H-man, thanks for the thoughtful response to the "Gore Exception" Q&A. I think your tone is harsh, though. I would say the "Gore Exception" piece was written by a very angry lawyer rather than a liar.
I do think you skirted round answering a couple of the strongest points in the piece, so I am asking for clarification.
First, is it not reasonable to believe that if the FSC set a recount standard that would pass equal protection muster, it would be overturned as writing law from the bench? The statutory standard was "clear intent of the voter", no more. The right of interpretation was clearly given to the canvassing boards, not a court. Particularly in light of the Supreme Court's language in its earlier remand, is it not fair to believe that the FSC was in a Catch-22? That they could set no standard that would not be overturned?
Second, the Supreme Court chose to regard December 12th as binding in deference to the Florida legislature. But that does not in itself say that they could not have chosen a later date if they thought there was an imperative reason. Did the Supreme Court have the authority to set, say, December 17th as the date?
Third, is it not the usual policy of the Supreme Court to defer to state courts in matters of state law, even if they disagree with them?
Fourth, if you take "good only in present circumstances" to mean 'when conducting hand recounts', doesn't this decision raise the equal protection requirements for recounts higher than the equal protection rights for original vote counts? In effect, couldn't you argue that it set the equal protection rights of ballots higher than the equal protection rights of voters? By implication, don't election laws need to be examined to be brought in line with this decision, as the Georgia lawsuit alleges?.
Thanks in advance for your answer. |
