In The Supreme Court Of Florida State Of Florida Tallahassee: Fill & Download for Free

Oh, oh, oh, call on me! Have the answer! Over here!The nuts are in the two balls. We won’t miss them.Tallahassee, Florida. Gone, goodbye. Florida's capital. Home of Florida State, Florida A&M, the Florida legislative and executive branch. Might miss the Supremes, but we have other courts.No, not Washington DC. Too easy. It's Tally. Go look at the giant penis we call the Capitol and every architecture student would agree.Admit it - the buildings simply deliver a giant FU to the rest of the state, don't they.This is a GREAT chance to clean the table.

For those unfamiliar with the litigation before the Supremes in Bush v. Gore, the Court basically gave the election to Bush. This was when Scalia was still alive, and the other Justices seemed more or less afraid of, or cowed by, him. The excerpts below are all from Wikipedia on the case: “Earlier, on December 8, the Florida Supreme Court, by a vote of four to three, ordered a statewide recount of all undervotes, over 61,000 ballots that the vote tabulation machines had missed. The Bush campaign immediately asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the decision and halt the recount. Justice Antonin Scalia, convinced that all the manual recounts being performed in Florida's counties were illegitimate, urged his colleagues to grant the stay immediately.On December 9, the five conservative justices on the Court granted the stay for Bush, with Scalia citing "irreparable harm" that could befall Bush, as the recounts would cast "a needless and unjustified cloud" over Bush's legitimacy. In dissent Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that "counting every legally cast vote cannot constitute irreparable harm."I’m sure that the lawyers for Shrub appreciated Scalia acting as Bush’s lawyer, but that was not the only ethical problem about the decision. “In a per curiam decision, the Court first ruled 7-2 (Justices Stevens and Ruth Ginsburg dissenting), strictly on equal protection grounds, that the recount be stopped. Specifically, the use of different standards of counting in different counties violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. (The case had also been argued on the basis of Article II jurisdictional grounds, which found favor with only Justices Scalia, Clarence Thomas and William Rehnquist.) Second, the Court ruled 5-4 against the remedy, proposed by Justices Stephen Breyer and David Souter, of sending the case back to Florida to complete the recount using a uniform statewide standard before the scheduled December 18 meeting of Florida's electors in Tallahassee. The majority held that no alternative method could be established within the discretionary December 12 “safe harbor” deadline [my bolding] set by Title 3 of the United States Code (3 U.S.C.), § 5, which the Florida Supreme Court had stated that the Florida Legislature intended to meet. That deadline arrived two hours after the release of the Court's decision. The Court, stating that not meeting the "safe harbor" deadline would therefore violate the Florida Election Code, rejected an extension of the deadline.”Consider that the Court’s own stay had been instrumental in making that impossible, so one could argue that the Court here was covering up their own role in the problem.Wikipedia concludes that “The Supreme Court decision allowed the previous vote certification made by Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris to stand for George W. Bush, who thereby won Florida's 25 electoral votes. Florida's votes gave Bush, the Republican candidate, 271 electoral votes, one more than the required 270 to win the Electoral College, and the defeat of Democratic candidate Al Gore, who won 266 electoral votes (but received only 265, as a "faithless elector" from the District of Columbia abstained from voting).Media organizations later analyzed the ballots and found that, under any considered criteria, the originally pursued, limited county-based recounts would have confirmed a Bush victory, whereas a state-wide recount would have revealed a Gore victory. Florida later changed to new voting machines to avoid punch cards, which had produced dimpled or hanging chads.A number of news media and scholarly articles have characterized the decision as damaging the reputation of the court, increasing the view of judges as partisan, and decreasing Americans' trust in the integrity of elections, an outcome predicted by Justice Stevens in his dissent”The Justices could have declined the case, saying it was a political question. That would have left the problem up to those who created it. They could have allowed the recount to continue. There were a lot of alternatives, but they chose the one that put Bush in the White House. Al Gore cared about the country more than his personal political aspirations, and promptly accepted the ruling. Think of how different things would be today in the Middle East if Bush hadn’t have been president and told all those lies to get his war.Republicans being even then what they are, Bush did nothing to address the problems he had created and started a war to try to rebuild his popularity among those who believed he’d stolen the election. There should be a permanent asterisk after his name. As for the Supremes, the loss of respect and trust after that case cannot be measured, but has led us to the present Court which no longer even pretends not to be a bunch of partisan hacks, although Chief Justice Roberts shows some concern for following the law, acting sometimes like a conservative Republican rather than a Trump supporter with an agenda (see Kavanaugh, Thomas, and possibly Barrett).If Trump loses, he’ll no doubt bring suit, trying to get what he believes to be his Supreme Court to keep him in power. Then he may be back in a few years to become dictator for life, or until the last limitations period expires, whichever comes first. After all, that was one of the purposes of Mitch McConnell and his band of - well, I can’t think of a good word to express betraying 200 years of democracy - Republicans - to give the election to Trump if at all possible without producing an actual revolution.

Because they are not outside the scope of SCOTUS’s constitutional duties.Quote US Constitution:ARTICLE IIISECTION 1The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.SECTION 2The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;-to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;-to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;-to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;-to Controversies between two or more States;-between a State and Citizens of another State;-between Citizens of different States;-between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.The US Constitution & US Federal law have a hell of a lot to say about how elections are run.So no, it is 100% proper for SCOTUS to hear appeals.Often you hear the sore loser argument about the 2000 Bush v. Gore - WikipediaA huge problem with that is the fundamental decision was not 5–4, it was 7–2.In a per curiam decision, the Court first ruled 7-2 (Justices Stevens Pand Ruth Ginsburg dissenting), strictly on equal protection grounds, that the recount be stopped. Specifically, the use of different standards of counting in different counties violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.That is a totally legitimate call. RGB & Stevens were full of it.The equal protection clause had been violated if different standards of vote counting in the same state are used. That decision set up a problem, they had a deadline.the Court ruled 5-4 against the remedy, proposed by Justices Stephen Breyer and David Souter, of sending the case back to Florida to complete the recount using a uniform statewide standard before the scheduled December 18 meeting of Florida's electors in Tallahassee.[1]The majority held that no alternative method could be established within the discretionary December 12 “safe harbor” deadline set by Title 3 of the United States Code (3 U.S.C.), § 5, which the Florida Supreme Court had stated that the Florida Legislature intended to meet.[2]That deadline arrived two hours after the release of the Court's decision. The Court, stating that not meeting the "safe harbor" deadline would therefore violate the Florida Election Code, rejected an extension of the deadline.Both Florida & Federal law have specific deadlines that are legislated. The Florida deadline had already passed. I think the Democrats on the court’s vote to let the deadline slide was partisan, as if decided that way it was breaking Florida law, and gave Democrat’s an advantage which is improper.