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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Ilaine who wrote (109179)12/10/2000 11:41:30 AM
From: ecommerceman  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
yes, of course the USSC preempts state laws--that wasn't my point. my point was how, uh, ironic it is that the conservative USSC, which would almost always be expected to allow states to run their own elections, would step into a state election like this. Let me ask you this: if this situation were reversed, if gore were ahead by a few hundred votes and had petitioned the USSC to block the recount, do you REALLY believe that these 5 conservative justices would have ruled to intervene in the way a state ran it's election???

I sure as hell don't....
_______________
When you say that the United States Supreme Court "normally favors state sovereignty" - well, of course - but the United States Constitution and the United States Code preempt state laws which conflict with them in federal matters, in this case, the election of the President of the United States.

Also, you don't seem to understand that the principles being brought to bear here - the United States Supreme Court is going to adhere to the strict letter of the Florida Election Code, even though the Florida Supreme Court did not. Although the United States Supreme Court ordinarily gives great deference to a decision by a state supreme court interpreting state law, if the interpretation is plainly erroneous, and the matter is of federal importance, they are not going to be deferential.