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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mephisto who wrote (826)	12/22/2000 4:56:55 AM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 93284

THE LEGAL ANALYSIS With Critical Decision Comes Tide of Criticism By WILLIAM GLABERSON December 13, 2000 From The New York Times In the national spotlight as it has not been in many years, the United States Supreme Court last night gave the country a decision that seemed to end one man's quest for the presidency while exposing itself to unusually harsh criticism. The critique of the court began almost at the level of comedy when the country stopped last night for a minute to try to figure out exactly what the complicated package of opinions really said — and had some trouble deciphering the court's reasoning. The criticism quickly grew among some constitutional law experts who said the decision was one that seemed almost to have laid a trap for the Florida Supreme Court and, in the process, closed down the possibilities for further recounts. The majority declared that the Florida Supreme Court's method of conducting recounts was constitutionally flawed, but it also said that there was no longer any time to repair the constitutional problem. "I think the reaction will be immediate outrage by Democrats, glee by Republicans and, in the long run, increased cynicism about the courts," said Michael C. Dorf, a professor of constitutional law at Columbia Law School. Barry Friedman, a constitutional law professor at New York University School of Law, said the majority of the justices seemed concerned with a Dec. 12 deadline that some legal experts have said was not really a deadline at all. "It is remarkable," Professor Friedman said, "that the Supreme Court decided for the State of Florida that the Dec. 12 deadline was more important than finding the will of the voters." Randall Bezanson, a constitutional law expert at the University of Iowa, said there was a "certain strange ironic twist" to the decision because it was based on the United States Supreme Court's determination that the Florida Legislature intended all election contest battles to be completed by Dec. 12, the date under federal law when election contests are to be completed. That federal law says that if a state makes its final selection of electors by Dec. 12, that decision will be considered definitive if there is a battle later in Congress. But Professor Bezanson said the United States Supreme Court based its decision in part on the previous decisions of the Florida Supreme Court, which the justices in Washington had overturned. Some constitutional law scholars said that was an odd end to the gargantuan legal struggle because the United States Supreme Court itself appeared to have contributed to that time problem. The week before the case decided last night, the Supreme Court had sent back to the Florida Supreme Court a different case in the election legal battle. That case, some of the experts noted, simply asked the judges on Florida's highest court to explain the legal basis used in its earlier decision. But the Supreme Court did not then suggest, as it did last night, that the recounts Florida was conducting were constitutionally flawed because different standards were being used in different counties. "I would compare this to someone seeing someone drowning in the sea," said Jack M. Balkin, a constitutional law professor at Yale Law School. "And then that person said, `Wait, I'll save you.' And then says, `I changed my mind,' and then swims back to shore." The legal scholars said it would take days to sort out their reactions to the justices' opinions. But in the first few minutes, as the country waited for clarity, the experts, along with everyone else, tried to understand telegraphed phrases repeated by television reporters. There was the decision. But what was it? "The case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion." As it turned out, according to several legal experts, that remand was likely to be a fairly empty proceeding because the United States Supreme Court did not leave the Florida Supreme Court much room to consider anything in that proceeding.