Opinion on Jeffords switch

[Boondox]

Gee, Dan, your response is so junior high school! Can't you do any better?

Pete

www.GatewayToVermont.com

 

[EdDekker]

<font color=blue>I distinctly remember 5 Republican elected Supreme Court Justices who voted to overrule a State Supreme Court, siding with Governor Bush. </font color=blue>


hess,

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Florida court had acted inappropriately in a 7 to 2 vote with Justice Stevens in the minority with Justice Ginsburg. (Justice Bryer voted with the majority.) The majority ruled that that Florida could not proceed as ordered by the Florida Supreme Court, that there were Constitutional violations in the Florida Supreme court order, and that the order to use partial recounts was invalid. The Florida court order was ruled invalid on both a Federal equal protection argument and that the Florida election statutes, which clearly stated that any hand recount must recount all ballets in the county by hand not just the unmarked (so called undercount) ballets.

Five Justices ruled that with 2 hours remaining before the statutory deadline for appointing electors and 6 days before the meeting of the electoral college (from the release of the Supreme Court opinion) that further recounts in Florida would be stopped. Two Justices (Souter and Bryer), who had been in majority in the main decision, found this part of the ruling unnecessary, and were willing to allow the State of Florida to attempt to construct a plan for an acceptable recount, if the state of Florida still wanted a recount, with uniform standards and adherence to the state election law. Five members thought it better to stop the process since a hand recount of millions of ballots in six days let alone two hours was impossible. It is unlikely that Florida could have: developed consistent standards, trained enough people in the consistent standard to do the count, and done a statewide recount, provide for due process in the counting process (challenges) and complete the count in 6 days for the electoral college to meet on schedule.


A 5 to 4 vote is the way the Gore campaign spun the ruling. (Is it really surprising that this is the count the press repeats?)



Republican judges are not the only judges to disagree with the Florida Supreme court. Note that the second Florida Supreme court election ruling could not even get the concurrence of all the members of the very liberal 100% Democrat Florida court.

The Florida Supreme Court ruling was 4 to 3 with the Chief Justice (Justice Wells) in the Minority. Justice Wells wrote a dissent which sounds like a Bush brief (but it is far sharper and less diplomatic than a Bush brief) a sample is: “could not more strongly disagree”…”The prolonging of judicial process in this counting contest propels the country and this state into an unprecedented and unnecessary constitutional crisis. There is a real and present likelihood that the constitutional crisis will do substantial damage to our country, our state and to this court as an institution.”

The Florida Supreme Court ruling itself was to overturn a ruling from Judge Sauls, a lifelong Democrat, the district court judge who had tried Gores suit.



Ed

 

[ccatfish]

O.k., my opinion: Jeffords is a loser. This was purely a selfish move and not one "in the best interest of his constituents".

Now that he has his retribution, the Republicans should now consider a lawsuit to recover all the party's financial support during the last campaign. I would say they have a good case, and I bet the $$$ involved are well into the millions.

 

[ddl]

Junior High education response points out the way the Demos look at things. I wish the people who are responding to this question who are from Vermont would say what party they are from. That way the rest of us can rate the response. I bet if a dem would have switched to the GOP the response from Vermont would be totally different. But to be turthful, GOPs would talk about the great indepentant mind the new GOP had.

Dan L

 

[hess]

Ed,
I stand corrected on the 5-4 quote (you obviously know more of the details than do I).
But, I was not attempting to inject partisan politics into the Supreme Court ruling. It was part of my point, that regardless of our party alignment, we have the power (and the right) to vote our conscience (ie - Jeffords). Which as you pointed out, both Dem/Rep Justices did.
Although I disagreed with the Supreme Court decision (based on my belief in states' rights), I think it stabilized the country, and gave Bush a legitimacy he may not have had otherwise.
I would like to think that ALL Justices/judges would assess each case based on their interpretation of the law and not on who they would like to win.

