text:
How does one go about determining if he is called to pastoral ministry? What is required? What is he to do if there are no adequate seminaries located near him? Can he study at the seminary level under the guidance of his pastor in order to be approved for the ministry? Any information would be very helpful and appreciated.
A call to the gospel/pastoral ministry is certainly a matter for careful consideration, and I will do my best to help you in this consideration.
Psalm 37:4, says, "Delight yourself also in the LORD; and he shall give you the desires of your heart." So let's begin here. Assuming you have found delight in the Lord through Jesus Christ, do you earnestly desire to serve him as a pastor? If this desire is weak or not there, then probably this is not to be your calling. But if you do desire it, then there is a likelihood that God will give you the thing you desire, overcoming any obstacles that hinder you. Over time this desire should increase, not diminish. 1 Timothy 3:1, "This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop [i.e., overseer, elder], he desires a good work."
But of course, this likelihood of a call ultimately has to be confirmed. A wise minister once told me that God leads us by inner conviction and outward circumstance in accordance with his Word and Spirit.
Outwardly, one's desire must meet reality. A man who cannot physically speak will not be a preacher, though he may be a writer or engage in some other ministry. More to the point, God orders circumstances to bring about his will. Have you discovered you have a gift for public speaking? Circumstances usually bring this to light. Are you a good student? Ministers generally have to study hard and for many years. Are you in circumstances where others have observed your spiritual life and exercise of spiritual gifts and have encouraged you to pursue at least some form of Christian service?
I encourage you to return to the OPC website and go to the Christian Education Committee's section and the items in its section on Ministerial Training. There you will find a document called, "A Suggested Guide for Taking Men under Care of Presbytery." (In most Presbyterian denominations being "taken under care" means one is starting the process of becoming a minister.) Within this document are a number of questions that you can ask of yourself that may be helpful as you consider the pastoral ministry. It is of great importance that other, mature believers share your sense of call. You might also benefit from reading Chapter XXI of the OPC Form of Government (available in hardback from the Committee on Christian Education).
As for the inward call, it is vital to pray and search the Scriptures, expecting that the Holy Spirit will bring a conviction regarding the direction you should take. Romans 8:14, "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." As we find ourselves sharing the Lord's compassion for the lost and his love for his people, we can be sure the Spirit is helping us find our place in the Kingdom. Acts 17:16, "Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry." Ephesians 5:25, "… Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it …" 1 Corinthians 9:16, "For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yes, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!" These sorts of elements are subjectively (inwardly) present when the Lord is calling us to service, especially to the ordained ministry.
If you find yourself located far from strongly biblical, conservative seminaries, it may be possible to follow a "distance learning" program. Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary and Reformed Theological Seminary have such courses. Check the internet. As far as study under a pastor goes, I'm sure this could be a blessed experience but in most cases will not meet the requirements of most reformed denominations, which include four years of undergraduate and three years of graduate (seminary) education.
I pray the Lord will give you the desire of your heart.
"Questions and Answers" is a weekly feature of the OPC website. The answers come from individual ministers in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church expressing their own convictions and do not necessarily represent an "official" position of the Church, especially in areas where the Standards of the Church (the Scriptures and the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms) are silent.
The questions come from individuals like yourself. If you have questions about biblical and theological matters, you are invited to send them by e-mail by using the "Pose a Question" link on the OPC home page or by clicking here.
At least one new question is posted each week, so there should always be something new here for you to read. (For those people who would like to look at previous questions and answers, they will continue to be available as well.)
The purpose of the OPC website's "Questions and Answers" is to respond to biblical and theological questions. Matters of church discipline, disputes, or debates go beyond the scope of our work. We recommend that you present your concerns in these areas to the appropriate judicatory. In most cases this will be to a local pastor, elder, or session. We do not want the website to replace personal involvement in, or commitment to, the local, visible church.
While we will respond to every serious questioner, we are not bound to give a substantive answer to every question, should we deem the question to be beyond the scope of our purpose or our own ability to answer.
You will receive an answer by e-mail. Please be patient as many of our respondents are busy pastors. The response to your question may take up to two (2) weeks. Some of the questions submitted will be chosen to be posted here, along with the corresponding answers.
Note that the "Questions and Answers" posted on the site have been editedall personal references are removed, Scripture references or from some source may be added, and sometimes portions are expandedto make the questions and answers more useful to a larger audience.
|© 2020 The Orthodox Presbyterian Church
Chaplains and Military Personnel


text:
The Kings of Summer
New to Blu-ray and DVD this week is indie breakout hit feature "Kings of Summer." Most frequently compared to films like last year's "Moonrise Kingdom" and "Stand By Me" (1986), "Kings of Summer" tells the tale of three adolescent boys planning to break free from their parents and build their own summer retreat in the forest, while living off the land. Through their adventures and evergreen friendship, they learn the morals of life, love, and what it means to uproot themselves from the family ties that bind.
"Kings of Summer" simultaneous presents an entertainingly ethereal, yet refreshingly quirky, coming-of-age journey. Cultivated by director Jordan Vogt-Roberts and newcomer writer Chris Galletta, the film boomed at the 2013 Sundance Film Festival when nominated for Grand Jury Prize, and won Audience Favorite Award at the Dallas International Film Festival.
Kudos to Casting Directors Nicole Abellera and Jeanne McCarthy for assembling an ensemble delivering heart-warming performances, especially with the trio of young actors; Nick Robinson (Joe), Gabriel Basso (Patrick), and the unique Moises Arias (Biaggio), united together in their quest as the Three Musketeers-esque boys, growing from young warriors to men. Other notable performances include Nick Offerman ("Parks and Recreation") as Robinson's overbearing father, and Megan Mullaly ("Will and Grace") as Basso's coddling-while-smothering mother.
Filmed almost entirely on location in the nature-filled rural areas of Ohio and North Carolina, Cinematographer Ross Riege's imagery is enchanting and beautiful to watch. Riege loves to dictate the mood through his manipulation of light and seemingly organic approach to portraying the beauty of the boys' new woodland home.
The new Blu-ray release has a smattering of bonus featurettes which include "Frankly Speaking With Frank Toy" (clips cleverly packaged in a format reminiscent of SNLs vintage "Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey" featuring Nick Offerman's best zingers) and "The Long Shot," sort of an overview of the film's best clips. Both Blu-ray and DVD come with the "Alison and Eugene" featurette as well as commentary by cast and crew, including director Jordan Vogt, writer Chris Galletta, and the three boys.
"Kings Of Summer"
93 minutes - Rated R
Blu-ray $35.99/DVD 30.99

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Hello All,
I am new to AJAX. I want some help in passing large data to the server. Basically I have 100 text boxes in a form, I want to pass all this information to an asp or asp.net page, which will then process the data and respondes whether it was successfull or not.
I was thinking of creating a xml string using javascript and then sending it to the server, I am not sure if this is the right approach.
from my search I found that to pass huge data I need to use POST method, I tried it but looks like I am missing something. So it will be great help if somone could guide me or send me some working examples. In advance Thank you very much.


text:
Opening statements set for Giants fan's lawsuit against LA Dodgers over attack
LOS ANGELES – Opening statements were expected to begin Thursday in a lawsuit brought by beating victim Bryan Stow against the Los Angeles Dodgers and its former owner, Frank McCourt.
A jury was chosen Wednesday to hear the civil negligence case brought by Stow, after lawyers spent all day questioning prospects after reading through their answers to a six-page written questionnaire.
A total of 16 jurors were selected, eight men and eight women. Four of them will become alternates but the panelists will not know until the trial's end which 12 will actually deliberate and make the decision.
Superior Court Judge Victor Chavez set opening statements for Thursday morning.
Stow, 45, the San Francisco Giants fan whose beating at Dodgers Stadium became a symbol of violence associated with sports events, sat in court in a specially equipped wheelchair as prospective jurors were questioned. Two men have pleaded guilty to criminal charges of assaulting him.
The civil jury will focus on whether the Dodgers and McCourt provided sufficient security in April 2011 for the opening game with Los Angeles' fierce rival, the San Francisco Giants.
Witnesses at a preliminary hearing in criminal court testified that security guards were not present in the parking lot where Stow was beaten and kicked by Louie Sanchez and Marvin Norwood. Stow's lawyer said the pair who wore Dodgers gear attacked Stow for wearing a Giants shirt.
Stow suffered brain damage and is permanently disabled. His lawyers say his lifetime care could cost $50 million.
A lawyer representing the team and McCourt said the Dodgers and the Los Angeles Police Department provided the single largest security force for a Dodgers game in history.
In another development, lawyers agreed to halve the number of defendants, leaving the former Dodgers owner and one entity, Los Angeles Dodgers LLC, remaining as defendants. The agreement means two other team companies, Blue Landco LLC and L.A.Real Estate LLC, are no longer part of the case.


