Slashdot Mirror
Democrats Hire Army of Lawyers for Elections
Neil Blender writes in that the Democrats are hiring tens of thousands of lawyers to contest election results. This is nothing new, except for the apparent magnitude of it, and it gives the idea of tort reform a whole new meaning. The Republican party is relying on state parties to hire the lawyers, if necessary.
If they had gotten all the lawyers earlier, they might have been able to keep Nader off even *more* ballots!
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
The election was never stolen. The lawsuit was to prevent the Democrats from cherry-picking where and how they recounted votes. Furthermore, a recount WAS completed in early 2001 and Bush still won.
Say huh?
Wrong topic. Wrong ideaology. I'm not sure where you get the idea that Libertarians nly care about their own property rights but....erm, okay.
What's done is done (so far as I'm aware, is there some outstanding battle to get back land?), so as my wife loves to keep telling me, don't try to do the absurd to attempt to undo something that can't be undone.
I grew up in a home where I had a stepmother that expected the insane to simply make a point when I'd done something incorrect that couldn't be 'fixed'. Used the wrong spoon to stir dinner? Pull out the correct one and dirty it too. That sort of stupidity.
We're not the ones that took land away from the native americans. Our forefathers did, yes. The native americans of today aren't the ones that had the land taken away. We cannot reasonably undo what has been done.
Whomever you are, whatever partisanship you claim, whatever your agenda, to hold over everyone else's heads a crime that was perpetrated over a century ago...the words escape me to describe it.
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
They really couldn't say that though, because these are just changes in assignment. After all, with the SCO suits winding down, Boies' firm had to do something with their junior attorneys. $31M only goes so far.
sigs, as if you care.
It should be settled one way or another by the first week of January of 2005. If the electoral college can't call the election by then, I would think that it goes to the House. Somebody will be seated as the President in January.
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
You're getting your cause and effect mixed up. The article isn't anti-Democratic; the editorial commentary is.
I can't say that I blame either party for preparing ranks of lawyers; litigation is apparently how you win close elections is this country.
without substanciating this charge with a single piece of evidence
How often do people substantiate their charges in a 20-second radio snippit?
Especially when it can be substantiated so easily:
I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year.
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
I'm not sure of the implications, but the final paragraph tells us the Bush campaign has $6 million in their legal fund while the Kerry has $4.6 (as of the end of august). I suppose it's unclear whether that's a result of expenditures Kerry has already made or if it indicates the Bush campaign's willingness to engage in similar tactics.
Regardless, I think I agree with the spirit of the poster. This is depressing. Is it better for there to be fierce litigation, proving the affair to be the horse and pony show it is, or for one of these rather lackluster candidates to win a definitive victory?
Do you know your candidates? At least go to http://www.vote-smart.org/ and learn their names.
She's stating fact. Diebold has publically supported GW's candidacy. They are a private company, and are permitted to do so.
I believe they've given money to both political campaigns. It's in their financial best interest to be cozy with the parties that control how elections are run. It is obviously a source of potential election fraud. If not for the Republicans in particular, than at least for Diebold . Why is that an irrational "mindset"?
(And what is the relevance of the senator's race, you idiot fuck? Flamebait is right.)
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
No, you dirtied the wrong spoon. You do know what spoons are for, don't you? Didn't that mother of yours teach you anything important?
Sorry. I think your stepmother and my ex-wife could have been good little harpy friends.
sigs, as if you care.
Sigh... how soon we forget.
When an election is very close (and the 2000 election was *extremely* close) you can always ask what would have happened if, say, voters weren't improperly purged from the rolls. There are a million ways in which things didn't turn out as maybe they should have.
So please don't ignore the obvious problems of the 2000 election. Pretending that Bush was the obvious winner shows both ignorace and disrespect for democratic values.
How do I sign up?
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
Yea just hope the democrats buy allot of ciggeretts again so they can hand them out to the homeless in Madison WI like thye did in 2000. Maybe they will have a judge in their pocket again who will order pools open later only in a democratic area of a close state like they did in St Louis...
See we know you're full of it when you don't even know the proper adjective form of the DEMOCRATIC Party.
That's tens of thousands of lawyers who are now too preoccupied to mess up other things.
It was CSPAN, ok? CSPAN, not a talk radio show.
The "clip" was actually live coverage and had been going on for more than 10 minutes. During the time, she continued to list other reasons why The Evil Republicans were already underway with a huge election coup without referencing a single source or fact.
Why is that an irrational "mindset"?
Maybe because it implies that they are somehow going to rig their machines?
To state that the companies higher ups support a certain candidate is perfeclty fine. Any sane person would not care. But to imply that because they support a certain candidate and are therefore somehow planning to tip the election to their favor?
Do you honestly not realize the seriousness of that? The senator clearly didn't, and I'm shocked that people here aren't either, blinded as they are by their Bush Bash 2004! ideology.
Perhaps the reason that the Dems are getting lawyer'd up is that they feel (as do a lot of Americans) that the Republicans stole the last election? I fail to see how that paints liberals in a bad light.
stuff
"[I]s there some outstanding battle to get back land?"
Many Native people work every day to get the land back that they would have recieved from their forefathers.
Your forefathers did, yes, and you recieved it from them. It is stolen. What you are saying is as that if your father stole a painting, and you received it from him, then the true owner or the inheritor of his estate doesn't have any right to it anymore.
Perhaps, you're right, perhaps it can't be reasonably undone completely, but it can be undone somewhat. And which Libertarians, those O' so noble defenders of natural rights, have ever given the stolen land they've recieved back to its rightful owner? I'm going to have to lean towards "not a single one."
The native Americans of today are the ones that have had their land taken away. It is their land, they are people to, they have an inalienable right to their own property, and they havve rights to the property of their ancestors passed down to them as their people did for thousands of years before it was mostly stolen by settlers. Their "inalienable" rights are not respected by scarcely anyone apart from themselves. And that's why the Libertarians are hypocrites: they will gladly disrespect others property rights when it benefits them.
Why didn't they do something before now to change the damn laws they do not like?
Maybe because it implies that they are somehow going to rig their machines?
They have rigged their machines, and that is also accepted fact. They have rigged them to remove the possibility of a legitimate audit.
That is certainly different from rigging it for a particular candidate, but the fact that they are willing to do this lesser form of fraud makes it seem completely plausible that they could do a greater form of fraud.
While it is certainly not proven that Diebold machines will be used to give an advantage to GW, it is also not irrational to suspect them. Their machines are begging for election fraud, in favor of either candidate.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Diebold uses 802.11b wireless networking for (atleast some) of their booths... This is extremely hackable, sniffable, and crackable... hell it is LAUGHable. Completely insecure.. Anyone within signal distance(couple hundred feet with a palm pilot) could compromise the entire vote count by dozens or thousands.
There machines have been hacked into numerous times. Right there in the booth, for testing puproses, they have been compromised. There are 3-5 line scripts that can be run on the machines that can cast X number of votes however you want.
These machines are not secure, in any form. Besides which, they leave no recountable papertrail, they are only end results with no verification.
AND, the CEO has publicly said he will do everything he can to get Bush elected.
>Maybe because it implies that they are somehow going to rig their machines?
Considering they have avoided oversight BEFORE in elections tapering with machines AFTER state inspections I wouldn't exactly say that it is beyond them.
Now lets be a lil synical:
Diebold has #1
Broken State Election code on numerous documented occasions.
#2 tampered with machines with no verifiable proof that results were NOT changed due to their tampering.
#3 holes exist in the software to change results leaving absolutely no trail of original tallied vote.
#4 has publically stated support for a particular candidate.
#5 should I even mention #3 could be done remotely at some setups becuase of how diebold constructed the systems?
Remember it doesn't take a whole company. It only takes one political zelout in the company who decides to use such information to change a few votes.
Diebold has publically supported GW's candidacy.
No, a person publically supported his candidacy, not the company.
Pretending that Bush was the obvious winner
"Pretending"? He won. Later recounts showed he would have won had the existing (unconstitutional) recount completed. This is all entirely factual, and obvious. No pretending necessary.
Bush's problem is that true conservatives remember their history. They recall that in recent years when the nation enjoyed the fruits of actual conservative fiscal and security policies, a Democrat occupied the White House and Congress was controlled by a Republican majority that actually fought for a substantive conservative agenda.
History's a troublesome thing for presidents. Even though most voters don't take much of a historical perspective into the voting booth with them, true conservatives do. Hmmm. Who's the Libertarian candidate again?
If someone like bob barr endorses Badnarik, this could get REALLY interesting.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
I was under the impression that native americans were nomadic tribes that didn't have the concept of land ownership.
That is, after they 'stole' it from the buffalo.
I was listening to CSPAN radio this evening and heard some Democrat senator, who, incidentally, had an ebonics overtone in her voice (seriously, no flamebait intended, this is what I heard), making absolutely outrageous accusations like "diebold, the company who is making the current electronic voting machines, has ties to the current administration" without substanciating this charge with a single piece of evidence, and continued to rant on with these mindless and baseless accusations.
Ummm actually there is a lot of evidence of a Diebold/Bush adminstration link documented in the media. I find it hard to believe you regulary listen to CSPAN radio and not know about the mass amount of evidence. What does the "ebonics overtone" have to do with anything? Maybe you listen to KKKSPAN radio?
Oh.
s f?/base/news/1086687227191651.xml
You're right.
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.s
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Let's see...
- Republican president
- Republican-controlled House
- Republican-controlled Senate AND
- 5-to-4 Repuglican control of the Supreme Court
And here's How A Bill Becomes A Law
Did we learn NOTHING from Schoolhouse Rock?
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
Welcome to congress! Read the congressional register. This is par for the course man. Same shit day in day out.
How is the above post flamebait? He is point out factual events from the 2000 election?
- Republican president
- Republican-controlled House
- Republican-controlled Senate AND
- 5-to-4 Repuglican control of the Supreme Court
President: Yes
House: Yes
Senate: From 2000 - 2002 the Democrats held the majority 50-49-1 (D) - (R) - (I) with the defection for Jeffords who was a republican, went indep, and caucases with the Democrats.
Supreme Court: Neither party controls the court, the court rules for the boy scouts one day, and against the ten commandments the next, the day after striking down a texas sodomy law. It really is a rather unpredictable body right now.
You have two judges who are solidly conservative, two judges who are solidly Liberal, two who lean and one who floats depending on the issue.. Almost every major decision is 5-4 but there is not pattern to what 'side' wins..
Dont feel bad one out of 2 out of 4 is a great average if you were playing baseball...
Remember, last time Al Gore had the army of lawyers, and Bush had a premature declaration of victory from Fox News.
Guess who won.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
To quote the bottom of the article:
Kerry had about $4.6 million in his legal fund at the end of August, and Bush had about $6 million, commission reports show
Your take on the Senate would be accurate if everyone voted the party line. Zell Miller(D-Hell) comes to mind.
Since the Supremes don't really come into the lawmaking process until after the fact(so to speak), and then have a proven 5-4 track record as far as the whole voting issue goes, I think my point's pretty valid.
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
Sorry, but that is not true. Fox news DID NOT prematurely declare Bush the winner in Florida, it did so after several other networks did.
Don't believe anything michael moore said, he's a liar and that movie you saw was full of lies. I honestly can't even believe that you believe something that has been proven false countless times already.
So, what I can extract from this is that you think native Americans are sub-human, comparable with buffalo. As if killing native Americans is equivalent to killing buffalo. Don't worry though, you'll always have lots of company who would no doubt support your view.
I almost agree with you, here. It doesn't get any closer than Bush vs. Gore, but I don't think we're going to see a landslide for another 12 years. In other words, get used to these legal battles.
