Jeremy, Jeremy, Jeremy (said while shaking my head side to side),
Courts, when there is no evidence, throw out cases, not "lean" towards the plaintiff as you imply.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court is NOT partisan. While they might have their own personal convictions, they can not, and do not, state which person / party they wish to see elected.
In the case of Bush v. Gore, the SC determined by a vote of 7-2 that the method of recount was unconstitutional. Note that vote majority...SEVEN to TWO. There is no partisanship there, it is readings of law that established this majority opinion.
In the second part of the case, the SC determined by a vote of 5-4 that there was not ample time to conduct a proper (equitable) recount in the alloted time. Before you jump on the dissenting votes, please note that 2 were appointed by Democrats and 2 by Republican. Again, no partisanship here.
So, President Bush did not steal the election, he won it based on the laws currently on the books. You may not like the results, or you may think you don't like them based on what people have told you, but the reality is that the election occurred as the laws of the country (and in this case the state) directed.
I, again, encourage you to do some research rather than listening to the "sea stories" (that one is for Five Flags!) that many like to repeat.
Finally, just so you understand the law a little better, a plaintiff must prove their case beyond a shadow of a doubt while a defendant just has to place doubt. This is why defendants (so called only in criminal cases) go free when there seems to be a preponderance of evidence against them (OJ Simpson is one many folks like to point at).
So, your statement re the plaintiff always getting the "break" (my words) is wrong...that goes to the defendant.
If you need / want some references IOT do research, drop me a line.
Steven
|