text:
In an effort to prepare candidates for the computer-based CPPB exam containing 175 questions, this course provides a review that addresses key information on topics identified in the UPPCC Body of Knowledge. Considered as a tool to help the student in assessing their own strengths and weaknesses, as they relate to the subject matter, this course is only a part of the candidates overall study plan for preparation. Participation in this class does not guarantee success on the examination.
Course Description
Standard pricing:
Institute Members - $425 **
Non-Members - $525 **
** Receive a $25 early registration discount by registering 60 or more days in advance of the course.
Not a NIGP Institute member? Click here for membership information.
Register online with credit card by clicking the register button below
Register by fax (Download print and fax form)
Methods of Payment Accepted: Check (make checks payable to NIGP), Purchase Orders (via print and fax form), and Credit Cards (Master
Card, Visa, and American Express).
If paying by check, please make check payable to NIGP and send payment to:
NIGP, Attn: Seminar Registration
2411 Dulles Corner Park, Suite 350
Herndon, VA 20171
Registration and payment must be received 30 days prior to the seminar start date. After this time, registrations will be based on space
availability. A full refund, less a $75 administrative fee will be given for cancellations made in writing 31+ days prior to the
seminar date by emailing email@example.com. No refunds are given for cancellations received within 30
days of the seminar start date. There are no refunds for no-shows. If the seminar is cancelled for any reason, NIGP's liability is limited to the
registration fee only.
Attendee substitutions within the same agency may be done at any time with email notification to NIGP. If attending via scholarship, please provide
documentation verifying the scholarship issuer's name and contact information in lieu of payment information.
If you would like more information on the event, please contact the local Seminar Coordinator, Kathi Braeme-Burr via email at firstname.lastname@example.com


text:
Kitchen cupboard prices Silverton, best kitchen cupboard prices in Silverton
Getting new kitchen cupboards installed in your kitchen can be an expensive job to do. Kitchen Cupboards Silverton promises you competitive pricing on all new kitchen Cupboards. We aim at providing the best prices for kitchen cupboards. We also offer top quality kitchen cupboards. Pricing is determined on the make and style of the kitchen cupboards that you decide to choose as well as the size of the kitchen and how many cupboards may need to be installed. But we can promise you that we can help save you some money. We are the kitchen cupboard specialists and we aim at always providing the best prices to our clients. We are competitive in our pricing. Whether you only needs one kitchen cupboard installed or a few we are the kitchen cupboard company to contact. Pricing is dependent on the style of kitchen cupboards. A full kitchen that needs cupboards can cost anywhere from R10 000 and upwards. Everyone wants an updated kitchen as it is the area that is mostly used all the time. Let us help you update your kitchen cupboards at a decent price. Our quotes are free and will bring with us samples of all the variety of kitchen cupboards that we supply.
Let us try and save you money where we can. We promise that you will be happy with the pricing that we have to offer. We will also try assist with the budget that you have in mind. We will always advise on the best cost effective kitchen cupboards. For all your kitchen cupboard needs contact Kitchen Cupboards Silverton for the best pricing on all kitchen cupboards.


text:
The latest outing from the award-winning team behind the LEGO Star Wars series of games brings the one-and-only Caped Crusader to life in a completely new storyline.
Take control of the dynamic duo, Batman and Robin, to fight Gotham City's most notorious criminals including The Joker, The Penguin, Catwoman, Scarecrow, Killer Croc and many more.
Your mission is to capture the villains and put them back in Arkham Asylum where they belong. Then, jump into the story from the other side and play as Batman's foes; enjoy the dastardly power you wield and battle Batman while spreading chaos throughout the city.
There is no rest for the good (or the bad).
See it in action


text:
Raleigh, NC, US
My name is Bethany Neigebauer. I am a recent graduate of the Politecnico di Milano in Milan, Italy where I received my Masters of Architecture. I have just moved to the Raleigh, NC area where I am actively seeking an entry level architectural position at a firm where I can grow. My short term goal is to begin my IDP hours and to eventually receive my North Carolina license.
Desmone and Associates Architects, Pittsburgh, PA, US, Architectural Intern
Architectural Summer Intern participating in several large scale projects including the One Grand View project in Pittsburgh, PA.
Hobbs+Black Architects, Ann Arbor, MI, US, Architectural Intern
Spring Break Intern involved in both commercial and religious projects.
Pei Cobb Freed & Partners, New York, NY, US, Architectural Intern
Spring Break Intern participating in site visits and client meetings both in Manhattan and at Princeton University.
Politecnico di Milano, Milan, IT, MArch, Architecture
Specialized in Post Seismic Restoration
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, US, Bachelors, Architecture
Specialized in Architectural Design
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, US, Bachelors, Italian


text:
Bluefalls Manufacturing
Building Hot Tubs & Spas since 1994
Engineered for the Worlds' Harshest Climates
About our brands.
Talk to Us
Talk to us about how our products can add value to your property development in a unique way. We have a range of high quality brands to choose from produced in established manufacturing plants in both Canada and the USA with over 20 years of history.With the current markets a US business purchasing a Canadian product means huge SAVINGS due to the currency exchange rates!
Contact us via the form on this site, to discuss the details and how we could help you and your business!


text:
With tickets already on sale to the general public for UFC 128, the company's executives are busy lining out the evening's official plans.
And while a main-card matchup between Yoshihiro Akiyama and Nate Marquardt was confirmed earlier today, the UFC wasn't quite done making announcements.
Company brass also announced two additional matchups for the evening's preliminary card, including a previously unreported featherweight bout of Raphael Assuncao vs. Manny Gamburyan.
Additionally, a matchup previously reported by MMAjunkie.com (www.mmajunkie.com), Luiz Cane vs. Karlos Vemola, was also confirmed for the evening's preliminary portion.
UFC 128 takes place March 19 at the Prudential Center in Newark, N.J., and features a light-heavyweight headliner between champion Mauricio "Shogun" Rua and former champ Rashad Evans.
Assuncao (16-3 MMA, 0-0 UFC) makes his UFC debut after a five-fight stint for the company's now-shuttered sister-promotion, the WEC. Assuncao debuted for the WEC in 2009 with decision wins over Jameel Massouh and Yves Jabouin but was derailed in a No. 1 contender fight with Urijah Faber. Assuncao was defeated again in a matchup with Diego Nunes but has since bounced back with a victory over L.C. Davis.
Meanwhile, Gamburyan (11-5 MMA, 2-3 UFC) returns to the UFC after dropping to featherweight and racking up a 3-1 record in the WEC. A former lightweight, Gamburyan was a finalist on The Ultimate Fighter 5, where he lost to Nate Diaz after suffering a shoulder injury. After reeling-off two-straight wins, Gamburyan dropped back-to-back fights to Rob Emerson and Thiago Tavares and promptly dropped to 145 pounds.
Vemola (8-1 MMA, 1-1 UFC) turned an unsuccessful octagon debut around in his most recent performance when he railroaded "Kimbo-killer" Seth Petruzelli at this past November's UFC 122 event. In fact, his out-of-the-gate loss to Jon Madsen at UFC 116 was the sole occasion he failed to implement a Blitzkrieg style of ground and pound that put his first seven opponents on ice within the first round.
It's hard to imagine "The Terminator" will do anything different against Cane (10-3 MMA, 3-3 UFC), a heavy-handed foe who's hit hard times in his two most recent octagon outings. The trouble started more than a year ago when he proved unready for a big step up in competition against Antonio Rogerio Nogueira and was TKOd inside two minutes at UFC 106. It took 17 seconds longer, but his next engagement ended the same way when French striker Cyrille Diabate put him out at UFC 114 in May. The losses erased hype built from a three-fight win streak that included victories over Jason Lambert, Rameau Thierry Sokodjou and Steve Cantwell.
For the latest on UFC 128, stay tuned to the UFC Rumors section of MMAjunkie.com.
(Pictured: Manny Gamburyan)


text:
3.54.020 OMF Risk Management Division Responsibility and Authority.
(Amended by Ordinance Nos. 158966 and 181483, effective January 18, 2008.) The OMF Risk Management Division shall have the following responsibility and authority in the area of City loss control and prevention:
A. Develop guidelines, instructions, and a model plan to assist bureaus in developing loss prevention and control components;
B. On final review by the Committee of components submitted by the bureaus, file the City-wide program with the City Auditor and issue the program for implementation by affected bureaus;
C. Advise and assist affected bureaus in the implementation of components or parts thereof;
D. Monitor the effectiveness of components, and collect, analyze, and report annually to the Committee and City Council data showing the status of the components and the performance of bureaus implementing the components.


text:
Promoting its Windows Azure cloud OS, Microsoft described on Monday the cloud as a transformational shift for the industry.
The move to the cloud follows transformations from the mainframe to the PC, from the PC to client-server, and from client-server to the Internet, according to Microsoft.
"So what is all this fuss about SaaS (software as a service)? Well, really, it is the transformation that cloud computing will bring to our industry," said Mark Hindsbo, Microsoft general manager for developer and platform evangelism, during the MSDN Developer Conference in San Francisco.
Microsoft is touting Windows Azure and the Azure Services Platform. With Azure, developers can use the Visual Studio software development environment to build applications for the cloud.
"The easiest way to think about [Windows Azure] is it is Windows Server in the cloud," said Hindsbo. It supports development using REST and XML services and native or managed code.
Cloud computing and SaaS can provide benefits in today's tough economy, offering quick application deployment, Hindsbo said.
"I think one of the things that we're all facing right now is the big software projects that require massive up-front investments before our business customers see any return are probably very dubious," he said.
Microsoft's emphasis on cloud computing drew an endorsement from conference attendee Curtis Pope II, CEO of MetroDataOne, a software development and consulting firm.
"Just the fact that people are able to store not only their personal information but also their work information or work from anywhere, even, that's a beautiful thing," Pope said. Cloud computing harks back to the days of terminal-based computing but is flexible, he said.
Azure currently is offered in a pre-released, community preview format. General availability of Azure technology is anticipated for some time in 2010.