You lose me when you start with a salient point, but conclude with partisan BS. There were dozens of lawsuits filed by/on behalf of Bush and Gore, with respect to different issues, in Florida. Republicans initiated many of these suits, but Democrats initiated the rest. IIRC, the majority of these suits were brought by Democrats, and many of them had little or no factual or legal basis whatsoever.
And, let's not forget, we do NOT live in a democracy, so the tired battle cry of "Gore won the popular vote," means nothing. While we can sit here and maybe even be strangely comfortable with a purely democratic system amongst ourselves, a relatively small community of people that share a number of common ideals, the situation is a bit more complex when you take into account the number of people that vote purely on emotion/ego/peer-pressure. Surely, you don't want to bow to the popular opinion of all the people that think Farenheit 9/11 is an unbiased, upstanding representation of facts, just as you probably don't want to subjugate yourself to the will of people that hate Kerry solely based on his post-war activities.
Now, as you are reading this and thinking about what a Republican puppet I am, you can realize that the Electoral College is there to insulate you somewhat from the massive defection that might be caused by my release of a video showing Kerry having goat.cx with a bunch of ketchup bottles, while still giving a great deal more than lip service to your trumpet about democratic values.
As someone over at Despair, Inc. realized, "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups." I personally like the footnote there about disoriented Palm Beach voters.
Sincerely, a Palm Beach Libertarian
main(){char I,l,O[]={'-',1-1,0,(1<<5)-1,0+'-',-10-1,-10,11-0,
If EACH and EVERY one of us (EVERYONE nationwide) would just do their duty to Country and Nation by killing 10 lawyers apiece, we might bring teir numbers back under control and end this pestilence!
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
I don't think it's the laws that they don't like, it's the President. *shrug*
stuff
Hey, if you hire tens of thousands of lawyers, that becomes a veritable "army", you say? Hrm. While we suffer from an excess of lawyers in this country, we need to send tens of thousands of more personnel to Iraq in order to win...
Could it be that the Democrats have a secret plan for how to win the war?
Amazing that they can feel that way even after all the recounts sponsored by organizations that didn't like Bush failed to show he lost.
How does that paint liberals in a bad light?
Simple, it proves their blind hatred and refusal to admit defeat has led to ignorance that we don't even tolerate in children.
Keep pouting, its pretty fricking funny to observe.
Later recounts showed he would have won had the existing (unconstitutional) recount completed
They also showed that if a recount had happened across the entire state of FL (much more than what the Democrats were asking for), Gore would've won.
Gore got more votes in FL, and yet Bush won the state.
It seems that both parties are pretty lawyer'ed up. The last election showed that you need to geed the judge vote as well, so the campaigns are doing the necessary GOTjV activity.
Senate: From 2000 - 2002 the Democrats held the majority 50-49-1 (D) - (R) - (I) with the defection for Jeffords who was a republican, went indep, and caucases with the Democrats.
Bzzzzt! Wrong answer! Jeffords didn't defect until 2001, it was because of the way the Bush administration treated him. He appearently wasn't ideologically pure enough for the Bushies so Karl Rove decided to hold a dinner for Vermont Teachers and not invite him. That tended to piss him off so he changed his affiliation to Independent to punish the Republicans. You think they would have learned their lesson, but alas......
Monstar L
Here is a question for you pudge, why is an editor, who has unlimited mod points and an obvious agenda to push(look at the bias in the article summary, even the from-the dept. is biased, enough said), is also allowed to post in the forum. I think after this little doozy you need to be banned from being able to post stories to the politics section; you are just showing what a pile of biased bullshit it really is.
Monstar L
and continued to rant on with these mindless and baseless accusations.
Unsubstanciated accusations are not all baseless.
This is a great example of the contradiction and hypocracy where people want each vote to be counted, verified, and validated, but they are unwilling to put into place a mechanism that properly validates the voter. There are plenty of ways to legally identify yourself, and if you don't take the time to obtain and provide the proper identification, you deserve the consequenses for your lack of responsibility. This is not rocket science.
WTF. You have had four years since the last election to register. You have had four years of multiple state and local elections and primaries to go and verify that you are properly registered. If you decide not to be involved in the process, then don't expect the process to involve you.
