JR:

Looks that way to me.

What's the point of going on?

------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns

Not until Omega admits that lawyers are smarter at law than he. That is what the argument has been about.

If you'd read the opening posts of this thread, you'll see that Gore's winning the election hasn't really been an issue, and anyone trying to make it the issue is an peacock.

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

(Yeah, I'm suggesting that the court may have been biased, although that's only an opinion, based on some knowledge of human nature and a small bit of legal experience.)

------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master

And yes, sometimes laymen do see things that courts miss. But Jay did refute a lot of Omega's arguments, and Omega ignored those ... so I'm not entirely trusting of Omega's arguments myself.

Now, if you will excuse me, someone just paid me $275 for the official Marto Connor MacLeod sword I sold on eBay. Did I mention I bought it on eBay a few weeks ago for $58? Muwahahahahahahahaha!

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

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

Exactly which point did he refute?

quote:

---

The court overstepped their authority by extending the deadline.

---

The Court stated it's authority...care to show me where that was? I'm sure you fellows have read the opinion of the Court, what was the principle that they used to make their decision? Can you show me that? And before you even ask, yes Sally I can show you, but you haven't read that far it seems.

quote:

---

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

---

Not that I would be legalistic and say that to write a new law requires a signature of the governor so it is impossible for the Court to write "new law". For the slow of thinking, courts are in business to just what the Supreme Court of Florida did.

Party A says they have a problem with the law. Party B says no and challenges Party A and brings the matter to the court. Oh, the Court finds that there is a problem with the law and rules to correct that. Don't go around claiming it ilegal when you haven't looked at the case law that is the basis for the decision. Show me, in black letter law that is was and then we'll talk.

None of what you wrote above has law to back it up. One would hope you would be able to do such if you intend to be critical of a legal decision.

So, we try it from a new angle for the legaly challenged...overriding principle. Anyone?

Look at the Florida constitution sometime. I posted a section of it earlier. It clearly states that one division of the government MAY NOT perform the duties of any other division. Thus, the court may not write new law, as this duty by definition belongs with the legislative branch.

The court MAY NOT write new law. Period. This is in the Florida state constitution, and the only thing that can override THAT is the US constitution. Feel free to point out a clause that allows the judiciary to write new law.

Let's make this as simple as possible:

Premise 1: The Florida constitution states that a court may not create law.

Premise 2: The court created law in their ruling.

Conclusion: Said ruling is unconstitutional.

Simple enough?

Since the logic itself is unassailable, for the conclusion to be false, there must be something wrong with the premises. Therefore, the question is: which premise are you challenging?

Anyway, why don't you answer my question, eh? What premise has the flaw? Where's the hole in the argument? You can't just say, "Well, I've just refuted that argument," without saying HOW you did so. If you refuted my argument, that means that you must have found a hole in the logic somewhere. Surely you wouldn't mind pointing out exactly where?

Overriding principle. Look it up.

Did it never occur to you that there is a difference between interpreting existing law and writing completely new law where none existed?

As for your "overriding principle", I can find no reference to it, anywhere. Feel free to explain.

I stated before, that your basic questions are flawed so the rest is moot. If only you could understand the first time so I don't have to keep telling you this.

Overriding principle anyone?

------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns

You know, you could just as easily have said, "You're wrong. I'm not going to say why, but you're wrong. Coffee?" It would have meant as much.

How can my basic questions be flawed? I'm ASKING no questions. I simply state fact, and deduce from that fact. Now put up or shut up. Show me the hole in my logic, show me the incorrect premise, or swallow your pride and learn something.

You have no clue about constitutional law and you can't accept the fact that you have not clue. You spouting the same tripe over and over. I've told you that your basic premise that the Court acted in an extra legal manner is flawed. The rest of your points are moot. Or did you miss that part in my previous posts. You must have cause oh, look, there it is.

All the rest is conservative bluster and wind with not a single point of black letter law to back it up. You know, cases that say that this is why I'm ruling the way I'm ruling?

Read the opinon legal scholar.

Overriding principle in this case anyone? Omega doesn't know what that means.

------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns