The US SCt. issued a split opinion in the manner they did because there were obvious differences among the justices as to the proper remedy to provide redress to the constitutional deficiencies of the State SCt. ordered manual recount. Five of the justices relied upon the State Court ruling that declared the intent to remain within the safe harbor provisions of 5 USC §3, and thereby create "conclusivity" the appointed electors. Had the US SCt. NOT stayed the manual recount in Florida, REGARDLESS of the outcome, whether for Bush or Gore, because the rules upon which the manual recount were based were rules not in place prior to the election, the conclusivity of such result would have placed in jeopardy all of Florida's electoral votes, including those votes cast by electors appointed by the Florida Legislature. The matter would have gone to the House with each State having one vote, which apparently the Florida SCt. wanted to avoid. In short, had the US SCt. NOT intervened most likely both the manual recount and the appointments by the Legislature would have rendered not moot, but void but what the Constitution requires in the event of that any one candidate fails to receive a majority (271) of all electors due to the INCONCLUSIVITY of Florida's electors resulting from the appointment of electors based upon the manual recount.
Only if the US SCt. subsequently intervened declaring the manual recount in Florida invalid as a violation of equal protection and substantive due process, would there be a potential for the electors appointed by the Florida Legislature possibly be accepted in the electoral college vote for President. Most likely, the Gore campaign would have challenged such electors, and likely throw the whole matter to the House as I earlier stated.
Enough of this stuff. Life moves on. |
