High court won't tackle touch-screens

[kster]

Posted January 9, 2007

The U.S. Supreme Court will not consider whether Florida's touch-screen voting machines need to have a paper trail in case of a recount.

The court Monday declined to hear U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler's appeal of a lower-court ruling that the state's touch-screen voting machines don't need to leave a paper ballot trail.

The Democrat from Boca Raton had sued in 2004, alleging the state was disenfranchising voters because some counties use machines that don't allow for a recount based on paper ballots, while other counties have machines that do.

The Supreme Court didn't comment in declining to consider Wexler's appeal of a decision by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that Florida could use electronic touch-screen voting machines that don't leave a trail of paper ballots.

Compiled from staff and wire reports

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/state/orl-stbriefs09_407jan09,0,4671688.story?coll=orl-news-headlines-state

[ixion]

1. they'll appoint a president who lost the popular vote, but would rather not look into

making sure that vote is accurate.

Some democracy we got going here. :eyes:

[Bake]

2. I think this is more a legislative matter than a judicial one.

Not that the issue isn't important - IT IS - but it is not for the Court to decide.

Bake

[Kurovski]

3. It never was for the court to decide,

and that's what's so maddening about it.

History will always :spank: that notorious Supreme Court. The junkies, the porn aficionados, and all the rest of that august body. :evilgrin:

[Peace Patriot]

4. Need to rename them the Supreme Dickheads and start researching FDR's

plan to "pack" the Supreme Court. He didn't succeed, but he did change one judge's mind--thus Social Security was saved.

They had their corporate news dickheads in those days, too, and they got on him and created such hysteria among the fascists that he backed off. However, "Mission Accomplished," so to speak. At least one judge got the message. (Name of Roberts--no relation, that I know of.)

The Constitution does not specify the number of justices. Congress can add more justices. So we add justices to balance the dickheads that the Bush Junta has already "packed" it with. Or give them term limits. Or put a Special Prosecutor on them, to dog their every hunting party, looking for impeachable offenses. Or--my favorite--declare the 2004 election invalid, and rescind all of his appointments. Dickheads who can't see that an unrecountable election is not an election deserve to be "packed," termed out, prosecuted, or rescinded.

[bleever]

5. So much for the "equal protection" argument from Bush v. Gore.

What a sorry bunch, our SCOTUS majority.

[Stevepol]

6. The only way this changes is overwhelming publicity and protest.

This is exactly what happened during Jim Crow. Everbody knew what was going on but the powers that be, i.e., the Supremes et al., were unwilling to tackle the problem until protests and publicity wrestled them to the ground and rubbed their faces in what was obvious to everybody with one eye and half sense.