Abraham vs. Sherrill to the Supreme Court???

Posted on by

Former SM blogger and political pundit Cicatrix, accurately predicted last night that the tight race down in Florida was headed for a contentious recount battle. Don Sherrill, the “off-color” incumbent, beat upstart challenger Tom Abraham by only 19 votes. To quote Cicatrix: “hey Florida! reeeeeeecount!!” The Orlando Sentinel reports:

With a difference of less than two dozen votes, a two-term council member who recently made off-color statements about his Indian-born opponent’s ethnicity was returned to serve on the City Council on Tuesday.

Don Sherrill, who has served on Seat 4 of the council the past four years, is the apparent winner after garnering 51 percent of the vote against his opponent, Tom Abraham.

Election officials said 19 votes cast Tuesday and some provisional ballots, which were not included in Tuesday’s total, separated the two at day’s end.

Sherrill did not return calls Tuesday night. Abraham, who said he was “totally confused with the election process,” asked for a public-records inspection of the votes. Supervisor of Elections Ann McFall said Abraham could have an inspection of the ballots sometime next week with Sherrill present.

<

p>Quite frankly, I am not sure how this will go down if it ends up at the Supreme Court. John Roberts and Samuel Alito (who I predict will be confirmed) tend to yield to states rights. At least Katherine Harris is out of the picture…we hope.

Sherrill’s comments, which ranged from being unable to understand Abraham to comparing him with a Sept. 11 terrorist, drew out some, including neighbors from his Country Village retirement community who voted against him and others who credited him for speaking out.

I’m gonna offer to drive the truck.

14 thoughts on “Abraham vs. Sherrill to the Supreme Court???”

  3. A recount in Florida?? What are the odds !!! I am praying for a positive outcome for Mr. Abraham

  5. John Roberts and Samuel Alito (who I predict will be confirmed) tend to yield to states rights.

    Hmmmm. The other conservative justices on the Court tend to yield to states rights also — except, of course, when they don’t.

    But never mind what you and I think, Abhi — I’m waiting with anticipation to hear more about what Wonkatrix thinks might happen with this one (and, for that matter, with the Alito hearings). Who knows, if she plays her cards right, maybe she’ll even be able to parlay her punditry into a guest blogging gig somewhere…. oh wait, never mind. Where does one go when they’ve hit the big time so early in one’s career? 🙂

  6. For the record, Wonkatrix will be happy with nothing less than another Souter.

    Until then, she’s hired the newly available Judy Miller to go entagle herself with someone who can leak enough to torpedo Scailito.

    Abraham’s shit out of luck. Even if a recount tips the margin in his favor, it’ll still be by such a slim margin that Sherrill could fight it tooth and nail. And if Abraham is confused already, no way will he have the orneryness needed to dig in his heels.

    After the big time one lurks back in the wings, Anil. Hoping that lightning will strike twice and a taste of that schweet schweet nectar will once again be possible…

    A Faustian bargain my friend. be warned.

  7. Interesting. Somehow I don’t think that’s where the Divine Ms. M’s torpedoes would be aimed. And so far Alito seems pretty airtight when it comes to juicy information, though I guess there are still his hundreds of judicial opinions to go through. Even his students had difficulty figuring out what his positions were on issues they discussed in his “Terrorism and Civil Liberties” course at Seton Hall:

    “One of the great things about the class was if you went in knowing his conservative reputation, you came out questioning that reputation,” said Robert G. Marasco, who took the class in 2003 and is now an associate at Gibbons, Del Deo in Newark. “I had no idea where he stood afterwards or if he has even reached a conclusion of his own.”

    But Cicatrix, if you’re looking to set up Ms. Runamok to go entangle with a good source, there does seem to be at least one prospect who is, if nothing else, Mutiny-worthy.

    One day in February 2004, Alito created a hypothetical scenario for his students: The government had captured a foreign terrorist believed to be en route to an attack that would kill thousands of Americans. Was it constitutional for U.S. interrogators to use torture if by doing so they could thwart the attack and save American lives? Should there be a “ticking time bomb” exception to protect citizens against terrorism? Alito did not answer the question, instead leaving the students to debate it, according to an account at the time in the Bergen Record. “If we do the things that we criticize other nations for doing, it makes us no better than those nations,” student Naazneen Khan was quoted as saying.

    (“Ticking time bomb”? “Alito did not answer”?? I don’t know about you, but to me it sure seems like “slam dunk” evidence that Alito’s packing WMD heat. Quick — call Colin Powell and get him back to the UN!)

  9. Alito did not answer the question, instead leaving the students to debate it

    in..ter..est..ing…. so the course was a series of seminars, structured around Koans?

    pretty far out for an Italian-American catholic… I just might have to rethink my stance on this guy… maybe he’ll pull a Souter after all and show up in saffron robes to court!

  10. … a two-term council member who recently made off-color statements about his Indian-born opponentÂ’s ethnicity…

    Statements calling an Indian-American an embed and a 9/11 terrorist: “off-color”

    Same statements about blacks or Hispanics: “racist”

  11. Not only that but look at the choice of words the reporter used to describe why some residents supported Sherrill on election day:

    including neighbors from his Country Village retirement community who voted against him and others who credited him for speaking out.

    Since when is a racist attack deemed “speaking out?” It implies that someone had to stand up and speak out against the possibility that Arbraham was an embed.

  12. Statements calling an Indian-American an embed and a 9/11 terrorist: “off-color” Same statements about blacks or hispanics: “racist”

    Reading too much into an imbecile’s words: priceless

  14. Send your own email!

    —

    To: Charlene Hager-Van Dyke, chagervandyke@orlandosentinel.com

    I enjoyed your article about the results of the Don Sherrill – Tom Abraham election. However, I am dismayed by your inappropriate use of the phrase “off-color”:

    “… a two-term council member who recently made off-color statements about his Indian-born opponent’s ethnicity was returned to serve on the City Council on Tuesday.”

    Statements calling an Indian-American an embed and a 9/11 terrorist: “off-color”

    Same statements about blacks or Hispanics: “racist, bigoted”

    Let’s call a spade a spade here.

    Best regards, Manish Vij