FSC is going down as one of the most partisan courts in history.
The Florida court has looked at Florida election code as a whole when the code favored Gore, then individual statues in isolation when the election code as a whole favored Bush. And they did it in back to back cases.
In overturning Judge Sauls they said, that he erred when considered the Contest provisions in the context of the Protest. In other words do not look at the voting statutes as a whole. This in spite of the fact that previous rulings regarding voting have always considered it this way. Indeed, this is true in the most recent case, Palm Beach vs. Harris: "the Florida Election Code must be construed as a whole".
Then, they fashion a remedy, not of judicial review as called for in the Contest, but one of canvassing board review, as if it were in the Protest phase. And now (if the recounts are to go forward), there is no chance for judicial review of the canvassing board decisions as allowed by the Contest.
So according to the Florida Supreme court: You cannot use the Protest laws when considering the Contest, but to determine the outcome of the Contest you can use the Protest laws. Totally circular logic. Truly bizarre.
Then to answer the supreme court regarding Palm Beach vs. Harris, they just eliminate the sections where they constrain the Secretary of States' authority by the constitution: "Because the right to vote is the preeminent right in the Declaration of Rights of the Florida Constitution, the circumstances under which the Secretary may exercise her authority to ignore a county's returns filed after the initial statutory date are limited."
Now they say she could not certify because of the military vote deadline not being until 10 days after the election (a federal consent decree). That is not deliberation, it is rationalization. Federal statute does not trump the US Constitution anyway.
FSC adds that since the Secretary confused the canvassing boards regarding their ability to conduct manual recounts, they were just making allowances for the secretary's mistake by giving additional time for the recounts. The Problem is that they extended the recount dead line for two weeks. Additionally it is not true, as Broward and Volusia proceeded anyway and Miami Dade originally declined to do a manual recount. Only after the threat of lawsuits from the Democrats did they decide to proceed.
And then they say, that this ruling is only in effect for this election.
It is quite clear that they did not contemplate Article II or US code in their original ruling, and in a weak attempt to avoid violating it in the second ruling they say "Just for this election". They goofed, and do not have the virtue to admit their mistake.
It is hard to see that their agenda is anything but, get Al Gore elected. |
