mst2000 I'd tell you to learn how to read but I think it is in comprehension that your posts indicate you are retarded. So you say "Souter and Breyer) both stated unequivocally that they would not have taken the case at all, "
Ok show me where! watman.com you see I've made it easy for one to make a point or be caught in mis-comprehension.
Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional 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., dissenting). 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. Section 5, JUSTICE BREYER's proposed remedy -- remanding to the Florida Supreme
Court for its ordering of a constitutionally proper contest until December 18 -- contemplates action
in violation of the Florida election code, and hence could not be part of an "appropriate" order
authorized by Fla. Stat. Section102.168(8) (2000). Per Curiam * * * 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.
Tom Watson tosiwmee
for any of you techno nerd weinies out there, this might be of interest.
Message 15083726 the script that is. |
