"At this point though you need to concede that there are several people on the Florida Bench who have had more study in law than you or I."

One does not concede a point one has never contested to begin with. All I know is that I have made legitimate points for the position of their ruling being illegal, and pretty darned good ones, at that. I also know that no one has responded to these points. Therefore, these points stand until such time as someone sees fit to respond to them.

Jay, don't you get that what you're basically saying is, "Logic and deduction is irrelevant. I'm going to blindly assume the supreme court of Florida got it right?" Don't you see any inherant danger in that? In not examining the issue for yourself?

Ritten:

"Omega, this is a battle for you, oh well spoken one."

Then start another thread.

JK:

"how dare the audacity!"

Um... buh?

And since that made about as much rational sense as the rest of your post...

------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"

You made an earlier post in which you said "how dare I have the audacity" or some such. I was simply responding to that, by saying that of COURSE you can have the audacity to challenge anything you want! In doing so, people who disagree with you will challenge you ... much the same in other threads here on the flameboard. Which is the point that I was trying to make.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Rated 7 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Rated 7 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux

You, always. I was simply pointing out to any rational beings that might be reading this thread (read: not you) my reason for not responding to your post directly. The topic remains the same.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Rated 7 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux

Ah, yes, I forgot, you also know my thoughts better than I do. Darnit, you're ahead of me at every turn.

Does ANYONE here think JK has any credibility left after that one?

Now if someone would care to respond to the points I've made, do. Otherwise, this debate's over, and First and I win.

This thread will NOT turn into another inquisition. If it does, I will see that it gets locked.

This is my last word on this subject. Please return us to topic, someone.

Ok

Thank You.

------------------
Well, it's done, yes, the deed is done.

Omega, you've got no credibility, period. If First wins this argument, he does so by his own arguments, and on his own, and I think its kind of arrogant of you to assume you've a part of that.

I believe the topic was about law. Lawyers know the law. Therefore, they know how to interpret it better than the average layman. A judge is a lawyer, hence, he/she knows how to interpret the law. Yes, or no?

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Rated 7 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux

I did not read the whole stuff that Jay posted about precedent. It could be there. But unless there is some sort of loophole in there that allows an extension to the deadline due to certain "mitigating" circumstances, the courts pretty much had no right to give the extension. I believe that it is Katherine Harris' authority to give an extension, is it?

Omega: Though you may have provided valid points, Jay may have provided points of his own that are valid in his point of view. Please do not assume that unless everyone thinks your way, you are the one who is right. Everyone has a right to an interpretation which is based on fact. Most people however, will see another person's interpretation differently as the way that they themselves, not the other person, see it. I don't exactly know what Jay is trying to say, since I haven't read all that stuff, and I certainly don't know what the Judges were thinking about. There may be something buried in the large piles of law books out there.

P.S.: It seems like Bush Won, to which I react- Wonderful. Finally, all this crap is behind us. Now us Canadians will worry about our own election.

------------------
"My Name is Elmer Fudd, Millionaire. I own a Mansion and a Yacht."
Psychiatrist: "Again."

Of course, she was not given any good reason to extend the deadline, and therefore did not. The Supreme Court (shall we say, arbitrarily?) threw out the law regarding the deadline and wrote a new one. They do not have that authority, and therefore their ruling was illegal. They also wrote in an entirely new qualification, saying that Katherine Harris could not reject the late returns arbitrarily, which is NOT in the law. She can reject them for whatever reason she wants.

Oh, and BTW, I'm not saying Jay's wrong just because he disagrees with me. There IS one right answer here, and I believe I've got it. If someone has a good reason why I don't, let me know.

------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"

quote:

---

Jay, don't you get that what you're basically saying is, "Logic and deduction is irrelevant. I'm going to blindly assume the supreme court of Florida got it right?" Don't you see any inherant danger in that? In not examining the issue for yourself?

---

quote:

---

There IS one right answer here, and I believe I've got it.

---

Again, on both counts I disagree. I am not following the Court and it's decision as a matter of course; rather I agree with the Court's decision and it's discretionary finding of the statute. The Court made very clear that it's ruling was based on precident and not made of whole cloth which you seem to argue.

quote:

---

Allowing the manual recounts to proceed in an expeditious manner, rather than imposing an arbitrary seven-day deadline, is consistent not only with the statutory scheme but with prior United States Supreme Court pronouncements:

• Indiana has found, along with many other States, that one procedure necessary to guard against irregularity and error in the tabulation of votes is the availability of a recount. Despite the fact that a certificate of election may be issued to the leading candidate within 30 days after the election, the results are not final if a candidate's option to compel a recount is exercised. A recount is an integral part of the Indiana electoral process and is within the ambit of the broad powers delegated to the States by Art. I, s 4.

  ---

As you have offered no evidence other than your single minded argument that "may" always means "shall", I therefore believe that your interpretation is legally unsubstantiated and your position not sustainable in the light of the precident cited by the Court.

Ruling in favor of the Florida Supreme Court.

Next case.

Really? Well...

"Allowing the manual recounts to proceed in an expeditious manner, rather than imposing an arbitrary seven-day deadline, is consistent not only with the statutory scheme but with prior United States Supreme Court pronouncements"

Well, DUH! Allowing that Katherine Harris did have the authority to extend the deadline, it is obviously consistant with law. HOWEVER, it is NOT consistant with law for the court to usurp that authority. It his her decision, and her decision alone. The power to extend the deadline, or conversly, to deny such extention, is vested solely in the Secretary of State, NOT the Supreme Court.

They still rewrote the law to extend the deadline, since they did not have that authority, and they still rewrote it to qualify SecState's authority over it. They're still overstepping their bounds.

"As you have offered no evidence other than your single minded argument that "may" always means "shall""

"Always"? Did I say "always"? I must have missed that.

You know, you do real damage to your credibility when you put words into my mouth.

And since you are not responding to my current argument, but instead to a previous and only prehipheraly related one, my points still stand.

Let's go through this very simply.

1) The court overstepped their authority by extending the deadline.

1. The court extended the deadline. This is not in dispute.
2. Therefore, the question is whether the court overstepped it's authority in doing so.
3. Nowhere in the law is it stated or implied that any entity other than the Election Canvasing Board, of which the Secretary of State Katherine Harris is head, has any authority over the deadline.
4. Therefore, the court did not have the authority to extend said deadline.
5. Therefore, the court excersized authority not allowed them.
6. Therefore, the court overstepped its bounds.

QED

2) The court created new law by stating that Katherine Harris may not arbitrarily reject late-filed returns, thus rendering the ruling invalid.

1. The court said this, and this is not in dispute.

2. This portion of the ruling must, by nature, either be derrived from existing law, or it must be completely new law.
3. The court does not have the authority to create completely new law.
4. Therefore, for this portion of the ruling to be legal, it must have been derrived from pre-existing law.
5. No law from which this could have been logically derrived has been presented. Therefore, until such time as it is, we can not assume that such law exists.
6. Since this ruling can not have been based on existing law, it must be completely new law.
7. Since the court does not have the authority to make new law, this ruling is illegal.

QED

Point to the EXACT premise or conclusion that you believe is incorrect.