Al Gore was prevented from being president by a court, so WTF are these fascist assholes talking about.🙄
@StillIRise1963 I think we all thought that Bush v. Gore would be back, even though it was supposed to be a precedent. 😅
@timo21 @StillIRise1963
Keith Olbermann had an interesting point on Countdiwn last night:
If #SCOTUS rules for the constitution and bars #trump, the entire US (save a few hardcore fascists) will be with them. If they crap all over the constitution (again) they’ll be on their own, lacking any legitimacy at all.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/countdown-with-keith-olbermann/id1633301179?i=1000639174004
@timo21 If you read Bush v Gore they weren't applying oversight overstate elections.
They were applying oversight over a state court that was misapplying federal law.
@volkris @Joe_Hill @StillIRise1963 That's sort of a distinction without a difference isn't it? Because it is contestable whether the state court was wrong.
@timo21 no it's a huge difference because it's the difference between the Supreme Court acting within or without jurisdiction, and controlling an election versus controlling a different court.
It's a huge difference in part because of the separation of powers, the fundamental idea in the US that different branches of government are different, with checks between them.
So yeah, huge difference.
@volkris @Joe_Hill @StillIRise1963 we will just have to disagree. The SCOTUS stopping a valid vote count in progress being performed according to state law is absolutely political judicial activism, no matter how it is dressed up. After the vote count was completed would have been the time for SCOTUS to intervene.
@timo21 but if you read the ruling from SCOTUS, that's not what happened.
That is a factually wrong recounting of events.
@volkris @Joe_Hill @StillIRise1963 umm... no. Like I said, we will have to disagree on this. & of course I've read the ruling. The fact is, SCOTUS prevented Florida from determining the actual winner. That was the inarguable outcome, and it set a corrupt precedent. The SCOTUS tried to dress it up, but most people saw the activism for what it was. And the tragedy is it was unnecessary, as Bush may have won anyway.
@timo21 so that is a factual disagreement that we are not going to be able to get past.
That is absolutely not in the version of the ruling that I read, so I don't know what version you are reading, but there's really no way for us to move forward from there.
The sky is a different color in your world.
@volkris @Joe_Hill @StillIRise1963 There was no law giving SCOTUS oversight over state elections before Bush v. Gore, just an activist conservative court in action. Congress can set federal election proceedings per the constitution, but the Court deciding an election was new.