If there IS a recount (anywhere)...

[AmyCrat]

Will the Supreme Court Stop the Recount Like They Did in 2000?
Comments? Opinions?

[alittlelark]

1. no. They do not want riots

[bearfan454]

2. there will be too. n/t

[txindy]

3. Didn't the 2000 election reach the SC over the lack of guidelines in FL?

Each county had different standards (or was that 'no' standards?) for determining the validity of hung chads, pregnant chads, etc. So the recount dragged on and on. OH, though, DOES have guidelines, so I don't think we'll reach that point, again. I hope.

[Jersey Devil]

5. That's why NH - uniform rules, same machines everywhere

There can be no specious equal protection claims like in Gore v Bush

[212demop]

4. I'd really appreciate if someone could help me understand this

Why are we putting all these resources into a New Hampshire (besides the fact that Ralph Nader got the ball rolling there) recount? Kerry won it. Shouldn't we be putting everything into Ohio first and foremost or am I missing some part of the plan?

[Jersey Devil]

6. smallest, cheapest, hardest to stop, optical scan with paper trail

If they cheated there they are definitely going to get nailed

[caledesi]

8. NH is just to "get the ball rolling" Once they complete the audit

there (small state, should be quick), then we move on to 37 other states based on the FOIA (Freedom Of Information Act).

Ralph Nader is important because he has the right to challenge the voting in NH where he was on the ballot. He was not in the ballot in OH.

Anyhow, that's what Randi Rhodes says.

[dave502d]

7. I say no.

[Guava Jelly]

9. actually if a lower court gives the go ahead

and with renquist sick and out they probably wont have a majority needed to stop a recount :)
their may actually be a god...(this comming from an athiest)