Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

High court won't tackle touch-screens

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
 
kster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-09-07 06:04 PM
Original message
High court won't tackle touch-screens


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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-09-07 06:06 PM
Response to Original message
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:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-09-07 06:10 PM
Response to Original message
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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-09-07 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #2
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:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-09-07 06:28 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-09-07 06:35 PM
Response to Original message
5. So much for the "equal protection" argument from Bush v. Gore.
What a sorry bunch, our SCOTUS majority.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stevepol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-09-07 09:00 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Dec 08th 2024, 11:16 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC