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.

Comments

Re:Big shocker here, huh?

[EnronHaliburton2004]

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.

Re:Please stop with the crap.

[pudge]

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.

Still less than the Republicans.

[dtfinch]

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

Re:Please stop with the "election stolen" crap.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll save you the agony of waiting 20 years. You're wrong about the myth of Black voters being turned away.

In June 2001, following a six-month investigation that included subpoenas of Florida state officials from Governor Jeb Bush on down, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued a report that found no evidence of voter intimidation, no evidence of voter harassment, and no evidence of intentional or systematic disenfranchisement of black voters.

Headed by a fiercely partisan Democrat, Mary Frances Berry, the Commission was very critical of Florida election officials (many of whom were Democrats). For example, "Potential voters confronted inexperienced poll workers, antiquated machinery, inaccessible polling locations, and other barriers to being able to exercise their right to vote." But the report found no basis for the contention that officials conspired to disenfranchise voters. "Moreover," it said, "even if it was foreseeable that certain actions by officials led to voter disenfranchisement, this alone does not mean that intentional discrimination occurred," let alone racial discrimination.

The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division conducted a separate investigation of these charges and also came up empty. In a May 2002 letter to Democratic Senator Pat Leahy of Vermont, who at the time headed the Judiciary Committee, Assistant Attorney General Ralph Boyd wrote, "The Civil Rights Division found no credible evidence in our investigations that Floridians were intentionally denied their right to vote during the November 2000 election."

Peter Kirsanow, a Republican member of the Civil Rights Commission, told us in an interview that "the press has tried to spin what happened in Florida into something sinister. But there's a disconnect between what was actually found [in these various investigations] and how it's been portrayed."

7 of 9 US Supreme Court justices found there to be constitutional problems with the recount procedures ordered by the Supreme Court in Florida. 5 of 9 didn't think that yet another constitutionally adequate recount could be completed in the time available under Florida law. The US Supreme Court acting to uphold the law ment that the Florida Legislature didn't need to directly appoint the Electors to the Electoral College, which they were preparing to do just in case (and completely within their right) due to the illegitimate actions of the Florida Supreme Court. The "head judge" as you refer to the Chieft Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, was only one voice of 9.

Bush more corrupt than Nixon? That is some kind of joke, right?

You are likely to be quite mistaken about history's evaluation of Iraq vs Vietnam. When the US left Vietnam, there was a ceasefire treaty in place and the North Vietnamese were supposed to withdraw. The US abandoned South Vietnam when the Senate blocked President Ford from assisting South Vietnam defend itself against North Vietnam naked aggression in the form of a conventional invasion. Iraq, on the other hand, may get the assistance it needs to transition to a reasonably free democracy if the United States stands by it. That is more likely if President Bush is reelected. John Kerry, on the other hand, was all for abandoning the South Vietnamese, and has at times indicated he would bail from Iraq. In fact, John Kerry's casual acceptance of thousands of people being executed by the North is quite chilling to read. It is appalling to realize how wrong he was in the numbers. Sadly he seems to not have learned little, if anything, in the years since.

You are right about history being the ultimate judge. It is likely that history will be kinder to President Bush than to President Clinton.

Re:You are wrong. Fox did NOT

[Banner]

At 10:00 p.m., which networks took the lead in retracting the premature Florida win for Gore? They were CNN and CBS, not Fox. (The two networks were using a shared Decision Team.) See Linda Mason, Kathleen Francovic & Kathleen Hall Jamieson, "CBS News Coverage of Election Night 2000: Investigation, Analysis, Recommendations" (CBS News, Jan. 2001), pp. 12-25.)

In fact, Fox did not retract its claim that Gore had won Florida until 2 a.m.--four hours after other networks had withdrawn the call.

Please note that while the networks called Florida for Gore BEFORE the polls had closed (and fox called it for Gore as well), that no one called it for Bush until after 2 IN THE MORNING.

You really need to stop reading socialist sites. Socialist LIE.