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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (118287)	12/20/2000 3:55:38 PM
From: asenna1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

e-Bill, you are always a leading contender for Clown of The Day.

To: Bill who wrote (118287)	12/20/2000 4:49:56 PM
From: mst2000	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

I've read the decision (including all 4 dissents) three or four times now -- you say the two dissenters who acknowledged equal protection concerns disagree with my view [despite the fact (i) that I noted my own equal protection concern that different standards had been applied to essentially the same type of ballots in the recounts concluded to date, and that this militated in favor of re-opening Broward, Palm and Dade and re-examining those ballots under the a single uniform standard imposed by an impartial judge, as part of the statewide examination of undervotes for the same purpose, and (ii) that the key reason why I think the majority erred is that it had no business asserting SCOTUS jurisdiction in this case, which did not present a federal question that either the Congress or the Constitution intended the Supreme Court to resolve (as opposed to Congress)]. Be that as it may, I assume you also meant to suggest that the two dissenters (Souter and Breyer) essentially agreed with the majority on the equal protection issues, but merely disagreed on the appropriate "remedy" to address that concern. But that is not a fair reading of the dissents: SOUTER: What Souter said was, first and foremost, that the Supreme Court should NEVER have taken the case, and that any equal protection concern could have (and more properly should have) been addressed by Congress in January when it tabulates the electoral votes and decides on their validity (if votes from more than one slate of electors were sent to them, which might not have been the case, for example, if Bush won after the recounts were completed). He never reaches the equal protection argument but for the fact that the majority opted to take the case in the first place and interrupt the state's effort to conclude the recounts in a timely fashion: "The Court should not have reviewed either Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board (citation omitted) or this case, and should not have stopped Florida's attempt to recount all undervote ballots (citation omitted) by issuing a stay of the Florida Supreme Court's orders during this period of review (citation omitted). If this Court had allowed the State to follow the course indicated by the opinions of its own Supreme Court, it is entirely possible that there would ultimately have been no issue requiring our review, and political tension could have worked itself out in the Congress following the procedure provided in 3 USC Section 15. The case being before us, however, its resolution by the majority is another erroneous decision. As will be clear, I am in substantial agreement with the dissenting opiions of JUSTICE STEVENS, JUSTICE GINSBERG and JUSTICE BREYER. I write separately only to say how straightforward the issues before us really are." Then, directly on the EP issue that the Per Curium opinion left him no choice but to address: "It [equal protection] is an issue that might well have been dealt with adequately by the Florida courts if the state proceedings had not been interrupted, and if not disposed of at the state level it could have been considered by Congress in any electoral vote dispute. But because the course of state proceedings has been interrupted, time is short, and the issue is before us, I think it sensible for the Court to address it . . . . . In deciding what to do about this, we should take account of the fact that electoral votes are due to be cast in six days. I would therefore remand with instructions to establish uniform standards for evaluating several types of ballots that have prompted differing treatments, to be applied within and among counties when passing on such identical ballots in any further recounting (or successive recounting) that the courts might order . . . . . Unlike the majority, I see no warrant for this Court to assume that Florida could not possibly comply with this requirement before the date set for the meeting of electors, December 18 . . . . To recount these manually would be a tall order, but before this Court stayed the effort to do that the courts of Florida were ready to do their best to get the job done. There is no justification for denying the State the opportunity to try and count all the disputed ballots now." That does not sound like a justice who disagrees with me -- in that my view has been that SCOTUS should never have taken the case in the first place, and that the EP issues, to the extent they exist at all, were properly handled by the FSC and, if review of that resolution was necessary, it was more appropriately carried out by Congress in performing its function as the body that reviews and resolves disputes regarding presidential electors under Article II of the US Constitution and Title 3 of the US Code, and not SCOTUS which is not mentioned either in the Constitution or in Title 3 as having ANY ROLE WHATSOEVER in the resolution of such a dispute. And Breyer (the other dissenter who thought that an EP issue was raised): "The Court was wrong to take this case. It was wrong to grant a stay. It should now vacate that stay and permit the Florida Supreme Court to decide whether the recount should resume. The political implications of this case for the country are momentous. But the federal legal question presented, with one exception, are insubstantial." In as much as the majority put a bullet in Gore's head, Breyer does not engage in the exercise of deciding how difficult the equal protection issues would have been to rsolve, or what direction the supremes could have given the FSC on remand. But the clear and essential point made by both Souter and Breyer, and the reason why they don't join the majority in its equal protection based opinion as conservatives and GOP partisans like to imply they did, is that neither Souter nor Breyer would have taken the case at all, which would have let the FSC decision stand. It is a myth that there was a 7-2 majority holding the FSC ordered recount unconstitutional. Read the quotations above carefully. 2 of the dissenters said that, because of the Court's improper interference, there was no choice but to try and address the issue of EP judically, but both also said that had the Court not stayed the recount, there would have been no need to intervene, and it could have continued without SCOTUS interference. Try again. You have it wrong.