text:
Violent jihadists prefer foreign-language online web forums for their online social networking, but a new study reveals they're increasingly setting up Twitter accounts for propaganda and recruiting. Jihadist videos are already all over YouTube. And it won't be long before they find their way to other popular Western-based social media services such as Instagram, the study suggests.
According to The State of Global Jihad Online author Aaron Y. Zelin at the New America Foundation, Islamist terrorists and their sympathizers use a combination of web forums, conventional websites, and Twitter for social networking. Zelin also suggests that Jihadists use web forums for everyday conversation, exchanging tactics, and socializing, while Twitter is used more as a recruitment and propaganda tool. Rather than using the loaded term "terrorists," the study refers to jihadists–a category which also encompasses propagandists and ideologists for various armed Islamist militant organizations worldwide.
Zelin details how two U.S.- designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) maintained Twitter accounts despite potential headaches for Twitter. Somalian terror group al-Shabaab and Syrian jihadist rebels Jabhat al-Nusra both have Twitter feeds. Jabhat al-Nusra and al-Shabaab have ongoing, loose ties with Al Qaeda.
Twitter has been irregularly suspending al-Shabaab's account; access was briefly restored on Tuesday, Feb. 5 after being blocked on Jan. 24 shortly after they threatened via Twitter to kill two Kenyan hostages. Al-Shabaab's account was blocked again approximately the same time the New America Foundation paper was released. Jabhat al-Nusra's account is still online at the time of this post; both organizations use the microblogging service to post videos and propaganda.
Beginning of the end video: qualitative operation of blowing up remote controlledcar that killed 162 #Mayadin #Syria #jihad #Assad #terror
— Jabhat Al-Nusra (@JbhatALnusraeng) September 20, 2012
#martyrdom operation against #Al-Bukamal airport with 7 #tons bombed car followed by #mortar shelling and machine guns #syria #jihad
— Jabhat Al-Nusra (@JbhatALnusraeng) September 20, 2012
Individual jihadists and the web forums they operate also use Twitter. Although the New America study only tracked online activity up to April 2012, accounts were opened after the study's conclusion by, among others, Egyptian jihadist Mohammed al-Zawahiri, online information sharing site Minbar Tawhed, and Yemen's militant Madad News Agency. Most of these new arrivals write in Arabic rather than English or French, giving an indication of who their intended audience is.
The most influential jihadists on Twitter as of April 2012, according to a Twitalyzer count made by Zelin, are Kuwaiti cleric Hamad al-Ali (64 followers as of February 2013) and British propagandist Anjem Choudary (2718 followers). Both figures have a relatively low Twitter follower count compared to commercial brands or mainstream celebrities, and give an idea of the novelty of Twitter for the jihadist movement in general.
In fact, the disinterest of jihadists in using Twitter to communicate with each other–as opposed to using Twitter to disseminate propaganda and news to outsiders–is a recurring theme in the paper. A big part of this is due to differences in Twitter penetration rates in different countries. The Syrian jihadists of Jabhat al-Nusra have just over 250 followers at press time for their English-language feed, while al-Shabaab's English-language feed had more than 12,000 followers before it was suspended. Although Somalia has a much lower Internet penetration rate than Syria, Somalia's expatriate community has embraced Twitter.
The report argues, however, that jihadists are systematically moving from web forums to Twitter. "The migration of jihadis to Twitter is happening, but Twitter is unlikely to replace the forums because it cannot supplant the authentication function of the elite forums, which remains critical. Twitter, however, offers flexibility and security for times when the forums are under attack or groups are looking to put out information in breaking news situations," Zelin writes.
Twitter has also been used in the past for shouting matches between jihadist groups and their opponents. The Kenya Defence Forces, which are active on Twitter and in a longstanding conflict with Somali jihadists, use the service to trade verbal volleys with al-Shabaab. In addition, the Israeli military and Hamas argued with each other via Twitter this past autumn.
[Image: Flickr user Matt Schmitt]


text:
Miniclip's 'Pool Moonlight Sweepstake - Halloween 2017' Prize Draw -Terms and Conditions
Prize Draw Description
Miniclip is offering you the opportunity to enter the Miniclip 'Pool Moonlight Sweepstake - Halloween 2017' prize draw (the "Prize Draw"). The Prize Draw will open at 01:00.00 PDT on 19th October 2017 and close at 01:00.00 PDT on 3rd November 2017 (the "Prize Draw Period"). Any entries received before or after the Prize Draw Period will not be submitted for entry into the Prize Draw.
Promoter Information
This Prize Draw is promoted by Miniclip SA ("Miniclip"), registered in Switzerland with company number CH-645-4103964-1. To contact Miniclip, please write to us at Miniclip SA, Case Postale 2671, 2001 Neuchâtel, Switzerland.
How To Enter
There is no purchase necessary to enter or to win a prize. It's easy! Follow the steps below for your chance to win.
Series 1
Series 2
Series 3
Series 4
If you win two (2) Super Awards, you will receive two (2) entry tickets into the Prize Draw.
If you win three (3) Super Awards, you will receive three (3) entry tickets into the Prize Draw.
If you win all of the Super Awards (i.e. all four Super Awards), you will receive twelve (12) entry tickets into the Prize Draw.
Don't forget - you can play the games as many times as you like during the Prize Draw Period!
All valid entry tickets will automatically be put into the Prize Draw and winners will be selected at random on or about 10th November 2017 (the "Drawing Date").
After the Drawing Date, Miniclip will notify the winners via the email address with which their entry was submitted. If the potential winner does not respond to Miniclip's notification email within seventy two (72) hours from the date of delivery of such email or if the potential winner does not accept the prize on these terms, Miniclip reserves the right to re-choose another potential winner from the remaining entries. Miniclip's decision is final and binding and no correspondence will be entered into.
Winners will be asked to provide a postal address in order to organise delivery of the prize (if applicable). Prizes will be dispatched within two weeks after the eligibility and identity of the potential winner has been verified.
The prize items are subject to change and Miniclip reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to replace any of them with a cash value or substitute a prize of equal or greater value, as applicable (for example, if any prize is deemed not to be suitable for a younger entrant). Cash alternative is not available upon request.
The names of the winners will be published on the Miniclip.com website or its associated social media pages. By registering to enter this Prize Draw, you consent to the use and display of your name/username, home country and YoMe or Facebook profile photo on the Miniclip.com website and/or associated social media pages.
If you would like more information about how Miniclip collects information from its registered users, please read our privacy policy which can be found here https://www.miniclip.com/games/page/en/privacy-policy/.


text:
Welcome to the NORTHERN IRELAND BOWLING ASSOCIATION information and news Web site. you are Visitor Number
If you are a non-bowler who has just surfed in and are interested in giving the game of Lawn Bowls a try but don't know how to go about it - it's easy. Find your nearest Bowling Green - this club info link may help - go along any evening and approach any of the bowlers on the green. You will receive a warm welcome. Coaching sessions for new bowlers and those who want to improve are held during May and June at various Greens - check out this Coaching Link.
To refresh page and obtain the most recent update please press Ctrl F5 - Placing mouse cursor over scroller bar stops text scrolling - easier to read! If you have a 'wheel mouse' holding down Ctrl key + rolling the wheel up or down will set the text size to whatever setting is most comfortable for viewing.
Post a League or Cup ResultRead the Guest BookGet a Weather Report


text:
A talented midfielder that has represented the province of British Columbia at youth level, Spencer DeBoice joined Whitecaps FC Residency on Sept. 7, 2010, after spending three seasons with Surrey Guildford United.
2011: DeBoice made a total of 11 appearances during his first season in the PDL with Whitecaps FC Residency, as they finished third in the Northwest Division of the PDL's Western Conference. The midfielder made his PDL debut as a late substitute during a 2-2 draw at British Columbia rivals Victoria Highlanders FC on May 21.
2010-11: In his first year with the Residency program, DeBoice made five appearances during the team's six-match tour of Mexico in Nov. 2010. His only start came during a 4-2 victory versus Atlas de Guadalajara U-18's on Nov. 14. The midfielder then appeared as a substitute for the Residency team in all three Bracket C matches at Dallas Cup XXXII. This included a 3-2 win over Brazil's Sport Club Corinthians Paulista (Apr. 17, 2011), a 2-0 defeat to Mexico's Tigres de la Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León (Tigres UANL) (Apr. 18, 2011), and a 2-0 defeat to Real Salt Lake U-17/U-18 Academy (Apr. 20, 2011) in the U-19 Super Group. DeBoice then started the 2-1 friendly win over Costa Rica's Liga Deportiva Alajuelense at Dallas Cup XXXII on Apr. 21, 2011.
DeBoice began his soccer career in his hometown of Surrey, BC, with Guildford Athletic Club in 2007. After one year with Guildford, the midfielder moved up to the Metro level with Surrey Guildford United, where he played from 2008 to 2010. In addition to his club experience, DeBoice continued his development by training at the Total Soccer Systems (TSS) Academy in Richmond, BC. As a member of TSS Academy, the midfielder toured the Netherlands in 2006. That same year, DeBoice also represented Fraser Valley (Zone 3) at the 2006 BC Summer Games in Kamloops, BC. The midfielder was also a fixture in the BC provincial team program from 2006 to 2010, having won a Canadian All-Star Championship bronze medal with his home province. From 2007 to 2010, DeBoice also trained in the Canadian Soccer Association's National Training Centre (British Columbia region) program.
Born and raised in Surrey, BC, the midfielder's parents are Mariana and Kevin DeBoice, while he has two siblings named Quentin and Ashtyn. As a student in Surrey, BC, DeBoice attended Janice Churchill Elementary School before enrolling at Enver Creek Secondary School.
When not concentrating on his soccer career, DeBoice enjoys listening to music and spending time with friends.
Spencer DeBoice


text:
The International Kiteboarding Association (IKA) regrets to announce, that the PKRA has decided to go its own way instead of cooperating with IKA, KPWT and other organizers towards the unification of competition kiteboarding.
The PKRA had stated in an earlier press release, that they recognize the IKA as governing body for kiteboarding.
This, after hard negotiations had let to a common position with the clear commitment by the PKRA not to apply for special event status towards the International Sailing Federation (ISAF) but to work with the IKA, national kiteboarding associations and other tour operators.
As emerged now, an application for special event status has been raised again by the PKRA at the ISAF Council meeting last weekend, breaking the agreement achieved with the IKA before. These facts doesn't make it reasonable to finalize the negotiations between IKA and PKRA at the moment.
It is expected, that the ISAF will reject the application for special event status and we hope that we can resume constructive negotiations with the PKRA thereafter.


text:
Bush v. Gore
|Bush v. Gore
|Argued December 11, 2000
Decided December 12, 2000
|Full case name
|George W. Bush and Richard Cheney, Petitioners v. Albert Gore, Jr. and Joseph Lieberman, et al.z
|Docket nos.
|531 U.S. 98 (more)
121 S. Ct. 525; 148 L. Ed. 2d 388; 2000 U.S. LEXIS 8430; 69 U.S.L.W. 4029; 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Service 9879; 2000 Colo. J. C.A.R. 6606; 14 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 26
|Oral argument
|Prior history
|Judgment for defendant, Fla. Cir. Ct.; matter certified to Florida Supreme Court, Fla. Ct. App.; aff'd in part, rev'd in part, sub nom. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, 772 So. 2d 1273 (2000); cert. granted, stay granted, 531 U.S. 1036 (2000)
|In the circumstances of this case, any manual recount of votes seeking to meet the December 12 "safe harbor" deadline would be unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Florida Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
|Court membership
|Case opinions
|Per curiam.
|Rehnquist, joined by Scalia, Thomas
|Stevens, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer
|Souter, joined by Breyer; Stevens, Ginsburg (all but part C)
|Ginsburg, joined by Stevens; Souter, Breyer (part I)
|Breyer, joined by Stevens, Ginsburg (except part I-A-1); Souter (part I)
|Laws applied
|U.S. Const. art. II, amend. XIV; 3 U.S.C. § 5
Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), is the United States Supreme Court decision that resolved the dispute surrounding the 2000 presidential election. Three days earlier, 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).
In a per curiam decision, the Court, by a 7–2 vote, ruled that there was an Equal Protection Clause violation in using different standards of counting in different counties and, by a 5–4 vote, 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][2][3] 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.
The decision allowed Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris's previous certification of George W. Bush as the winner of Florida's 25 electoral votes to stand. Florida's votes gave Bush, the Republican candidate, 271 electoral votes, one more than the required 270 electoral votes to win the Electoral College and defeat Democratic candidate Al Gore, who received 266 electoral votes (a District of Columbia elector abstained). Media organizations subsequently analyzed the ballots, and under the strategy that Al Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida recount — filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties — Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted by the consortium. On the other hand, the study also found that a statewide tally would have resulted in Gore emerging as the victor by 60 to 171 votes, if the official vote-counting standards had not rejected ballots containing overvotes (where a voter hole-punches multiple candidates but writes out the name of their intended candidate).
- 1 Background
- 2 Stay of the Florida recount
- 3 Rapid developments
- 4 Relevant law
- 5 Issues considered by the Court
- 6 Decision
- 7 Scholarly analyses
- 8 See also
- 9 Notes and references
- 10 External links
In the United States, each state conducts its own popular vote election for President and Vice President. The voters are actually voting for a slate of electors, each of whom pledges to vote for a particular candidate for each office, in the Electoral College. Article II, § 1, cl. 2 of the U.S. Constitution provides that each state legislature decides how electors are chosen. Early in U.S. history, most state legislatures directly appointed the slate of electors for each of their respective states. Today, state legislatures have enacted laws to provide for the selection of electors by popular vote within each state. While these laws vary, most states, including Florida, award all electoral votes to the candidate for either office who receives a plurality of the state's popular vote. Any candidate who receives an absolute majority of all electoral votes nationally (270 since 1963) wins the Presidential or Vice Presidential election.
On November 8, 2000, the Florida Division of Elections reported that Bush won with 48.8% of the vote in Florida, a margin of victory of 1,784 votes.[4] The margin of victory was less than 0.5% of the votes cast, so a statutorily-mandated[5] automatic machine recount occurred. On November 10, with the machine recount finished in all but one county, Bush's margin of victory had decreased to 327.[6] According to author Jeffrey Toobin, later analysis showed that a total of 18 counties—accounting for a quarter of all votes cast in Florida—did not carry out the legally mandated machine recount, but "[n]o one from the Gore campaign ever challenged" the notion that the machine recount had been completed.[7] Florida's election laws[8] allow a candidate to request a county to conduct a manual recount, and Gore requested manual recounts in four Florida counties: Volusia, Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade, which are counties that traditionally vote Democratic and would be expected to garner more votes for Gore. Gore did not, however, request any recounts in counties that traditionally vote Republican. The four counties granted the request and began manual recounts. However, Florida law also required all counties to certify their election returns to the Florida Secretary of State within seven days of the election,[9] and several of the counties conducting manual recounts did not believe they could meet this deadline. On November 14, the statutory deadline, the Florida Circuit Court ruled that the seven-day deadline was mandatory, but that the counties could amend their returns at a later date. The court also ruled that the Secretary, after "considering all attendant facts and circumstances," had discretion to include any late amended returns in the statewide certification.[10] Before the 5 pm deadline on November 14, Volusia County completed its manual recount and certified its results. At 5 pm on November 14, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris announced that she had received the certified returns from all 67 counties, while Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade counties were still conducting manual recounts.[11]
Harris issued a set of criteria[4] by which she would determine whether to allow late filings, and she required any county seeking to make a late filing to submit to her, by 2 pm the following day, a written statement of the facts and circumstances justifying the late filing. Four counties submitted statements, and after reviewing the submissions Harris determined that none justified an extension of the filing deadline. She further announced that after she received the certified returns of the overseas absentee ballots from each county, she would certify the results of the presidential election on Sunday, November 18, 2000.[4] On that date, she certified Bush the winner and litigation ensued.
Stay of the Florida recount
By December 8, 2000, there had been multiple court decisions regarding the presidential election in Florida[12] and on that date the Florida Supreme Court, by a 4–3 vote, ordered a statewide manual recount.[13] On December 9, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 5–4 to stay the Florida recount, because according to Justice Scalia:
It suffices to say that the issuance of the stay suggests that a majority of the Court, while not deciding the issues presented, believe that the petitioner has a substantial probability of success. The issue is not, as the dissent puts it, whether "counting every legally cast vote can constitute irreparable harm." One of the principal issues in the appeal we have accepted is precisely whether the votes that have been ordered to be counted are, under a reasonable interpretation of Florida law, "legally cast vote[s]." The counting of votes that are of questionable legality does in my view threaten irreparable harm to petitioner Bush, and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election. Count first, and rule upon legality afterwards, is not a recipe for producing election results that have the public acceptance democratic stability requires.[14]
The dissenters opined:
Counting every legally cast vote cannot constitute irreparable harm... Preventing the recount from being completed will inevitably cast a cloud on the legitimacy of the election.[14]
The four dissenting justices argued that stopping the recount was an "unwise" violation of "three venerable rules of judicial restraint", namely respecting the opinions of state supreme courts, cautiously exercising jurisdiction when "another branch of the Federal Government" has a large measure of responsibility to resolve the issue, and avoiding making peremptory conclusions on federal constitutional law prior to a full presentation on the issue.
Rapid developments
The oral argument in Bush v. Gore occurred on December 11.[15] Theodore Olson, a Washington, D.C. lawyer and future Solicitor General, delivered Bush's oral argument and New York lawyer David Boies argued for Gore.
During the brief period when the U.S. Supreme Court was deliberating on Bush v. Gore, the Florida Supreme Court provided clarifications[16] that the U.S. Supreme Court had requested on December 4 in the case of Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, 531 U.S. 70 (2000). Because of the extraordinary nature and argued urgency of the case, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Bush v. Gore on December 12, less than a day after hearing oral argument.
Relevant law
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, on which the decision in Bush v. Gore was based,[17] states:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Article II, § 1, cl. 2 specifies the number of electors per state, and, most relevant to this case,[18] specifies the manner in which those electors are selected, stipulating that:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors...
This clause arguably gives power to only one branch of Florida's state government (i.e., the state legislature).[19]
3 U.S.C. § 5 regulates the "determination of controversy as to appointment of electors"[20] in Presidential elections. Of particular relevance[18] to this case was the so-called "safe harbor" provision, which allows states to appoint their electors without Congressional interference if done by a specified deadline:
If any State shall have provided ... for its final determination of ... the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State ... at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such determination ... shall be conclusive.[21]
Since the electors were set to meet December 18, the "safe harbor" deadline was December 12, just one day after the Court heard oral arguments in this case.
According to 28 U.S.C. § 1257:
Final judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had, may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari where the validity of a treaty or statute of the United States is drawn in question or where the validity of a statute of any State is drawn in question on the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States...
Issues considered by the Court
The Court had to resolve two different questions to fully resolve the case:
- Were the recounts, as they were being conducted, constitutional?[22]
- If the recounts were unconstitutional, what is the remedy?[23]
Three days earlier, the five-Justice majority had ordered the recount stopped[24] and the Court had to decide whether to restart it.
Equal Protection Clause
Bush argued that recounts in Florida violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because Florida did not have a statewide vote recount standard. Each county was on its own to determine whether a given ballot was an acceptable one. Two voters could have marked their ballots in an identical manner, but the ballot in one county would be counted while the ballot in a different county would be rejected, due to the conflicting manual recount standards.[25]
Gore argued that there was indeed a statewide standard, the "intent of the voter" standard, and that this standard was sufficient under the Equal Protection Clause.[26] Furthermore, Gore argued that the consequence of ruling the Florida recount unconstitutional simply because it treated different voters differently would effectively render every state election unconstitutional[27] and that each method has a different rate of error in counting votes. A voter in a "punch-card" county has a greater chance of having his vote undercounted than a voter in an "optical scanner" county. If Bush wins, Gore argued, every state would have to have one statewide method of recording votes to be constitutional.
This was the most closely decided issue in the case. The arguments presented by counsel did not extensively address what the Court should do, if the Court were to find an Equal Protection violation. However, Gore did argue briefly that the appropriate remedy would not be to cancel all recounts, but rather would be to order a proper recount.[28]
Article II
Bush also argued that the Florida Supreme Court's ruling violated Article II, § 1, cl. 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Essentially, Bush argued that the Florida Supreme Court's interpretation of Florida law was so erroneous that their ruling had the effect of making new law. Since this "new law" had not been directed by the Florida legislature, it violated Article II. Bush argued that Article II gives the federal judiciary the power to interpret state election law in presidential elections to ensure that the intent of the state legislature is followed.[29]
Gore argued that Article II presupposes judicial review and interpretation of state statutes, and that the Florida Supreme Court did nothing more than exercise the routine principles of statutory construction to reach its decision.[30]
In brief, the breakdown of the decisions was:
- Seven justices (the five Justice majority plus Breyer and Souter) agreed that there was an Equal Protection Clause violation in using different standards of counting in different counties.[31]
- Five justices agreed that December 12 (the date of the decision) was the deadline Florida had established for recounts (Kennedy, O'Connor, Rehnquist,[32] Scalia and Thomas in support; Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter and Stevens opposed). Justices Breyer and Souter wanted to remand the case to the Florida Supreme Court to permit that court to establish uniform standards of what constituted a legal vote and then manually recount all ballots using those standards.[33][34]
- Three justices (Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas) argued that the Florida Supreme Court had acted contrary to the intent of the Florida legislature. Four justices (Breyer, Souter, Ginsburg, and Stevens) specifically disputed this in their dissenting opinions, and the remaining two Justices (Kennedy and O'Connor) declined to join Rehnquist's concurrence on the matter.
Equal Protection Clause
The Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion, ruled that the Florida Supreme Court's decision, calling for a statewide recount, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This ruling was by a 7–2 vote, but (as discussed more fully in the next subsection below) two of the seven disagreed with the Court's remedy for the Equal Protection violation.[31] The Court held that the Equal Protection Clause guarantees to individuals that their ballots cannot be devalued by "later arbitrary and disparate treatment". Even if the recount was fair in theory, it was unfair in practice. The record, as weighed by the Florida Supreme Court, suggested that different standards were seemingly applied to the recount from ballot to ballot, precinct to precinct, and county to county, even when identical types of ballots and machines were used.[35]
According to the Court, the statewide standard (that a "legal vote" is "one in which there is a 'clear indication of the intent of the voter'"[36]) could not guarantee that each county would count the votes in a constitutionally permissible fashion. The Court stated that the per curiam opinion's applicability was "limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."
The Court ruled 5–4 that no constitutionally valid recount could be completed by a December 12 "safe harbor" deadline. The Court asserted that "the Supreme Court of Florida has said that the legislature intended the State's electors to 'participat[e] fully in the federal electoral process,' as provided in 3 U.S.C. § 5." The Court therefore effectively ended the proposed recount, because "the Florida Legislature intended to obtain the safe-harbor benefits of 3 U.S. C. §5."
Four justices (Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter and Breyer) dissented as to stopping the recount. Two of those four dissenters (Justices Breyer and Souter) acknowledged that the counting up until December 9 had not conformed with Equal Protection requirements. However, Souter and Breyer favored remanding the case back to the Florida Supreme Court for the purpose of crafting specific guidelines for how to count disputed ballots, in contrast to the majority's decision to halt the recount altogether.[37] The actual counting had ended with the December 9 injunction issued by the same five-justice majority, three days before any deadline.[24]
The dissenting opinions strongly criticized the five justice majority for involving the Court in state-level affairs. Justice Stevens' dissent (joined by Justices Breyer and Ginsburg) concluded as follows:[38]
What must underlie petitioners' entire federal assault on the Florida election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make the critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their position is wholly without merit. The endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.
The per curiam opinion in Bush v. Gore did not technically dismiss the case, and instead "remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion." Gore's attorneys therefore understood that they could fight on, and could petition the Florida Supreme Court to repudiate the notion that December 12 was final under Florida law.[39] However, Gore dropped the case, because he was not optimistic about how the Florida justices would react to further arguments and, as one of his advisers put it, "the best Gore could hope for was a slate of disputed electors".[39] On remand, the Florida Supreme Court issued an opinion on December 22, 2000, that did not dispute whether December 12 was the deadline for recounts under state law, although this was disputed in a concurring opinion by Florida Supreme Court Justice Leander Shaw.[40]
Article II
Chief Justice Rehnquist's concurring opinion, joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas, began by emphasizing that this was an unusual case in which the Constitution requires federal courts to assess whether a state supreme court has properly interpreted the will of the state legislature. Usually, federal courts do not make that type of assessment, and indeed the per curiam opinion in this case did not do so. After addressing this aspect of the case, Rehnquist examined and agreed with arguments that had been made by the dissenting justices of the Florida Supreme Court.
Scholarly analyses
Bush v. Gore prompted many strong reactions from scholars, pundits, and others over the Court's decision.
The critical remedial issue
The most closely decided aspect of the case was the key question of what remedy the Court should order, in view of an Equal Protection Clause violation. Gore had argued for a new recount that would pass constitutional muster, but the Court instead chose to end the election, asserting that "the Florida Supreme Court has said that the Florida Legislature intended to obtain the safe-harbor benefits of 3 U.S. C. §5." This assertion in Bush v. Gore has proven very controversial.
Michael W. McConnell has written that the U.S Supreme Court's decision on December 12 "may have reached the right result for the wrong reason."[41] McConnell points to the Florida Supreme Court's December 11 opinion, which characterized December 12 as an "outside deadline". Here is the pertinent excerpt from the December 11 opinion of the Florida Supreme Court:[16]
What is a reasonable time required for completion will, in part, depend on whether the election is for a statewide office, for a federal office or for presidential electors. In the case of the presidential election, the determination of reasonableness must be circumscribed by the provisions of 3 U.S.C. § 5, which sets December 12, 2000, as the date for final determination of any state's dispute concerning its electors for that determination to be given conclusive effect in Congress... As always, it is necessary to read all provisions of the elections code in pari materia. In this case, that comprehensive reading required that there be time for an elections contest pursuant to section 102.168, which all parties had agreed was a necessary component of the statutory scheme and to accommodate the outside deadline set forth in 3 U.S.C. § 5 of December 12, 2000.
However, according to Nelson Lund, one might argue that the Florida Supreme Court was discussing the "protest provisions of the Florida Election Code, whereas the issues in Bush v. Gore arose under the contest provisions."[42] Likewise, Peter Berkowitz has written that, "Perhaps it would have been more generous for the Court to have asked the Florida court on remand whether 'outside deadline' referred to contest-period as well as protest-period recounts."[43] Abner Greene has pointed to evidence that "the Florida Supreme Court thought all manual recounts – whether protest or contest – must be completed no later than December 12."[44] Nevertheless, Greene concluded that, "lack of clarity about the Florida Supreme Court's views on the safe-harbor provision should have resulted in a remand to that court for clarification,"[44] in addition to the remand of December 4.[45] The Court in Bush v. Gore did remand the case instead of dismissing it, but the remand did not include another request for clarification. Louise Weinberg argues that, even giving the Court the benefit of the doubt that it acted appropriately in intervening in Florida state law, its actions should be deemed unconstitutional because its intervention was not coupled with any kind of remedy aimed at determining the actual outcome of the election.[46]
Limitation to present circumstances
Some critics of the decision argue that the majority seemed to seek refuge from their own logic[47][48] in the following sentence in the majority opinion: "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."[49] The Court's defenders argued that this was a reasonable precaution against the possibility that the decision might be read over-broadly,[50] arguing that in the short time available it would not be appropriate to attempt to craft language spelling out in greater detail how to apply the holding to other cases. Critics, however, interpreted the sentence as stating that the case did not set precedent in any way and could not be used to justify any future court decision, and some suggested that this was evidence the majority realized its holding was untenable.[51] Regardless of whether the majority intended the decision to be precedential, it has been cited by several federal courts in election cases.[52][53][54][55][56]
Accusation of partisanship or conflict of interest
It has been claimed that the majority opinion emerged from conservative Republican Justices ruling against Gore for partisan reasons.[57] This claim was made, for example, by Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz, who wrote:
[T]he decision in the Florida election case may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history, because it is the only one that I know of where the majority justices decided as they did because of the personal identity and political affiliation of the litigants. This was cheating, and a violation of the judicial oath.[57]
Chapman University School of Law professor Ronald Rotunda has responded as follows:
Not only is that claim inconsistent with the position of Justices Breyer and Souter, it is inconsistent with the position of three of the Florida justices who dissented. No Justice on the Florida Supreme Court was a Republican appointee, but three of them concluded that the recount that Vice President Gore wanted was unconstitutional. Three of the seven Florida Supreme Court justices also found an Equal Protection violation when the manual ballot-counters used different procedures to examine identical ballots and count them differently.[58]
There has also been analysis of whether several Justices had a conflict of interest that should have forced them to recuse themselves from the decision. On several occasions, William Rehnquist had expressed interest in retiring under a Republican administration; one study found that press reports "are equivocal on whether facts existed that would have created a conflict of interest" for Rehnquist. At an election night party, Sandra Day O'Connor became upset when the media initially announced that Gore had won Florida, her husband explaining that they would have to wait another four years before retiring to Arizona.[59] However, both Justices remained on the Court beyond President Bush's first term, until Rehnquist's death in 2005 and O'Connor's retirement in 2006. According to Steven Foster of the Manchester Grammar School:
On the eve of the election Sandra Day O'Connor had made a public statement that a Gore victory would be a personal disaster for her. Clarence Thomas's wife was so intimately involved in the Bush campaign that she was helping to draw up a list of Bush appointees more or less at the same time as her husband was adjudicating on whether the same man would become the next President. Finally, Antonin Scalia's son was working for the firm appointed by Bush to argue his case before the Supreme Court, the head of which was subsequently appointed as Solictor-General.[60]
Various ethics experts have asserted that there was no conflict of interest for Justices Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia.[61]
Recount by media organizations
In 2001, a consortium of news organizations, assisted by professional statisticians (NORC), examined numerous hypothetical ways of recounting all the Florida ballots. The study was conducted over a period of 10 months. The consortium examined 175,010 ballots that vote-counting machines had rejected. In each alternative way of recounting the rejected ballots, the number of additional votes for Gore was smaller than the 537-vote lead that state election officials ultimately awarded Bush. Under the strategy that Al Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida recount — filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties — Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted by the consortium. Likewise, if Florida's 67 counties had carried out the hand recount of disputed ballots ordered by the Florida Supreme Court on December 8, applying the standards that election officials said they would have used, Bush would have emerged the victor by 493 votes. On the other hand, the study also found that a statewide tally would have resulted in Gore emerging as the victor by 60 to 171 votes, if the official vote-counting standards had not rejected ballots containing overvotes (where a voter marks a candidate's name and also writes it in). These tallies conducted by the NORC consortium are caveated with the statement: "But no study of this type can accurately recreate Election Day 2000 or predict what might have emerged from individual battles over more than 6 million votes in Florida's 67 counties."[62][63]
Florida also received an additional 2,411 overseas ballots after the 7 PM deadline on election day. Florida officials rejected these overseas ballots, mostly from members of the United States Armed Forces. By rejecting those ballots, Florida provided Gore a 202 vote lead in the state. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida on December 8, 2000, overturned these rejections and ordered that all federal write-in ballots previously rejected be counted. The effect of these additional overseas ballots provided Bush with a 537 vote lead in the state. The ruling also noted:[64]
Service personnel give up many things when they enter the military, including the free exercise of some civil rights enjoyed by civilians at home. The sacrifice should not go beyond the surrender of rights that are incompatible with military duties. These men and women of our Armed Forces should be able to expect as much and no less, because of their induction into military service, than those of us who remain at home pursuing normal activities. It certainly would appear unnecessary that our soldiers and sailors and merchant marines must make a special effort to retain the right to vote.
The subsequent analysis revealed that black-majority precincts had three times as many rejected ballots as white precincts. "For minorities, the ballot survey found, a recount would not have redressed the inequities because most ballots were beyond retrieving. But a recount could have restored the votes of thousands of older voters whose dimpled and double-voted ballots were indecipherable to machines but would have been clear in a ballot-by-ballot review."[65] The ballot review later conducted by a consortium of news organization did not have access to these decisive ballots, which in many cases had disappeared and could not be produced.[66]
Other issues
Part of the reason recounts could not be completed was the various stoppages ordered by the various branches and levels of the judiciary, most notably the Supreme Court itself.[67] Opponents argued that it was improper for the Court (by the same five Justices who joined the per curiam opinion) to grant a stay that preliminarily stopped the recounts based on the possibility of irreparable injury and success on the merits.[68] Supporters of the stay — such as Charles Fried — contend that the validity of the stay was vindicated by the ultimate decision on the merits and that the only thing that the stay prevented was a recount "being done in an unconstitutional way."[69]
Some of the decision's critics argued that the Court's decision was a perversion of the Equal Protection Clause,[68] and contrary to the political question doctrine.[70] On the other hand, Geoffrey R. Stone has expressed sympathy with the Court's equal protection reasoning, even though Stone was dismayed by what he saw as the sudden and suspect conversion of Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas to that equal protection principle. According to Stone:
No one familiar with the jurisprudence of Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas could possibly have imagined that they would vote to invalidate the Florida recount process on the basis of their own well-developed and oft-invoked approach to the Equal Protection Clause.[71]
The dissent of Justice Stevens was criticized by George Mason University School of Law Professor Nelson Lund.[72] Lund said: "[t]he best known passage, which comes from Justice Stevens' dissent, consists of a rhetorical flourish rather than analysis." In that passage, Stevens had criticized the Court for questioning the impartiality of Florida's judiciary.[73]
Professor Charles Zelden faults the per curiam opinion in the case for, among other things, not declaring that the nation's electoral system required significant reform, and for not condemning administration of elections by part-time boards of elections dominated by partisan and unprofessional officials. Zelden concludes that the Court's failure to spotlight this critical flaw in American electoral democracy made a replay of Bush v. Gore more likely, not less likely, either in Florida or elsewhere.[48] In 2013, retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who had voted with the majority, speculated that perhaps the Court should have declined to hear the case, which "gave the court a less-than-perfect reputation".[74]
See also
- United States presidential election in Florida, 2000
- List of United States presidential elections by Electoral College margin
- Electoral Commission (United States)
- George W. Bush's first term as President of the United States
- Recount, a 2008 HBO movie about the 2000 presidential election and Bush v. Gore.
Notes and references
- ↑ Bush v. Gore (December 12, 2000).
- ↑ U.S. Supreme Court Docket for Bush v. Gore.
- ↑ "Bush v. Gore". Oyez Project. Retrieved January 22, 2011.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles> "Noting that the Equal Protection clause guarantees individuals that their ballots cannot be devalued by 'later arbitrary and disparate treatment,' the per curiam opinion held 7–2 that the Florida Supreme Court's scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional."
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, 772 So.2d 1220 (November 21, 2000). Late-filing criteria are at note 5. See The American Presidency Project for other documents related to the 2000 election dispute.
- ↑ See Fla. Stat. § 102.141(4). "The 2000 Florida Statutes, Title IX, Chapter 102, Section 141". Archived from the original on July 2, 2001.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles> (This archived version of the Florida statute is dated July 2, 2001, and is from Archive.org.)
- ↑ "Election 2000 Timeline". PG Publishing Co., Inc. December 17, 2000. Retrieved October 28, 2006.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ Toobin, Jeffrey. "Too Close to Call". Random House, 2002, p. 66.
- ↑ See Fla. Stat. § 102.166. "The 2000 Florida Statutes, Title IX, Chapter 102, Section 166". Archived from the original on July 2, 2001.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles> (This archived version of the Florida statute is dated July 2, 2001, and is from Archive.org.)
- ↑ See Fla. Stat. § 102.112. "The 2000 Florida Statutes, Title IX, Chapter 102, Section 112". Archived from the original on April 21, 2001.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles> (This archived version of the Florida statute is dated April 21, 2001, and is from Archive.org.)
- ↑ "Leon County Judge Rules on Certification" (PDF). Retrieved October 28, 2006.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ "Text: Florida Recount Results". Retrieved October 28, 2006.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ For example, the concurring opinion in Bush v. Gore cited the December 6, 2000, decision in Touchston v. McDermott, 234 F.3d 1130 (11th Cir. 2000).
- ↑ Gore v. Harris, 772 S2d 1243 (December 8, 2000).
- ↑ 14.0 14.1 Bush v. Gore on Application for Stay.
- ↑ Transcript and audio of oral arguments in Bush v. Gore, via Oyez.org. Retrieved 2008-06-05.
- ↑ 16.0 16.1 Palm Beach County Canvassing Board v. Harris, 772 S2d 1273 (Fla December 11, 2000).
- ↑ "Bush v. Gore, US Supreme Court Opinion".
The petition presents the following questions: ... and whether the use of standardless manual recounts violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. With respect to the equal protection question, we find a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles> Last paragraph in Part I.
- ↑ 18.0 18.1 "Bush v. Gore, US Supreme Court Opinion".
The petition presents the following questions: whether the Florida Supreme Court established new standards for resolving Presidential election contests, thereby violating Art. II, §1, cl. 2, of the United States Constitution and failing to comply with 3 U.S.C. § 5 ...<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles> Last paragraph in Part I.
- ↑ Gillman, Howard. The Votes That Counted: How the Court Decided the 2000 Presidential Election, pages 81-82 (University of Chicago Press, 2003).
- ↑ "US CODE: Title 3,5. Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors".<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles> The quote is the title of Section 5, Title 3.
- ↑ "US CODE: Title 3,5. Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors".<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ Id. "Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a remedy." Last paragraph in Part II.
- ↑ Id. "The only disagreement is as to the remedy." Last paragraph in Part II.
- ↑ 24.0 24.1 "Scalia and Stevens clash over recount stay in Bush v. Gore". CNN. December 11, 2000. Retrieved April 27, 2010.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ "Bush v. Gore, Brief for Petitioners" (PDF).<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles> "The Equal Protection Clause prohibits government officials from implementing an electoral system that gives the votes of similarly situated voters different effect based on the happenstance of the county or district in which those voters live." Paragraph 2 in Argument, Part III-A.
- ↑ "Bush v. Gore, Brief of Respondent" (PDF).<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles> "The court below was quite insistent that the counting of ballots must be governed by a single uniform standard: the intent of the voter must control." Paragraph 3 in Argument, Part III-A.
- ↑ Id. "...if petitioners mean to say that all votes must be tabulated under a fixed and mechanical standard (e.g., the "two-corner chad rule"), their approach would render unconstitutional the laws of States that hinge the meaning of the ballot on the intent of the voter..." Paragraph 3 in Argument, Part III-A.
- ↑ "Bush v. Gore, Brief of Respondent" (PDF).<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles> "[T]he appropriate remedy for either an Equal Protection Clause or Due Process Clause violation would not be to cancel all recounts, but rather to order that the recounts be undertaken under a uniform standard." Footnote 28.
- ↑ "Bush v. Gore, Brief for Petitioners" (PDF).<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles> "By rewriting that statutory scheme—thus arrogating to itself the power to decide the manner in which Florida's electors are chosen—the Florida Supreme Court substituted its judgment for that of the legislature in violation of Article II. Such a usurpation of constitutionally delegated power defies the Framers' plan." Paragraph 2 in Argument, Part I.
- ↑ "Bush v. Gore, Brief of Respondent" (PDF).<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles> "Even apart from the absurd theory that McPherson requires everything relevant to a state's process for choosing electors to be packed into a specialized presidential electoral code, the very premise of petitioner's argument is fatally flawed because the Florida Legislature re-enacted the contest statute in 1999 against the settled background rule that decisions of circuit courts in contest actions are subject to appellate review." Paragraph 5 in Argument, Part I.
- ↑ 31.0 31.1 "Bush v. Gore". Oyez Project. Retrieved January 22, 2011.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles> "Noting that the Equal Protection clause guarantees individuals that their ballots cannot be devalued by 'later arbitrary and disparate treatment,' the per curiam opinion held 7–2 that the Florida Supreme Court's scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional."
- ↑ "Bush v. Gore, Concurrence, Rehnquist".<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ "Bush v. Gore, Dissent, Breyer".<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ "Bush v. Gore, Dissent, Souter".<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ Justices Breyer and Souter stated:
It is true that the Equal Protection Clause does not forbid the use of a variety of voting mechanisms within a jurisdiction, even though different mechanisms will have different levels of effectiveness in recording voters' intentions; local variety can be justified by concerns about cost, the potential value of innovation, and so on. But evidence in the record here suggests that a different order of disparity obtains under rules for determining a voter's intent that have been applied (and could continue to be applied) to identical types of ballots used in identical brands of machines and exhibiting identical physical characteristics (such as "hanging" or "dimpled" chads).
- ↑ "Bush v. Gore, US Supreme Court Opinion".<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles> Id. 5th paragraph in Part I.
- ↑ Toobin, Jeffrey (2007). The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court , pp. 184, (Doubleday, New York, NY).
- ↑ "Bush v. Gore, Dissent, Stevens".<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ 39.0 39.1 Political Staff of the Washington Post, Deadlock: The Inside Story of America's Closest Election, pages 230-234 (Public Affairs 2001). Via Google Books.
- ↑ Gore v. Harris, 773 So. 2d 524 (December 22, 2000). Only Florida Supreme Court Justice Leander Shaw, in a concurring opinion, disputed that December 12 was the deadline for recounts under state law. Justice Shaw had joined the dissenting opinion in Gore v. Harris before the ruling in Bush v. Gore.
- ↑ McConnell, Michael. "Two-And-A-Half Cheers for Bush v. Gore" in The Vote: Bush, Gore, and the Supreme Court, page 118 (University of Chicago Press, Cass Sunstein and Richard Epstein Eds. 2001). Via Google Books.
- ↑ Lund, Nelson. "The Unbearable Rightness of Bush v. Gore" in The Longest Night: Polemics and Perspectives on Election 2000, page 176 (University of California Press, Arthur Jacobson and Michel Rosenfeld, eds. 2002).
- ↑ Berkowitz, Peter and Wittes, Benjamin. "The Lawfulness of the Election Decision: A Reply to Professor Tribe", Villanova Law Review, Vol. 49, No. 3, 2004.
- ↑ 44.0 44.1 Greene, Abner. "Is There a First Amendment Defense for Bush v. Gore?", 80 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1643 (2005). Greene points to footnotes 21 and 22 in Gore v. Harris, 772 S2d 1243 (December 8, 2000), as evidence that the Florida Supreme Court thought all recounts had to be completed by December 12, 2008.
- ↑ Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing, 531 U.S. 70 (December 4, 2000).
- ↑ Weinberg, Louise. [1] in When Courts Decide Elections: The Constitutionality of Bush v. Gore, 82 Boston University Law Review 609 (2002), p. 33.
In Bush v. Gore, on the contrary, the Court actively prevented the completion of a halted state recount, never having ruled on the merits either of the challenge or the election and never having adjudicated the validity of Bush's certification or Gore's request for a recount. Instead, the Court selected the next President of the United States in the absence of a completed election—the ultimate political act. A meaningful remand in Bush v. Gore, or completing the election under the Court's own supervision, would have preserved the Constitution from this assault.
- ↑ Fliter, John. "Review of The Rehnquist Court: Judicial Activism on the Right".<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ 48.0 48.1 Charles L. Zelden, Bush v. Gore: Exposing the Hidden Crisis of American Democracy (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2008) ISBN 0-7006-1593-8.
- ↑ "Bush v. Gore, US Supreme Court Opinion".<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles> (6th paragraph from end of Part II-B).
- ↑ Lund, Nelson. "The Unbearable Rightness of Bush v. Gore" (PDF).
... it's important to remember that overly broad holdings can be worse than those that are too narrow. Broad holdings may effectively decide future cases that are factually dissimilar in ways that should be legally distinguished.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ Spillenger, Clyde. "Supreme court fails to argue recount ruling". UCLA Today. Retrieved October 28, 2006.
This observation is the very antithesis of the rule of law.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ "Lemons v. Bradbury, 538 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2008)".<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ "Stewart v. Blackwell, 444 F.3d 843 (6th Cir. 2006)".<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ "Bennett v. Mollis, 590 F. Supp. 2d 273 (D.R.I. 2008)".<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ "State ex rel. Skaggs v. Brunner, 588 F. Supp. 2d 828 (S.D. Ohio 2008)".<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ "ACLU v. Santillanes, 506 F. Supp. 2d 598 (D.N.M. 2007)".<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ 57.0 57.1 Dershowitz, Alan. Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000, pages 174 and 198 (Oxford U. Press 2001).
- ↑ Rotunda, Ronald. "Yet Another Article on Bush v. Gore", Ohio State Law Journal, Volume 64, page 283 (2003).
- ↑ Neumann, Richard K., Jr. (2003). "Conflicts of interest in Bush v. Gore: Did some justices vote illegally?". The Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>[dead link]
- ↑ Steven Foster, The Judiciary, Civil Liberties and Human Rights, Edinburgh University Press, ISBN 0-7486-2262-4, p. 80.
- ↑ Jackson, Brooks (December 12, 2000). "Ethics experts say Scalia, Thomas connections not conflicts of interest". CNN.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ Examining the Vote: the Overview", New York Times (November 12, 2001).
- ↑ Keating, Dan (November 12, 2001). "Florida Recounts Would Have Favored Bush". The Washington Post.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ "Just US Law". Justia. Retrieved April 14, 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ Fessenden, Ford. "Ballots Cast by Blacks and Older Voters Were Tossed in Far Greater Numbers", New York Times (November 12, 2001).
- ↑ Fessenden, Ford. "How the Consortium of News Organizations Conducted the Ballot Review", New York Times (November 12, 2001).
- ↑ "Bush v. Gore, On Application for Stay, Majority Opinion" (PDF).<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles> Second last paragraph of Scalia's concurrence.
- ↑ 68.0 68.1 Raskin, Jamin (March 2001). "Bandits in Black Robes". Washington Monthly. Retrieved October 28, 2006.
But in Bush v. Gore, the Rehnquist majority did not even ask, much less explain, how Bush was personally injured by the hypothetical possibility that anonymous third-party citizens might have their ballots counted differently in Florida's presidential election.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ Fried, Charles. "An Unreasonable Reaction to a Reasonable Decision" in Bush V. Gore: The Question of Legitimacy, page 12 (Yale University Press, Bruce Ackerman ed. 2002): "The outrage against the stay by 673 law professors is, to say the least, overwrought. If the decision on the merits was justified, the stay becomes irrelevant. Yes, it did shut down the counting three and a half days earlier, but by hypothesis that counting was being done in an unconstitutional way."
- ↑ Tribe, Laurence H., "The Unbearable Wrongness of Bush v. Gore". George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 03-33; Harvard Law School, Public Law Working Paper No. 72. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=431080
- ↑ Stone, Geoffrey R. (2001). "Equal Protection? The Supreme Court's Decision in Bush v. Gore".<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ Lund, Nelson. "The Unbearable Rightness of Bush v. Gore". SSRN 267874. Cite journal requires
|journal=(help)<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
- ↑ The dissent by Justice Stevens in Bush v. Gore stated as follows: "What must underlie petitioners' entire federal assault on the Florida election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make the critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their position is wholly without merit. The endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law."
- ↑ Glanton, Dahleen (April 27, 2013). "O'Connor questions court's decision to take Bush v. Gore". Chicago Tribune.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
External links
|Wikisource has original text related to this article:
- Tony Sutin: Presidential Election Law
- Peter Berkowitz & Benjamin Wittes: "The Lawfulness of the Election Decision"
- Vincent Bugliosi: "None Dare Call It Treason"
- Adam Cohen: "Has Bush v. Gore Become the Case That Must Not Be Named?", Editorial Observer, The New York Times, August 15, 2006.
- Complete text and Audio of USSC Oral Arguments -- Bush v. Gore
- Video highlight of Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Wells opening Gore v. Harris argument on November 20, 2000
- Video highlights of November 20, 2000, and December 7, 2000, oral arguments in Gore v. Harris in front of Florida Supreme Court
it:Elezioni presidenziali statunitensi del 2000#Contestazioni
- Articles with dead external links from April 2014
- CS1 errors: missing periodical
- Use mdy dates from October 2012
- Navbox orphans
- Articles containing Latin-language text
- United States equal protection case law
- United States presidential election in Florida, 2000
- 2000 in United States case law
- George W. Bush presidential campaign, 2000
- Al Gore presidential campaign, 2000
- United States Supreme Court cases
- United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court
- United States elections case law


text:
We are a partner of GORSE SCITT (formerly Leeds Teaching School Alliance) which offers a dynamic route into teaching, providing high quality Initial Teacher Training around Leeds. New entrants to the teaching profession are able to train directly with the SCITT in schools within The GORSE Academies Trust and also in partner schools in the local area.
The trust has an outstanding record of recruiting trainees from its programme to newly qualified teaching positions within its schools and graduates from the SCITT are in high demand in schools outside of the Alliance.
The Ruth Gorse Academy has benefited significantly from the SCITT programme and is delighted to have as a part of its staff team many former trainees from the SCITT and its legacy School Direct work. This now includes several colleagues with significant responsibilities within the academy across the whole range of subjects.


text:
The World Cup has a long tradition of sparking innovation. The Miracle of Berne may have prevented Hungary lifting the trophy in 1954 but the Magnificent Magyars and their 3-2-3-2 discovered the way to outfox the WM formation.
By 1958, thanks to Bela Guttmann's influence in South America, it had morphed into the 4-2-4 that saw Brazil dominate the next two World Cups only for Sir Alf Ramsey to counter it with his Wingless Wonders of 1966. The modern 4-4-2 was born.
Even in 1986 it was Argentina's 3-5-2, designed to get the best from Diego Maradona, that precipitated the return of the sweeper four years later when defences dominated Italia '90.
However, it seemed that globalisation had put paid to the World Cup as an instigator of tactical change. With the star players concentrated within the confines of the Champions League, where the best do battle on a regular basis, the surprises are less dramatic in the modern game.
And yet, there remains nothing like a World Cup to focus the mind. In this respect, Louis van Gaal's shift to 3-5-2 with the Netherlands seemed particularly symbolic.
- What time are Usyk and Chisora in the ring?
- Ex-Hearts, Rangers defender Zaliukas dies aged 36
- Usyk vs Chisora predictions
- Pep: My Barcelona career is over
- Usyk vs Chisora: Non-Sky customers
- Russell responds to Alonso's prediction
- Hamilton explains Bottas 'respect' after pole defeat
- FREE STREAM: Usyk vs Chisora undercard fights
- Usyk vs Chisora: Book it now!
- Download Instructions
The man who had carried on the Dutch tradition of 4-3-3 at Barcelona and hence played his part in creating modern European football as we know it, masterminded the destruction of defending champions Spain with a 3-5-2 counter-attacking approach.
Van Gaal wasn't alone. Costa Rica were arguably the tournament's greatest overachievers with their version of the formation causing problems for everyone who encountered them en route to the quarter-finals.
With the new football season almost upon us, it seems the Premier League's managers have been taking note.
Liverpool, of course, can claim to be ahead of the curve having experimented with the formation last season. "It can be a system that works for us," said Brendan Rodgers. "But what doesn't change is our idea of the game, how we want to pass, how we want to be aggressive in our attack.
"It gives us numbers going forward, which is important. It's another system that the players have shown we can play. With more play and more development, it's one that we can flip to quite easily.
"It's wherever you can get superiority in the game. If I look at Daniel (Sturridge) and Luis Suarez, they are both nine-and-a-halves. They are not straight up and down strikers, they like to move and get in between.
"The game's evolving all the time. As a coach you are always looking at your players. The style never changes. I've always asked teams to control and dominate, be aggressive in your defending, and press really aggressively and high up the pitch - but that can be in whatever system."
Rodgers was motivated by a desire to keep Suarez and Sturridge - his two in-form strikers – on the pitch together, and that also seems to be the same starting principle with which Van Gaal is approaching his new job as Manchester United manager.
The Dutchman's conundrum is how best to deploy Robin van Persie and Wayne Rooney in their best positions. A 4-4-2 formation? Maybe. But then Van Gaal must also accommodate the gifted attacking midfielders at the club such as Juan Mata.
"I can play 4-3-3 with three strikers on the bench, but I want to play with two strikers. We have four number 10s, so the selection is not balanced in my eyes. I have decided to play this system because of the quality of the players. But if we lose, I can change back to another system."
There is an intriguing blend between philosophy and pragmatism at work here. But whether it's Rodgers talking of retaining his ethos or Van Gaal speaking of imbalance in his squad, the fundamental driving force is the need to find the best system for the players.
That's what saw Steve Bruce utilise the system with Hull City last year. Having used three at the back in 41 of their 46 Championship games, Bruce dabbled with the formation in the Premier League depending upon whether the opponents played one or two up front.
However, the starting point for the idea was the fact that he had a number of players, most notably Ahmed Elmohamady, who were clearly suited to the system. "That's one of the reasons we played it last year," Bruce told the Hull Daily Mail. "Certainly, it's Elmo's best position.
"He's played a bit at full-back. I think he's better coming from deep. It's a specialised position, which he enjoys more than anybody. Robbie Brady did very well there last year for us. It also allows me to play three in midfield and that's something I wanted to do.
"That system suits James Chester, it suits Alex (Bruce) and (Maynor) Figueroa. It suits a few of them and enables me to play three midfielders against the big teams. If you leave yourself open in the middle of the pitch, that leaves you vulnerable."
Situation is shifting
Of course, while Bruce used the 3-5-2 formation to his advantage by presenting a fresh problem to opponents accustomed to 4-2-3-1, the irony is that the situation is starting to shift. As more teams make the switch, the more reason there is for others to copy the formation.
After all, the principle reason why the back-three went out of fashion was because single striker systems had become increasingly popular and there was no tactical advantage in having two spare central defenders.
We've seen the World Cup and the Premier League last season, where a number of teams have used three at the back on different occasions, and I think it's important to be able to have the flexibility to do it.
As more and more teams find ways of getting two strikers on the pitch – whether in a back three or courtesy of Liverpool's much-vaunted diamond formation, the 3-5-2 once again becomes a viable counter-tactic. Consequently, it's one that many managers like the idea of having in their armoury.
"It is an option that I want to have without a doubt," West Brom head coach Alan Irvine told the Express and Star this week after trying out the system during pre-season.
""How many times I'll do it I don't know yet, but it's certainly an option that I want and I think if we can get in all the players that we want, then it will be an option we will have.
"We've seen the World Cup and the Premier League last season, where a number of teams have used three at the back on different occasions, and I think it's important to be able to have the flexibility to do it."
This desire for flexibility has long been a motivation behind Paul Lambert's tinkering at Aston Villa. "The beauty of it is they can adapt," he told the Birmingham Mail last season. "The lads know it (3-5-2). They played it last year, so they know how to do it.
"The good thing is we can change to different ways of playing. They can adapt to whatever we ask them to do. It all depends on who we're playing against."
Newcastle manager Alan Pardew tried the system back in April in an ill-fated experiment away to Stoke City but he is another who is willing to give the formation another go with the stated aim of getting the best out of new signing Siem De Jong. Again, it's variety that Pardew is after.
"When you are chasing games you need to be able to change your system if you're up against a brick wall. We wanted to look at the three centre-backs. It's all experience and we have learnt a little bit about things that will and won't work for us."
With Harry Redknapp also pondering three at the back at Queens Park Rangers, Everton boss Roberto Martinez not being averse to the system and Southampton coach Ronald Koeman regarded as something of a pioneer of the 3-5-2 in Holland, teams are queuing up to give it a go.
Will it work? With players so familiar with a back-four there may be teething problems. But from a period just a few years ago when 4-2-3-1 seemed ubiquitous, in the wake of a World Cup eye opener this summer, it appears we are in for a tactically interesting Premier League season.


