Hi Ken:
If you don't think that stay of the Florida Court order was the worse decision by the US Supreme Court in our lifetime, then I suggest you are in denial.
Come on, Ken. Let's be real. I'm not in denial. I think you fail to appreciate the gravity of the matter presented before the US Supreme Court. In essence, the Florida SCt. had handed down a ruling that would permit a standardless review of "no vote" ballots that could undermine the legitimacy of the Presidency REGARDLESS of whoever was the victor, Bush or Gore. If you cannot see this, then, my friend, you are the one in denial. How could the US SCt permit such a standardless recount proceed that had a substantial likelihood of being rule invalid as violative of equal protection.
That decision was totally partisan politics.
Sure that's one way of looking at it, and certainly partisanship cannot not be discounted from one's reaction or opinion on many of the legal issues presented in this case. But I think that ANY court, particularly a high court, deserves a presumption of non-partisanship unless such a court renders a ruling that is not based upon sound legal jurisprudence. The US SCt's ruling meets this test; the Florida SCt's ruling does not.
It was motivated by a desire to have Bush elected, nothing else.
Again, Ken, this follow-up comment illustrates how you approach your analysis of the US SCt's. ruling -- all partisanship, forget the rule of law. Try applying the rule of law first, then if you can't make sense of the ruling, resort to your assertion of partisanship. To not do this shows a total lack of respect for the Court, which I find quite surprising from a member of the bar. |
