To hammer home the point, the two justices in dissent who raised EP issues were Souter and Breyer - these are taken from their dissents:
Breyer: "The Court was wrong to take this case. It was wrong to grant a stay. It should now vacate that stay and permit the Florida Supreme Court to decide whether the recount should resume." Doesn't sound like a justice prepared to rule that the FSC had acted unconstitutionally to me. How about this nugget: "Despite the reminder that this case involves "an election for the President of the United States," ante, at 13 (REHNQUIST, C. J.,concurring), no pre-eminent legal concern, or practical concern related to legal questions, required this Court to hear this case, let alone to issue a stay that stopped Florida's recount process in its tracks."
Souter: "The Court should not have reviewed either Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd., ante, p. --- (per curiam), or this case, and should not have stopped Florida's attempt to recount all undervote ballots, see ante at ------, by issuing a stay of the Florida Supreme Court' s orders during the period of this review, see Bush v. Gore, post at -------- (slip op., at 1). If this Court had allowed the State to follow the course indicated by the opinions of its own Supreme Court, it is entirely possible that there would ultimately have been no issue requiring our review, and political tension could have worked itself out in the Congress following the procedure provided in 3 U. S. C. Section 15. The case being before us, however, its resolution by the majority is another erroneous decision."
Gee, I don't see how you can count those 2 as part of a 7-2 majority. Must be the same quality of counting that led Bush to "win" Florida in the first place. |
