It's ridiculous of you to say the Bush team hasn't been arguing against selective re-counts when they've been spouting those very words both in public, in their original Federal case, and elsewhere for nearly a month now.
Dan, your fingers are typing before your brain has digested my remarks. My point was not that the Bush team is arguing that selective recounts are unfair -- they are obviously doing that -- but that they have never argued for the obvious remedy, full recounts, because they have been against any and all recounts since the election.
They have been frantically bad-mouthing manual recounts, suing, stalling and delaying since November 8th. They have used every conceivable argument that has occured to them, all to the same end, to stop any recount.
The Republicans have been simultaneously arguing that all manual recounts wildly subjective, partial manual recounts are unfair, recounts done to local standards are illegal, if the machine can't read a ballot then it can't be a vote, and that the Democrats have had recount after recount already anyway. These arguments are consistent only with regard to their goal -- stop all recounts.
As for an unfair law being unconstitutional, you need to find a court to say so. Personally, I think the Florida election law is a mess but there's enough wiggle room in it to have delivered a fair process if it had been impartially administered. I don't think it was. |
