GOP Threatens Electoral Challenge nytimes.com
Amid escalating Republican attacks on the
Florida recount, a House GOP leader said Wednesday that Congress
would be prepared to challenge the presidential election if enough
questions are raised about the legitimacy of the winner.
``We in the House must be aware of one fact: In the end, when the final
analysis is brought to the House, it is our duty to accept or reject that,''
House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, said in an interview.
``We need to be able to say we're confident the process was legal and
compliant with the Constitution before we cast a vote to accept it,''
Armey said. Right now, he said, ``It's a mess.''
Republicans were outraged at the Florida Supreme Court's decision
Tuesday to require state officials to accept ballots recounted by hand in
three heavily Democratic counties. Several Republicans, including Senate
Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., said the ruling could call into
question the fundamental fairness of the election.
The decision, Lott said, ``serves as a chilling reminder of the need for
vigilance to ensure that the actions of unelected judges do not usurp the
right of the people to govern themselves in a democracy. This cannot
stand!''
What a bunch of whiners. Though that should hardly come as a surprise to anyone following Republican thought on SI for a while. The Trent Lott school of politics didn't have much problem with judicial review when the Dred Scott decision came down. That was a different kind of "state's rights", though.
Bush OKs Lawyers To File Appeal nytimes.com
Hours earlier, Bush told reporters in Austin, Texas, that the Florida
Supreme Court overreached, using the bench to rewrite election law by
allowing recounts in three Democrat-leaning counties to continue.
``Make no mistake,'' the Texas governor said in a nationally televised
statement. ``The court rewrote the law.''
``It changed the rules and it did so after the election was over.''
Yeah, they could have just gone by Texas law. But I guess W's Florida co-chair is the only possible interpreter of the law here, for some obscure reason or other. W looks to be in line for whiner in chief. |
