Humanities desk
< October 19	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 21 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 20

A repeat of Bush v. Gore next month?

Per instructions at top of page "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate."--Jayron 32 13:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

If the US will have another super-close presidential election next month--similar to the one in 2000--could we see SCOTUS apply the principles of Bush v. Gore to an election-related case after the election? Specifically, I'm wondering if the same issues that were a problem in Bush v. Gore--specifically different standards for counting identical ballots in different counties/precincts and also limiting recounts to certain ballots (as opposed to recounting all of the ballots) could likewise be at play in some US states this year if the vote count in these states will be very close, as in Florida in 2000. Futurist110 (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the Reference Desk's job to make predictions, not even about the future. --174.89.48.182 (talk) 22:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not recounting all the ballots was not really an issue in Bush v. Gore. The point of that decision was to stop the ongoing recount of all the ballots in Florida under Terry Lewis's supervision. John Z (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Read the per curiam opinion in Bush v. Gore, please. They specifically said that there was a constitutional problems in not counting the undervotes, the overvotes, and all of the ballots that were classified by the voting machines as legal votes (since a ballot could have two marks but a voting machine could only read one of these marks and thus treat this vote as valid even though it should have been invalid). Lewis's recount counted the undervotes, and he was (strongly?) learning towards also counting the overvotes (albeit with this fact not known to SCOTUS when they made their ruling), but AFAIK Lewis's recount didn't actually include all of the ballots that were classified by Florida's voting machines as legal votes, did it? Futurist110 (talk) 00:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the relevant sentence from the per curiam opinion in Bush v. Gore: "Furthermore, the citizen who marks two candidates, only one of which is discernable by the machine, will have his vote counted even though it should have been read as an invalid ballot." Futurist110 (talk) 03:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Francis Dereham executed?

How come Francis Dereham, the former lover of Henry VIII's fifth Queen Catherine Howard was executed for treason despite that he only had sexual knowledge of Catherine before her marriage to the King and not after that? 86.128.175.75 (talk) 21:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the legal grounds for execution were different than the simple "he had premarital intercourse with a woman who later became queen". For instance, I believe one charge related to him promising to marry Catherine should the King predecease her, and this was argued to be contrary to the Treasons Act 1534. 199.66.69.32 (talk) 02:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the legal grounds for execution were "Henry wanted you dead". Henry VIII was known to be despotic in his attitude towards the traditional English constitution, and cared little for jurisprudence. If he wanted you dead, it was the court's job to figure out how to do it. --Jayron 32 17:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m trying to remember if there is a leader in modern times with a similar attitude toward jurisprudence.Rich (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]