
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Ms. Harris In Florida

Fri Nov 17, 2000 1:52 pm

She is a great counter to Bobby Butterfeild who is the attorny general of Florida and is the campaign chair for Gore in Florida.

He is the one that kept putting out pro opinions for counties to do their multiple recounts.

Neither of them are particular impartial but at least they aren't on the same side.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
sccutler
Posts: 5556
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2000 12:16 pm

A Little Clarity, Here

Sat Nov 18, 2000 5:03 am

It's apparent that most of you are confused as to what has been ruled upon, and what rulings have issued.

Secretary Harris' decision is not in derogation of the Florida Supreme Court's ruling of yesterday; the FL high court's ruling merely said that the various counties which wanted to proceed with the hand-counts were not precluded from doing so.

Whether the result of those recounts is eligible to be considered a part of the overall election figures is a separate question, one which was addressed to Leon County Circuit Court Judge Terry Lewis (a Dem, by the way, not that it should matter), who ruled that her actions were proper (consistent with the standard he set forth in his prior ruling, which was that Secretary Harris could not *arbitrarily* refuse to consider late-delivered ballots, and *in the exercise of her discretion* could accept or reject later-filed results).

Secretary Harris requested, from any counties which chose to submit them, proposals of why additional recount ballots should be considered; she took these requests, together with other relevant facts and information (the substance of all of which I am not aware, but would presume to include collateral reasons for non-inclusion), and rejected the requests. Judge Lewis has ruled that, in the totality of the crcumstances and given the facts presented, her rejection was not arbitrary, and was therefore not an abuse of discretion.

I'll be interested in seeing what all was submitted, because Judge Lewis really stuck his neck out, as an elected Democrat, in a heavily-Democratic county. It must have been fairly well-documented.

Given the well-orchestrated P.R. machine the Gore campaign has been operating, it is not a surprise that the legal and proper standards are not being well publicized, but that's the way things are. The judge makes his ruling based upon the law, and the admissible evidence submitted submitted to the court, not based upon opinion polls or public-relations press releases.

This ruling will, of course, be speedily appealed and it will be interesting to see what result obtains; "Abuse of Discretion," in the law, is a very high hurdle to clear. That a ruling does not suit your preferences does not make it an abuse of discretion.
...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
 
Guest

RE: A Little Clarity, Here

Sat Nov 18, 2000 5:46 am

I wouldn't trust clarity from anyone as partisan as you, Sccutler 
 
sccutler
Posts: 5556
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2000 12:16 pm

RE: A Little Clarity, Here

Sat Nov 18, 2000 6:11 am

There is no mystery where my preferences are in this election.

But, if you'll read my prior post, I was explaining the legal significance of the rulings made thus far. I've read Judge Lewis' previous ruling (affirming the 2:00pm deadline; and directing Secretary Lewis to exercise "discretion" in considering whether to admit subsequently-sub,itted votes), and the analysis I've offered is not a partisan treatment, but a mere explanation of its legal significance.

Since no written opinion has been published (so far as I have found) on today's ruling, I cannot analyze it in depth. But, the court has ruled that Secretary Harris lawfully exercised her discretion.

Read again what I wrote; my explanation was not skewed to advocating a particular position; merely explaining the legal standards applicable.

Of course, the general strategy of Gore's camp (and an effective one it has been!) in this whole debate has been to mis-state the law and re-cast facts in the light most favorable. If you choose (as is your God-given right) to be led thusly, that is your choice.

I always try to make it clear when I am expressing opinions, and when I am stating facts and law. The distinction is important. The ability to do so, you will find, tends to develop over time and, therefore, I will presume that your previous post directed at me was the result of youthful exuberance, and was not intended to insult or impugn.

I don't always like the truth, but I always stick with it.
...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
 
Guest

RE: A Little Clarity, Here

Sat Nov 18, 2000 6:28 am

Judge Lewis is a Democrat, BTW. The 7 Justices on the FL Supreme Court are likewise Justices.

She has followed the law, and I fail to see how any violation of the FL State Constitution has been committed, so why should the court hear the case? What case?
 
Guest

RE: A Little Clarity, Here

Sat Nov 18, 2000 10:13 am

Sccutler, just because we have different Presidential preferences doesn't mean I can't poke fun at you.


What I don't understand is why GW doesn't just pay her off with cash! It's a lot easier than going through this hole ambassadorship crap.
 
johnboy
Posts: 2554
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 9:09 pm

RE: Ms. Harris In Florida

Sun Nov 19, 2000 4:59 am

What i wanna know, is why it looks like she sucks on a big lemon right before she goes before the television cameras? She does dress fabulously though. Skirts are just long enough to hide the cob up her arse.
 
Guest

RE: Ms. Harris In Florida

Sun Nov 19, 2000 9:40 am

Singing "Cruella De Ville, Cruella De Ville..."
 
Greeneyes53787
Posts: 817
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2000 10:34 am

RE: A Little Clarity, Here

Sun Nov 19, 2000 12:45 pm

We're Nuts (and I believe him) said, "I couldn't trust clarity from anyone as partisan as you, Sccutler."

What I interpret from this statement and his other threads is, "I couldn't trust clarity from anyone as partisan Republican as you..."

What he failed to say is that he trusts partisans of his persuasion!

Greeneyes

Ps- "We're Nuts" refers to the Democrats I suppose.
 
Guest

RE: Ms. Harris In Florida

Sun Nov 19, 2000 1:37 pm

Oh, one of these days soon someone is going to break down and spill the beans (probably someone who wants immunity or is just plain scared) on the corruption in the Bush campaign with George W, "Jebbie", his cousin on the FOX News (what a joke of a news network) Channel (John Ellis - I think that's his name), and Katherine Harris. When that happens, it's gonna make Watergate look like a picnic in the park (hmmmm...and that was the Republican Party again, wasn't it?)
 
Guest

Greeneyes...

Sun Nov 19, 2000 2:13 pm

Actually, my name, We're Nuts, is dedicated to my favorite airline, Southwest. They often refer to their 2 letter code, WN, as "We're Nuts". Hence my name. I figured when I created it that that sort of "comedy" would only entertain simple minds.
 
cba
Posts: 4228
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2000 2:02 pm

RE: Greeneyes...

Mon Nov 20, 2000 5:49 am

Right on Surf!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: B777LRF, DocLightning, jpetekyxmd80 and 11 guests