This was supposed to be fun...

**Pete Hanlin** · 12-13-2000, 01:19 PM

Well, "my" side won- so I guess I should be really happy... For some reason, however, at this point in "the game" I feel a lot of other emotions as well- such as:

Regret- Although "my side" won, I don't get the impression that all Americans feel that "our side" won (and I mean beyond the usual bad feelings that come when your candidate loses). At first glance, it appears that we are now content to retreat back to our opposing camps and glare with distrust at the "enemy."

Anger- As regretful as I feel regarding the lack of unity with this outcome, I feel angry that there are obviously those who seem to be taking advantage of the opportunity to intentionally divide this country. This decision is not equivalent to the Dred Scott decision, Mr. Jackson, but you seem bent on setting race relations in this country back 20 years regardless of the facts. The Supreme Court did not "steal" this election for anyone, Mr. Wexler, but you feel free to cast dispersions wherever you please.

Disgust- I'm watching coverage of the Vice President's house last night after the decision, and there are actually Republican supporters there goading him- that's disgusting. Conversely, I'm watching Judy Woodruff on CNN and she appears to be on the verge of crying. The First Amendment guarantees both the right of the former group to be jerks and the right of Ms. Woodruff to be disingenuous in her "objective reporting of the news," but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

Bewilderment- I honestly cannot understand how a fair-minded individual can fail to grasp the reality of what has happened over the past five weeks. People who I know to be intelligent and rational blather on about "counting every vote." The Supreme Court did not say votes shouldn't be counted. It did, however, recognize that it is fundamentally unfair to conduct a counting campaign of confusion without consistent standards in a manner that places speed and politics above reasoned investigation. Also, no one seems to notice that- before the vote counting stopped on Saturday- Bush was increasing his lead in the final recount. The stay issued last Saturday by the Supreme Court did not affect the recount in the end, because the method of that recount was found to be flawed and unconstitutional- which means a new recount would have had to have been performed, anyway.

Hope- Finally, though, I feel hope. Hope that the rhetoric and politics of the past month will yield to the real issues facing our country: maintaining our economy, caring for our senior citizens, helping each person to take advantage of their right to help themselves, and ensuring that those under 40 are not throwing their Social Security money away. My dog won, but now he needs to be up to the task. I think we can all agree that we'll all be better off if he proves to be.

Pete "don't get me wrong, though, I definitely feel happy" Hanlin

PS- Sorry for another long post. For a political junkie like me, this has been a very long election.

**shanbaum** · 12-13-2000, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by Pete Hanlin:
My dog won, but now he needs to be up to the task. I think we can all agree that we'll all be better off if he proves to be.

Surely, we can.

**stephanie** · 12-13-2000, 02:42 PM

I,too, feel the same way Pete. I think so what we won, what does this mean? It had to end eventually. I think if both men (one in particular)love this country so much they should have given in long ago. I think it is more about winning and power than it is about the best thing for this nation(once again one in particular). Yea sure kids in school are seeing history being made, but is this really what we want to teach them???? Ok boys and girls if you are competition and you think you won even though you really may not have keep dragging it along until you DO win. I think it is a terrible lesson if you asked me.
Steph

**EyeManFla** · 12-13-2000, 02:51 PM

Actually, the Supreme Court did the Democrats a favor. They knew that Algore was lame, but they had no one else.
As far as the Rev. Jackson is concerned, why anyone takes what he says is beyond me. The man hav never had a REAL job in his life! The only time he tried to run for political off (not that half-assed try for the White House, but for Mayor of DC) he chickened out because he would have to go against ol'crackhead and he knew he would lose.
Democrats will always cry foul, citing racism, or Republicans are mean,or the moon is in the seventh house and Jupiter's aligned with Mars! IT'S ALL THEY GOT!!!!!
For almost 50 years, the DEMOCRATIC Supreme Court has "legislated" social change and the Democrats are ****** because a REPUBLICAN Supreme Court finally said NO! It is not the job of the courts to create law, but uphold it!
If the democrats want to blane somebody...blame Ralph Nader!

**shanbaum** · 12-13-2000, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by EyeManFla:
For almost 50 years, the DEMOCRATIC Supreme Court has "legislated" social change and the Democrats are ****** because a REPUBLICAN Supreme Court finally said NO! It is not the job of the courts to create law, but uphold it!

That fails utterly to accurately describe what was decided; if you want to read the decision, there's a link at www.cnn.com. There were actually six opinions delivered; the literal interaction amongst the members of the Court is remarkable. Excellent reading.