text:
Stone Gate Inn & Casino Rama Free Ride for Hotel Guests
* Complimentary Shuttle Service
Found on the reserve land of Chippewas of Rama First Nation you'll find a 94,000 square foot casino & entertainment facility. Whether you want to try your luck at the Casino or take in an entertainment event, you can count on a fun-filled time with plenty of excitement.
It does not stop there! If you want to couple your Casino Rama visit with Orillia's number one hotel, we'll provide a shuttle to and from Casino Rama.
Please fill out the form below, including your requested shuttle times and one of our guest services representatives will contact you within 24 hours to confirm your accommodations and shuttle.


text:
First Drop!
Vocal start
Second Drop
Die wichtigste Loyalität des Künstlers ist jene gegenüber der Qualität."
Hi, i m Mikel Gugga
I'm from Germany and I live in Cologne.
I had my first experiences in 1998 on the Love Parade, where electronic beats got me !
From there on, I knew I want to make Housemusic !
My first vinyl was Run D.M.C. – It's Like That, have to say Wow !!!
in the year 2000 my clubtime began, where I´ve rocked a lot German House Clubs !
It was a great time, still proud of being a DJ this times ;-)
But nothing lasts forever, a fire destroyed my complete vinyl collection and me along with it :(
I took a freetime for 4 years !
In 2011 I started to make music again and I play on FreshFm, House Music Radio Station, DHLC and DE3P RADIO NETWORK also on HBRS
In 2013 I started to produce tracks, first more bad than good, but after a few months I found the groove !
I hope you´ll like my tunes, they comes from my heart !
House Music is my Passion, my essence of Life !
keep the Underground alive !
music genres:
DJ / Producer / housebeatsradiostation
Mikel CuGGa / Promo Records
Deep & Tech / Jacking House / Tech House / Garage House / Disco House / Funky House / Bassline House / Underground
Listen to all music and sounds of MiKel & CuGGa and follow this user by signing in for free.
You can listen to 304 tracks and mixes and follow this user as 335 did before.
This artist liked 93 tracks, followed 335 others and reshared 34 tracks and mixes. 793 other people are following this page too.
soundcloud...ikel-cugga mixcloud.c...mikelcugga facebook.c...kelCugga69 youtube.co...subscriber