[EM] Electoral College

[Michael Poole]

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax writes:

> If Mr. Poole thinks that what I wrote was "political rant," I wonder
> what planet he is from. He is certainly free to ignore it, as is
> anyone. But what I wrote was little more than what is commonly
> believed among, for example, legal experts regarding the 2000 election
> and the Supreme Court decision that interrupted the Florida state
> process, entirely contrary to precedent established by the same court
> and its announced principles.
> 
> This is not rant. It might be seen as political, but it is not
> polemic, nor is it exaggerated. The context was an assertion that the
> present Supreme Court would likely rule the Compact
> unconstitutional. It was not rant for me to note that this would be
> even more outside of precedent than that 2000 decision. Nor that if
> the Court were to go so far outside of precedent as that, they would
> be risking impeachment. I think that possibility, if it came to that,
> is real. But, in fact, I do not expect the court would do that. I am
> not railing against the Court. I think Mr. Poole must have some
> special sensitivity here....

Do you consider it tactful or convincing to begin an argument that you
were not ranting with an implication that I am from another planet, or
to close it with the assertion that I have some other agenda?

Perhaps I should be clearer about what I meant by political rant.  It
is an unsupported assertion of one particular political position, with
the apparent assumption that there is no reasonable disagreement over
it and with a controversial conclusion that is dependent on the first
assertion.  You have made strong claims about the Supreme Court
"making blatant result-oriented decisions", which you elaborate above
to apparently mean departure from precedent, and the possibility of
impeachment for Supreme Court Justices.  You have not supported these
beyond hand-waving and appeals to authority.

Beyond an expectation that people making strong, controversial claims
provide adequate support for their claims, I would not say I have any
special sensitivity in this area.

Michael Poole