The real problem is gradual the removal of personal responsibility from the process through poltically correct and partisan legislation that is killing a process that should not be rocket science.
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
We (the US) don't need lawyers, we need UN monitors, and we've got those. Of course it wouldn't hurt if the media would hold off reporting a winner until there actually is one; the "gentlemanly" thing to do would be to stop depending on "forecasts" and guesses about projected winners, and wait until there's actually a winner, beyond a shadow of a doubt.
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
ah... EXCUSE ME!!! The CEO of Diebold is on the public record of actively supporting the Bush "re"-election campaign and is a champion of Republican causes. His belated recantations can do nothing to alter this fact. Case closed!@!#@$!$ Oh and what the Q#$Q@#$ does ebonics overtones have to do about anything huh???
Almost all election laws are a state matter. ;->
It does not matter, the democrats controlled the agenda! They decided wht bills came up when, so exactly what bill did they bring that would address the issue that the big bad republicans voted against?
Since the Supremes don't really come into the lawmaking process until after the fact(so to speak), and then have a proven 5-4 track record as far as the whole voting issue goes, I think my point's pretty valid.
Hey youre theone who brought the SC up, I know pointing out you were deadwrong makes you want to ignore that so Ill be a nice guy and let you slide on that one.
What makes your point compleatly invalid is the fat that election laws are pretty much a states issue so you should be asking what have the teh steaes done about this..
Thank you for correcting me, so in 2001-2002 what bills did the democrats bring? (I was off by 5 months)
He appearently wasn't ideologically pure enough for the Bushies so Karl Rove decided to hold a dinner for Vermont Teachers and not invite him
All I know is Zell Miller gives a speech at the RNC and people are aflutter with massive reasons why he is only looking out for #1, Jefford changes parties thus shifting the balance in the senate and he is some sort of hero.
Fact is in 2001 the democrats, and many pundits really thought that the 2002 election would bring a democratic majority to the senate, and Jeffords would no be caucasing with that majority. Jeffords defection seemed to be another nail in the coffin.
Let me quote a few paragraphs:
--- Often in error; never in doubt!
> I'm not sure where you get the idea that Libertarians nly care about their own property rights
In my case, it was from reading their posts on Slashdot.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Sigh... Gues I am going to start posting anon, seems people here consider anything they disagree with 'Flamebait' and my Karma cant take much more of this
If the LP is sucessfull, there will come a point of critical mass when a large group of people suddenly join the party. Unfortunately, they will share SOME but not ALL of the LP views. I think the question is, can we accomodate the growth without sacrificing our principles? I agree with you on Bob Barr. His record is deplorable. However you realize this is politics right? I know there are a number of Libertarian leaning people in congress, Ron Paul comes to mind. If we could get one person to endorse MB, then others may be willing to bolt en masse. With all the free press etc. That would go along with it. The question is and always has been how will the LP do when it gets to that painful growth spurt. I think we could do rather well as we will probably draw from both parties once the word "gets out". Time will tell.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Just as having someone "Monitor" the elections. The Democrat party is attempting to setup escape routes should the election be close and they are on the losing end. They are implying that any close election they lose is fradulent. They are even go so far as saying any election they don't win is fraudulent.
Combined with the ever famous use of the race card (Kerry's little speech recently promising that they will NOT allow millions of African Americans from being "disenfranchised" AGAIN") it only shows how low the political parties are willing to go.
If you live in a battleground state I fully expect you to see more local evidence of "election protetection" squads and such. Nothing could be farther from the truth. This is a form of intimidation. It also is an insult to the many public election officials who do a great and THANKLESS job. Remember, 19 out of 20 counties in Florida with voting issues were adminstered by Democrats and the last by an independant. How would you feel if your party was making you out to be a buffoon?
There is just too much money in politics. Political parties are the worst incarnation of a corporation ever seen. Worse they are funded by our money.
I wonder if there will ever be an election where 10% of the House turns over.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Bush has hired judges. That wins every time.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
Perhaps the reason that the Dems are getting lawyer'd up is that they feel (as do a lot of Americans) that the Republicans stole the last election?
