Boies made the argument that there was no jurisdiction because as an attorney for the
Gore campaign it was his duty as a zealous advocate to make that claim in his
response to the Bush petition
I don't know about federal law, but in Washington it is a violation of the CR to make an argument that is not "warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law..." There is no way that arguing that the US SC had no jurisdiction over the interpretation or application of a federal statute meets that standard. Zealous advocacy is one thing. Making legally indefensible arguments in a non-criminal case is entirely another.
The rest of your post I agree with, except I think there is an argument to be made that the "manner as directed by the legislature" can include the legislature's passing certain decision making off to other bodies, such as canvassing boards, and including the courts where the statutes might be read to give the courts jurisdiction. In Wn, for example, the legislature has passed a statute which gives the Superior courts (principal trial courts) original jurisdiction over all cases at equity and all cases at lasw where the controversy amounts to $300. I could see making a case that the suit over voting irregularities is either a case in equity (since an equitable remedy, a revote, is requested) or a case at law involving more than $300, since it involves the right to collect the salary of the President of the US. So in Washington it would not be unethical to make a claim that the legislature had given the courts jurisidiction over these cases,and therefore court jurisdiction was part of the manner directed by the legislature. I don't know whether the Florida law is parallel, and I'm not about to look it up!
MHO, it defies logic that such power is vested with the States and therefore subject to
State judicial review.
Well, there is certainly, IMO, and in that of the SC, federal jurisdiction, but also note, that concurrent state and federal jurisdiction is common, so that doesn't mean the state courts can't also hear the issues. Just that the US SC can take over, as it has. |
