Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Why is Gore Trying to Steal the Presidency? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cola Can who wrote (3512)	12/9/2000 9:56:35 AM
From: Proud_Infidel	1 Recommendation Respond to of 3887

Levin: The Gang of Four Source: National Review Online Published: December 9, 2000 Author: Mark Levin The four most radical justices on the Florida Supreme Court — or the Gang of Four — issued a ruling on Friday that is not only unconstitutional, but thoroughly dishonest. In changing the state election laws again, the majority claimed repeatedly and perversely to be interpreting state election laws and relying on the intent of the legislature. The Gang of Four reversed Secretary of State Katherine Harris's rejection of 383 new votes for Al Gore, reducing George W. Bush's lead from 537 to 154 votes. The majority also ruled that 9,000 so-called "under-votes" (ballots that didn't register votes for president) in Miami-Dade be recounted manually and that tens of thousands of "under-votes" statewide be recounted manually. What happened to the November 26th deadline this court first imposed on the counties for completing vote tallies when it unconstitutionally extended the legislature's statutory November 14th deadline? Apparently it was set for one reason and only one reason: to enable the Democratic counties Gore targeted for recounts to find ways to increase his vote totals. But Gore didn't find enough votes to put him in the winner's circle. So, now the court has ordered additional recounts, including throughout Florida. And it won't repeat its first mistake by setting a new deadline, as no deadline for completing this monumental task has been set. And what is the standard for recounting ballots throughout the state? Are dimpled chads, hanging chads, and/or swinging door chads considered executed votes? The Gang of Four provides no guidance of any kind, nor can it. Repeated manual recounts are not contemplated in Florida law. Moreover, since the federal statutory deadline for completing the appointment of presidential electors is December 12th, how can the remedy imposed by the Gang of Four be accomplished in less than four days? Justice Harding, joined by Justice Shaw, wrote a dissenting opinion raising that very problem: While this Court must be ever mindful of the Legislature's plenary power to appoint presidential electors [under Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution], I am more concerned that the majority is departing from the essential requirements of the law by providing a remedy which is impossible to achieve and which will ultimately lead to chaos. ... ... Even if by some miracle a portion of the statewide recount is completed by December 12, a partial recount is not acceptable. The uncertainty of the outcome of this election will be greater under the remedy afforded by the majority than the uncertainty that now exists. But, of course, the Gang of Four isn't really concerned that the recount be completed by December 12th. Instead, being partisans, they merely seek to help Gore pick up enough new votes — only 154 now — so he can claim that he, not Bush, actually won the popular vote in Florida. Then, Gore can try to convince the public to pressure Congress to reject outright George Bush's certified slate of electors or support a competing slate of Gore electors. Chief Justice Wells's dissent is the most important and compelling. Justice Wells, a liberal Democrat himself, recognizes that his colleagues are doing great harm to the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law. He wrote, in part: ... [T]he majority's decision cannot withstand the scrutiny which will certainly immediately follow under the United States Constitution. Importantly to me, I have a deep and abiding concern that the prolonging of judicial process in this counting contest propels this country and this state into an unprecedented and unnecessary constitutional crisis. I have to conclude that there is a real and present likelihood that this constitutional crisis will do substantial damage to our country, our state, and to this Court as an institution. ... Judicial restraint in respect to elections is absolutely necessary because the health of our democracy depends on elections being decided by voters — not by judges. We must have the self-discipline not to be embroiled in political contests whenever a judicial majority subjectively concludes to do so because the majority perceives it is 'the right thing to do.' Elections involve the other branches of government. A lack of self-discipline in being involved in elections, especially by a court of last resort, always has the potential of leading to a crisis with the other branches of government and raises serious separation-of-powers concerns. Justice Wells also wrote that "... any right to contest an election must be construed to grant only those rights that are explicitly set forth by the Legislature." In support of his argument, he cited McPherson v. Flynn, the same decision relied on by the unanimous justices of the U.S. Supreme Court when they vacated the Florida supreme court's first rewriting of the legislature's election laws. Of course, the legislature is granted plenary authority to appoint electors under Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution: "Each state shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress ..." There is no role for the Florida supreme court in selecting presidential electors. Its decision today is unconstitutional, and no lower court or election official is bound to comply with an unlawful act. Moreover, the Florida legislature is right to affirm the slate of electors already certified by Gov. Jeb Bush. Indeed, it must do so to defend its constitutional authority from a rogue court.