((Three separate RULINGS)) -- Sia☺giah
1-A violation of Equal Protection Under the Law; 2-No
Sun Aug 12, 2018 10:52pm

resoluton possible due to Title 3 of the US Code PLUS 3- a violation of FL state voting laws.

((Sprout was mistaken that it was that one thing, but so are you. I believe that NO ONE LIED, but were simply mistaken that it was ONE ruling that caused the recount to end and GWB to win, but instead was actually 3 reasons cited ))...

1- Equal Protection Violation because individual counties used different rules and counting methods.

2- Title 3 of the US code meant that no alternative method could be implemented in the allotted time frame

3- Also, the FL SC violated Article II, 1, cl. 2 by violating official FL voting laws when they made their earlier ruling that triggered GWB's filing for equal protection that the SCOTUS took up.



Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court that settled a recount dispute in Florida's 2000 presidential election. The ruling was issued on December 12, 2000. On December 9, the Court had preliminarily halted the Florida recount that was occurring. Eight days earlier, the Court unanimously decided the closely related case of Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, 531 U.S. 70 (2000). The Electoral College was scheduled to meet on December 18, 2000, to decide the election.

In a per curiam decision, the Court ruled that there was an Equal Protection Clause violation in using different standards of counting in different counties and ruled that no alternative method could be established within the time limit set by Title 3 of the United States Code (3 U.S.C.), 5 ("Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors"), which was December 12.[1] The vote regarding the Equal Protection Clause was 72, and regarding the lack of an alternative method was 54.[2] Three concurring justices also asserted that the Florida Supreme Court had violated Article II, 1, cl. 2 of the Constitution, by misinterpreting Florida election law that had been enacted by the Florida Legislature.

  • Good gawd...you even lie about simple facts....HeavyHemi, Sun Aug 12 11:51am
    Title 3 of the United States Code was what the based their decision on. Not Florida law. As with other of your ilk, you actively trying to make poeple more ignorant. What a terrible character... more
    • 1-A violation of Equal Protection Under the Law; 2-No — ((Three separate RULINGS)) -- Sia☺giah, Sun Aug 12 10:52pm
      • I said based on, not solely based on.HeavyHemi, Sun Aug 12 11:23pm
        Which is entirely accurate. Seems silly to go out of your way to create an argument...I guess in an effort to appear fair. He was flat out wrong. I no longer give them the benefit of the doubt.