 

[RichZ]

I am not a Vermonter, but live less than 5 miles away in NY, so I feel a strong kinship with Vermont. The point is Jeffords was doing what he has always done. He voted with what his heart and head told him to do, and not what his party told him to do. However, for the first time since Jeffords has been in the senate, a Republican administration became vindictive because of the fact that jeffords did not blindly follow party lines, like most politicians (both Republican and Democrates) do. When W started threatening Jeffords, for example by blocking aid to northeast farmers, that became the last straw. Jeffords did the right thing. He not only left the party, but he made the public aware of W's bully style tactics. W was prepared to punish all northeast farmers, as retribution for Jeffords acts. That's just plain wrong. No one seems to be criticizing W for his actions. In my opinion, he's the one who's wrong here. Jeffords survived quite nicely as a liberal Republican in the Bush senior and Reagan administrations. I have long admired Jeffords as a Republican, and will conitnue to admire him as an Independent. He stood up for what he believed in, as he always has. If more politicians acted as independent as Jeffords always has, our political system wouldn't get so mired in politics, and might start addressing real issues.
Rich

 

[Boondox]

Well said!

www.GatewayToVermont.com

 

[Boondox]

I've stated before I am a registered Republican. Like Jeffords, however, I consider each issue on the basis of its benefit for my state, not my party.

Take a moment to review all your posts, Dan. It's incredible how spiteful you sound, and you have addressed very few issues without blaming them on the Democrats. You are sounding like a zealot, and it's zealotry -- not political affiliation -- at the center of many problems America faces. I don't like the far left any more than I care for the far right; and suspect that one created the other. Who cares if the tree huggers preceded the gun nuts...or the other way around? They are both opposite poles of the fringe element.

Let's tone down the rhetoric, shall we? Labels like "scum" and "wackos" don't foment rational discussion. You say you're a college professor...as one academician to another, let's aspire to that level of professionalism.

Pete

www.GatewayToVermont.com

 

[EdDekker]

<font color=blue> However, for the first time since Jeffords has been in the senate, a Republican administration became vindictive because of the fact that jeffords did not blindly follow party lines, like most politicians (both Republican and Democrates) do. When W started threatening Jeffords, for example by blocking aid to northeast farmers, that became the last straw. </font color=blue>

Rich,

Its already been pointed out that Jeffords started negotiating his party switch in December. This is before any possible slight from G W Bush.

There was no action to eliminate the Northeast Dairy Compact.

Commentators (outside government) did mention it. (I loved the line "Revenge is a dish best served with milk".) Nobody in the Bush administration even speculated publicly over the elimination of the Dairy Compact and the only members of Congress to mention it are the members who have opposed it for years.

In all probability the Dairy compact was never in any danger. There is <font color=red> always </font color=red> another vote Jeffords could (and still can) hold hostage to protect the compact. Over the next year one side or the other will need his vote to pass or defeat an amendment, stop or maintain a filibuster etc. This will happen several (many) times with Jeffords building up commitments for his legislation each time. The cost is paid by the milk consumers in the northeast (higher milk prices) and the farmers in the midwest (lost sales). The northeast milk consumers are not up in arms over being taxed (through higher prices) to support dairy farms. The dairy compact is an easy trade for politicians from the eastern seaboard, the south or the west to agree to, their constituents are not affected. If Jeffords wants to retain the dairy compact it will be retained.

Bad law, like the Dairy compact doesn't die or even fade away.

The sum and total of the retaliation against Jeffords was to not invite him to a White house photo op. This was softened by not inviting any Senators or Representatives to that photo op. Senator Jeffords has been in Washington long enough to know that immediately after voting against the President of the United States a Senator will not be invited to the White House.


Ed

 

[toddler]

Boy, started a battle then took off on it. Sorry to abandon you Pete. I'm also registered as a republican at the moment, but agree that the Jeffords move was in VT's best interest. I have to admit that from a moral perspective, I'm against the Dairy Compact, in the same way I'm against the Estate Tax.
I still will vote Jeffords because he remains a voice of reason between two parties of children playing tug of war, when they should be two adult contractors working on the same house. Thank G-d my electrician and my plumber got along, since the straitest way to wire our addition would have been strait through the bathtub!
On the flip side, I'll never vote for Bernie, because he's a democrat in everything except funding. He votes almost 100% democrat party line, and I think that if running as a democrat would have been as effective in Vermont, as running as an independent, he might have considered that. I'll vote for any republican who runs against Bernie, because I don't really think he thinks before he votes. Not true about Jim.
Jeffords has always voted for Vermont. Look at his voting record, it's not democrat or republican, it's Jim Jeffords. I'm glad I don't have to make the decisions he does, but as long as they are reasonable, I'll vote for the man. And by going independent, he shifted power in a way that will benefit Vermont, if not me personally, more than one senator is usually able to do.
Todd