The New York Times has published several articles extremely critical of Gore's legal team and tactics, basically blaming Gore's legal strategies for his defeat:
>>The Legal Issues: Concession on 'Deadline' Helped Seal
Gore's Defeat
By WILLIAM GLABERSON
ack on Nov. 20, during what would be the first of a series of historic oral arguments, the chief
justice of the Florida Supreme Court turned to David Boies, the chief lawyer for Vice President
Al Gore, and asked a question.
In that exchange, Mr. Boies made a pivotal concession that, in retrospect, helped bring the vice
president's defeat in the legal war for White House.
The chief justice, Charles T. Wells, mentioned the date Dec. 12. He wondered whether battles over
the Florida vote "have to be finally determined by that date," and asked, "Do you agree with that?"
Mr. Boies looked up. "I do your honor," he said.
That concession began a chain of legal events that ended with the conclusion by a majority of the
justices of the United States Supreme Court on Tuesday — Dec. 12 — that time had simply run out.
Florida recounts could not go on after that date, the justices said, even if they could be conducted
constitutionally.
Yesterday, legal experts of differing political persuasions said the skirmish over what came to be called
"the deadline" proved decisive. But some of them said that under federal law, at least, it was not a
deadline, but merely advice by Congress to states about how to assure that their voters' choice for
president would be honored.
"It is a promise by Congress that if you do three things a state's electors will be conclusive in Congress"
should some other slate claim to be the real one, said John C. Yoo, a conservative constitutional law
professor at the University of California at Berkeley.
To win what has been called the Dec. 12 "safe harbor," states must name electors; must do so under
rules enacted before Election Day, and must resolve any contests over who the electors are by six days
before the meeting of the Electoral College, which is to meet on Dec. 18.
The United States Supreme Court's majority opinion on Tuesday did not say Dec. 12 was a federal
deadline. Instead, the majority said that was what Florida law provided.
There is no provision of Florida law specifying a Dec. 12 deadline. But the majority of the justices in
Washington said the Florida Supreme Court had held that the State Legislature meant to gain the "safe
harbor" protection for Florida's electors.
The four justices in the minority suggested that Florida law provided no such thing. And yesterday,
legal experts said that central conclusion of the majority was a debatable legal point.
"The problem with that is it is not clear that's what the Florida Supreme Court would say the law of
Florida is," said Philip P. Frickey, a constitutional law expert at the University of California at Berkeley.
For the Florida Supreme Court to reach that conclusion in the presidential battle, Professor Frickey
said, it would have to decide that Florida law said it was more important to obtain the "safe harbor"
protection than it was to complete a recount to see which candidate had won.
But some experts said it was reasonable for the justices to conclude the Florida Supreme Court had
decided the Legislature meant to get all election contests completed in time to assure that Florida's
electoral votes would be counted.
"The way they read the Florida Supreme Court decisions is not inevitable, but it is quite justifiable,"
said Daniel H. Lowenstein, an election law expert at the University of California at Los Angeles.
The evidence for that view of Florida law can be traced back to Mr. Boies's concession about the
"deadline" back on Nov. 20.<<
nytimes.com |
