OTOTO...T
Joe:
I have briefly read (which is to say I haven't really given it much examination nor really studied the statutes on which it is based) the court's opinion and I listened to all of the hearing. I am unbiased in this matter:
RE:
[Amy,
(5) If the manual recount indicates an error in the vote tabulation which could affect the outcome of the election, the county canvassing board shall:
Only Palm Beach County made the correct argument for late return, so if the SC was even remotely trying to stay within the law, they could have considered Palm Beach case. But not Broward and not Dade, since Dade didn't even ask for a delay.]
The SOS issued her Cert. She then gave Dade, et al the right to request to file an "amendend" cert. They did.
RE:
[But the court has an agenda of their own, or more precisely, an agenda Gore campaign has for them, and the whole theatre of presenting arguments was just a charade for public consumption.]
The attorneys for BOTH sides were surprisingly unprepared for the technical issues that the Court wished to discuss. The court asked each side for specific answers and some of the attorneys gave empasioned pleas and eloquent statements that were simply not on point. They seemed not to see where the Court was going. Boies was a definite exception; but he either did not know Floida law well or in his study of the Court's prior decisions made a conscientious decision NOT to offer the court a time line that he knew they would not be afraid of deciding on their own. I don't know.
RE:
[From the questions and from their ruling, it seems as if the justices were in the middle of writing their ruling when they conducted the hearing and were just clarifying some points with the Gore team.]
Yea, sort of. BUT they asked questions of the Bush attorneys, that they did not answer. One example: The court: (my words) "Why not more than 7 days?" Bush attorneys: Because that's what the statute says! The court: (MY words) But if she has no discretion, then it is a mere ministerial decision, which we can review. Bush attorneys: Huh? "Let me introduced Bob who's going to introduce Jack. Jack: Man shall not be crucified on a cross of Gold!!! The court: uh, huh. THEY DID NOT ARGUE THAT SHE DENIED THE AMENDED CERTS BECAUSE THE CHADS ARE NOT AN INDICATION OF THE INTENT OF THE VOTER!!!! The Bush attorneys and the SOS allowed them to be considered votes.
If they are votes, it follows that the court can't ignore them.
(She even counted the one's prior to seven days!) The court asked: Don't we have a CONSTITUTION problem if we count just some. Bush attorneys: Hey no problem, WE WON'T ASK FOR A RECOUNT OF THE ENTIRE STATE, so you have an out. (Oh, my.)(sigh!)
RE:
[How can this joke of a ruling be unanimous in any court other than a strictly party line Democrat?]
Bush attorneys: Well we could now FORCE the court to determine the intent of the chad, AND TO DETERMINE THAT THAT WAS A VOTE OR NOT, which would require the court AS A MATTER OF LAW TO FIND EN MASSE WHAT WAS IN THE MIND OF THE VOTER, which they probably whould NOT have done or the SOS COULD have said, I think that statistically this will not effect the outcome! Nah, let's give the "win one for the Gipper speech", see if that works.
Maybe they had good reason not to make the arguments, I haven't really thought about it, but they seem to lose a lot of cases.
This was a pretty darn competant court.
But, I digress. I am not saying they didn't have political leanings, but we will never really know, because of the way the attorneys framed the issues. |
