It's crunch time now. Do we live in a land of partisan politics where a elected secretary of the state of Fl rules to a party in mind, and not to law or the other way around, or an opinion of a state AG to a party in mind and not on what may be most lawful in their opinion, or the other way around.
And then there's the judges in a state SC who may rule to a party in mind, and not to law or the other way around. We elect one that I know of; elect others to appoint the others in the latter. In the end, one will say it was politics, the other, it was law or the other way around. Have we become a land of politics or a land of laws. Furthermore are we now a land ruled by politicians driven lawyers and not laws, or maybe is it lawyers driven by politicians and party affiliation. I really don't know for sure, but, I do know what is right; and that's the laws of the land interpreted not for personal or political gain; but for the law in of itself.
With such very high stakes involved here, most importantly the many potential Federal SC appointees over the next couple years which has drawn great attention and passion from both left and right, not to mention the LITTLE(!) pardon bargaining chip on the Gore table, it's easy to see why all the fuss. |
