I don't think we could've ever had a definitive OBJECTIVE answer on Florida - dragging it out for a statewide recount is a fantasy that Gore fans just cannot let go.
With the fix already in, with massive numbers of potential voters not allowed to vote on that date, the fix was already in. Almost surely, a recount of all 67 Counties would have greatly increased the odds that BUSH would have won in a recount, so I don't really think the diehard Gore fans wanted a statewide recount (which is THE ONLY FAIR method of doing it).
A statewide recount, I think, would have also avoided the Supreme Court decision to stop the recount, because the recount would have been done as prescribed, rather than the way it was done, on a basis which was only "most likely to benefit Gore" in Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, and Leon [Tallahassee} Counties.
I'm still trying to find some of the wording where the Supreme Court said something like needing to make sure the recount was halted, because it "would likely produce results harmful to the plaintiff [Bush]" or something like that. In other words, five of the Justices were not representing jurisprudence or The Constitution at all, but instead they did the bidding of those supporting George W. Bush, i.e. the decision was entirely partisan. (After all, the decision did instead harm the defendant in the VERY same way that a different decision would have harmed Bush, so the Court was showing prejudice.) The Supreme Court never should have heard the case.
Originally Posted by frankfrank Originally Posted by frankfrank View Post
The last I checked, I'm not aware that convicts LOSE their citizenship or basic human rights (other than, of course, to come-and-go and travel at will). I believe voting to be a universal and very basic human right which, once earned, is inalienable outside of Constitutional criminal conduct (i.e. conviction for treason).
Actually, a convict is considered to be civilly dead. That's the whole premise behind restricting their right to move about, speak freely, enter into contracts, freely associate and of course to vote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_death
On the other hand, some things shouldn't be felonies. Posessing drugs that the state has deemed dangerous to your health should not be a barrier to voting. The definition of felony is what is important in this discussion.
Absolutely true, even if disenfranchisement "should" be the law, it's being wildly over-applied and, sometimes, fraudulently so (like when Floridians were bumped off the rolls because they shared the same name as ex-felons in other states like Texas, so they were bumped off "in case they had moved to Florida since" or something, without scrutiny.).
But, if there's a civil death involved, shouldn't that person be required to sign paperwork which says so...and, when their punishment has been fulfilled, they sign another document which reinstates their rights? In other words these rights are being taken away without any documentation at all. Something as serious as this would REQUIRE paperwork, I would think.
The wikipedia article also says this:
It is usually inflicted on persons convicted of crimes against the state or adults determined by a court to be legally incompetent because of mental disability.
Their use of the word "state" in this case doesn't relate to something like Florida or Texas, but to the United States. This disenfranchisement biz has gone far, far beyond any of this. Furthermore, even the worst criminals still have civil rights such as habeas corpas, appeal, no cruel and unusual punishment, etc.
As for the "cruel and unusual" I have an issue, because I think it should be more like "cruel and/or unusual." I think a state could successfully appeal to the "Supremes," as they are now comprised, and argue that their form of CRUELTY to inmates is entirely valid, because it's systemic and therefore not UNUSUAL.
](/images/smilies/bang.gif "Brick wall ](*,)")
