<ot>Hi Carl - if these are your criteria, I will respect your opinion and maybe even ingenuity. However, that will be the vision of justice as you see it. I suspect it has a strong element of "the spirit of law [not necessarily of American law.]" However, that may or may not be the letter of the law, from which SoS Harris has used to her advantage. So, while I admire the clarity of your thinking, I do not know there is no contextual conflict with the 7 days after the election strictjacket.
Like I said, I am no legal eagle, not even an amateur one, so I cannot say if the law is on which side. However, I think the complexity of the issue doesn't allow a victory based on a technicality. The late Justice Powell [?] has said that he might not have a strict definition of art vs obscenity. I believe American Jurisprudence has similar spirit, justice according to the written laws [Federal and local] with a dose of pragmatism. Yes, if the justices are hamstringed by the black-and-write letters, then there isn't much anyone can say. However, I don't see it here, and I hope the justices, be they from FL SC or US SC, won't take a technicality as the sole point of resolution either.
Back to that 4,700 ballots, I certainly think the action preceding the ballot casting has consequence, so I cannot see how one can get "around" it :)
best, Bosco |
