The real story:
Excerpt from the ruling:
Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are consti-tutional problems with the recount ordered by the Florida
Supreme Court that demand a remedy. See post, at 6
(SOUTER, J., dissenting); post, at 2, 15 (BREYER, J., dis-senting).
The only disagreement is as to the remedy.
Because the Florida Supreme Court has said that the
Florida Legislature intended to obtain the safe-harbor
benefits of 3 U. S. C. §5, JUSTICE BREYER’ s proposed rem-edy—remanding to the Florida Supreme Court for its
ordering of a constitutionally proper contest until Decem-ber 18-contemplates action in violation of the Florida
election code, and hence could not be part of an “appropri-ate” order authorized by Fla. Stat. §102.168(8) (2000).
None are more conscious of the vital limits on judicial
authority than are the members of this Court, and none
stand more in admiration of the Constitution’ s design to
leave the selection of the President to the people, through
their legislatures, and to the political sphere. When con-tending parties invoke the process of the courts, however,
it becomes our unsought responsibility to resolve the
federal and constitutional issues the judicial system has
been forced to confront.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is re-versed,
and the case is remanded for further proceedings
not inconsistent with this opinion. |
