Art, for Art's sake, right? <ggg>
In response to:
there are different legal interpretations to one set of facts. Just because the lower court ruled on the facts does not mean that an appellate court will not consider those facts in light of all the circumstances and the applicable laws.
Yes, an appellate court cannot simple IGNORE the facts of the case, but must use the facts of the case and apply them to the law, but it will not "deal with," or more appropriately ADDRESS, FACTUAL ISSUES that are traditionally the purview of the trial court, and that was the point of my original post.
I can understand you comment regarding the Secretary of State, and if you read my preceding post here, I think you will appreciate where I stand on this issue in light of the State Supreme Court agreeing to consider the case on appeal from the lower court's ruling.
In general, I believe that the Secretary of State has in-fact complied with her duties and exercised her discretion in accordance with the Florida statute and with J. Lewis's earlier ruling. At least we know J. Lewis agrees with this. But I think given the nature of this case, and the utmost sensitivity and impact of such an election not only across America, but also in foreign affairs that the Court is likely to instruct the Secretary of State to weigh in her discretion the substantive outcome of the manual count, for better or worse, in addition to their integrity and tardiness. |
