To: Ilaine who wrote (3713 ) 11/28/2000 11:21:31 AM From: jttmab Read Replies (1) | Respond to And that's why I'm glad your on the thread...keeps me on my toes and corrects my terminology... Yes, that's what I meant Reaffirming the Florida Supreme Court is the first step for the [speculative] decision, so at this point I think you've interpreted correctly what I've tried to say Here's the confusion...I would agree that the reasonable expectation of the US Supreme Court would be to do exactly what you've said; i.e., affirm [and do nothing else] or reverse. In either of those two cases, it's moot. But I think we have both seen decisions out of the Courts where they make rulings that they were not ever asked for. Let's just suppose, for sake of argument, that the US Supreme Court affirms the Florida Supreme Court's ruling; now there is precedent for the US Supreme Court to say, We, the US Supreme Court can also interpret the intent. I think that the US Supreme Court [theoretically] rule that the intent of the voters was not determined through the process used in Florida and the US Supreme Court has the authority to remand the State of Florida to do it right, i.e., do the manual recount. All hell may break loose, but I don't see anything that could stop the US Supreme Court from such a ruling. I think the door was cracked open when the Court was asked to consider what due process means wrt to the Florida election, which was the issue #1 in the GOP brief.