.. cowboy, a texan. How could this happen to Al Gore... to us?
Key word: feel. It isn't a fact that the Republicans stole the election, that is how the Democrats and liberals feel. No doubt that is connected to their present practice of the politics of rage and hate. They keep repeating the mantra, and many lie about the facts. That is what paints them in a bad light.
They keep saying the Al Gore won the "popular vote", which from a Constitutional perspective is irrelevant at the national level. The relevant measure is the Electoral College. Playing up the popular vote is intended to confuse people, and whip up resentment, the feeling that they were cheated when that isn't really the case under the current Constitituion..
They keep repeating the myth that the Black vote was suppressed, which is false. This is inteded to whip up resentment and inflame racial politics.
They keep bringing up problems with the mechanics of voting, which are genuine, but falsely attribute them to the Republicans. Many of the worst problems occured in counties run by Democrats.
I think that there is also an element of wounded pride in their behavior. How could we, the enlightened, the educated, the better people, lose to a
The Democrats and liberals felt entitled to winning the Presidency. When they lost, they felt betrayed. It was made worse by the unusual, but legitimate, nature of the loss.
Now there are incidents in about a half dozen states of thugs connected to the Democrats or leftist causes storming state Republican offices. Shots have been fired into at least two.
If George Bush wins again, I hope it is by a big margin to put an end to the nonsense. Otherwise, who knows what will happen? Riot? Mass protests? Spike in valium prescriptions? Who knows.
Orignal Submission Text
Yes, in a democracy, our representatives are out there making sure our vote doesn't count. The city estimated that it only cost a few dollars to tabulate the votes, since it was electronic tabulation, but they could not get the authority to do so until the ACLU sued. Finally the votes were counted, and they won: But congress blocked its implementation.
I feel sorry for D.C. But even more sorry for anyone who thinks voting for Bob Barr is sensible. They ALL deserve bullets to the head. ALL.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
I think the grandparent was mentioning the biased felon voter purges, which saw far more black felons purged than hispanic felons.
I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
The conservative pundits are quite correct in pointing out that Democratic supporters keep repeating their lies, despite their having been disproven, in hopes people will take them as fact. Another person has aleady posted a good rebuttal, so I won't have to.
You're right about the "trying times to come", though. Don't try and paint me as a Bush partisan, because I plan to vote for Badnarik in November. Bush may be bad, but you folks just scare me.
--- Often in error; never in doubt!
Yeah, my bad. The process is still the same, and most states' legislative bodies are split pretty evenly right now (where they don't favor the Republicans).
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
They also showed that if a recount had happened across the entire state of FL (much more than what the Democrats were asking for), Gore would've won.
Yes, but that is hardly relevant to anything I can think of. No one seriously proposed doing that.
Laws govern elections. The votes were counted according to the laws. There is no "correct" final tally except that which is done according to the law. Every possible method of counting according to the law had Bush win.
There are often questions about election irregularities. There were some pretty serious irregularities in SoCal when I lived there, and Bob Dornan lost a close election. But in the end, the system does what the system does, and Lorett Sanchez won the seat. She was the winner, obvious or otherwise, and no pretending is necessary. Even if you think Dornan's claims of cheating are true, she is STILL the obvious winner, because the system -- elections, and the laws that govern them and disputes about them -- determines in the end what to do, and that system picked Sanchez.
I understand Britain's Silly Party, if their election monitoring team manages to show up, might outdo even the Democrats for associating themselves with dispised people as an election tactic. None of this namby-pamby shilly-shally halfway effort by creating an army of lawers (slightly annoying) when real irritants such as used car salesmen (very annoying) and telemarketers (extremely annoying) can be marshalled to dispute the election results.
The difference between
The Republican party is relying on state parties to hire the lawyers, if necessary.
This is a blatant lie. Only a few days ago, my wife recieved the following email from BC04 (lord knows why she's on their mailing list, but she is):
What a joke.