SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (122709)1/19/2001 4:48:00 PM
From: H-Man  Read Replies (1) of 769667
 
The Supreme Court of Florida has said that the legisla-ture
intended the State’ s electors to “participat[e] fully in
the federal electoral process,” as provided in 3 U. S. C. §5.
___ So. 2d, at ___ (slip op. at 27); see also Palm Beach
Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, 2000 WL 1725434, *13 (Fla.
2000). That statute, in turn, requires that any contro-versy
or contest that is designed to lead to a conclusive
selection of electors be completed by December 12. That
date is upon us, and there is no recount procedure in place
under the State Supreme Court’ s order that comports with
minimal constitutional standards. Because it is evident
that any recount seeking to meet the December 12 date
will be unconstitutional for the reasons we have discussed,
we reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida
ordering a recount to proceed.

It is two pronged. Had there been time, it would have been remanded (probably with instruction to correct equal protection problems). There would be have been no legal basis to stop.

<edit> Also this:

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).

news.findlaw.com
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News