I found it fascinating that the Federal Supremes ultimately held (in the per curiam opinion - the one that governs) that the Florida Supremes failed to provide sufficient instruction so as to provide "equal protection" in the recount - which is to say, they didn't go far enough in what you would call "creating new law".

There's another article you should read at http://www.tnr.com/121100/chait121100.html; some of it may sound familiar.

**Blake** · 12-13-2000, 04:01 PM

After all of the scrutiny and even ridicule Florida has been subjected to the past five weeks, I hope it is still possible for them to pull a few lessons out of this whole thing. First of all, their election laws are pretty vague. The so-called standard of "discerning voter intent", which was enacted in 1917 long before punch card machines,is quite ambiguous, opening the door to all this talk about "dimpled chads" and the like. However, it was impossible for any branch of federal or state gov't to impose a standard after the election, as this would be illegal. At least now, everyone knows that their vote will count if they execute it according to the instructions provided at the polling place. Now would be a good time for all states to look closer at their election codes, to prevent such problems in the future.
I don't want anyone, liberal or conservative, to stop believing passionately in what they believe. But we must realize that standing on the street waving signs and yelling at each other is not productive. You're not likely to change someone's mind by calling them stupid, or accusing them of stealing the election.

just my thoughts on the matter...

Blake

**Jeff Trail** · 12-13-2000, 04:39 PM

I don't know about you guys, but it scares me to death if the highest court in the land is "voting" or diciding issues based on political affiliation.
If anything should be based on law and unbiased positions then it would be supreme court or we are in a world of hurt. If anyone thinks the Supreme Court should base its findings based on political affiliation should go back and take some civic's classes.
I think people wanted to base the choice the courts made on political leanings and if they did so(the courts) then they should be removed.. all the way from the lower to the supreme court.
I am tired of people saying "those dumb Democrats" etc. etc. .. the last I seen party affiliation had NOTHING to do with how "smart" they were.
Those republicans (that the courts found DID do things illegally)are pathetic sneaks, but do I think EVERY republican is sneaky and doing things they know are illegal? Nope.
I think people should use a little more brain power and not throw around blanket statements that a lot of us find very insulting.
It is anyones right to say and feel the way they do but this democrat tells you to kiss my @$$ if you are calling me "dumb" and a "thief" and some of the other remarks I have seen posted.

To bad most of you do NOT consider things in the light posters like Pete, Darris and Chad do and show a little respect for your fellow Americans even if they do not agree with your political leanings...

Jeff "to disgusted by the comments of some to post a worthy quote" Trail

**Pete Hanlin** · 12-13-2000, 05:53 PM

I think the charge that the US Supreme Court acted politically is baseless. If you read their decisions, seven of the nine came to the conclusion that the Florida's Supreme Court decision was (at least in part) unconstitutional.
Two of the seven felt that the case could yet be resolved by the Florida court and wanted to send it back for a "third try;" the other five felt the issue could not be resolved fairly in the time that is left.
Furthermore, if you look at the individual Supreme Court justices, you will see that there were Republican appointees who dissented.
History will show that this was probably the best decision that could have been reached by the court (I think a future examination of all the ballots will also show that Bush did, indeed, win Florida.)
My regret and disgust do not extend to our nation's highest court. I'll sit back and see if V.P. Gore can raise my opinion of him and his circle with a dutiful and well-worded concession tonight. I "feel his pain" as someone who had ambitions that appear to have gone unmet, but I'm waiting to see if he is going to make good on the "country ahead of self" statements he's made these past few weeks.

Pete "Mr. Vice-President, you have the stage" Hanlin

**Darris Chambless** · 12-13-2000, 08:43 PM

Howdy Pete,

US Supreme Court = Politically biased? No. They had to have used the Marbury vs. Madison case to determine the constitutionality of Florida's Supreme Court decision. I'm 100% positive that neither the Florida Supreme Court nor the US Supreme Court ever had any desire to play the role it did in this election. They were left with some pretty hard decisions to make and I don't envy them the job.

I don't think that the US Supreme Court necessarily stepped in and said "No" to the Florida Supreme Court to spite them, but it did uphold the law.

Like I said Marbury vs. Madison.

Darris C.

**Carol D** · 12-13-2000, 10:22 PM

Pete,
I couldn't agree with you more! Your remarks have to be the most eloquent wrap up of this entire circus.
If you ever run for office, you have my vote.

Carol D