I didn't see a really strong federal or Constitutional issue being addressed at the hearing yesterday, other than the impending deadlines for the Electoral College. Clearly, the justices were focusing on how balance everyone's rights in view of the deadlines.
The interesting thing, to me, is that there were no facts in the record concerning the manual recounts, e.g., why they were ordered, or how long they will take. The Democrats were asking the justices to look outside the record, look at what is being reported in the news media, or speculate. I have never heard of an appellate court making a decision based on facts not in the record. I thought this was the major blunder the Dems made, am waiting to see how it plays out.
I thought they were perfectly fine to the lawyer representing the Sec. of State, who did an outstanding job, and I thought Bush's lawyer sucked and deserved the sarcasm he got. He tried to present a federal issue on the recounts, but he did not do it well, probably because it's not really a federal issue.
I also thought all the Dem lawyers sucked, and could not hit the softballs they were being thrown, even though a few of the Justices were begging them to. Boies is a good lawyer, but he was hampered by the lack of a record and was stumped by the question on how to balance all the competing interests. Which surprises me because that is what the Court has to do, he should have been ready for it. |
