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: H-Man who wrote (121432)	1/9/2001 11:02:01 AM
From: mst2000	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

"Arbitrary" does not mean or equate "unconstitutional". If Souter believed it was unconstitutional, why does he say that SCOTUS should not have taken the case? Clearly not because he thought Bush might have won and thus mooted the issue (although that was certainly a possibility that would have avoided the unfortunate reality of a Supreme Court appointing a president over the popular will of the voters) -- no, it was because both the constitution and the US Code make it clear that it is up to states to decide how they will administer their elections, even in a Presidential election, and how they will set up their state governments (including the right to have judicial review of legislative enactments). The doctrine of equal protection, as applied to vote tabulation, is a slippery slope that even the majority admits it did not want to pursue because it leads to bad places (e.g., is it unconstitutional that the voting machines in some districts have a 3% error rate when the voting machines in other districts have a 0.3% error rate?). As a result, the majority strictly limited its decision to this one election, and said that it did not apply to any other election. Souter, by contrast, did NOT believe that the fact that this was a presidential election meant that the US Supreme Court should intervene, and substititute its judgment on an issue of state law for the Florida Supreme Court, under either Article II of the Constitution or Title 3 of the US Code, regardless of the standards that had been applied in recounts in Florida -- and that to the extent any issues (including the EP issue) were raised regarding how the recounts were conducted, those were issues that were properly within the exclusive domain of the state courts (even if he or the other SCOTUS justices disagreed), and subject to final review by Congress. In other words, if the result had been that 2 competing slates of electors were chosen, the body established to resolve that dispute under Title 3 and Article II was clearly the Congress, AND NOT SCOTUS -- and Congress would have that opportunity (if in fact differing slates of electors were appointed in Florida), when electoral votes were counted by Congress on January 6. Which would have been an appropriate outcome, by the way, not only because Federal law and constitutional law set it up that way, but because Congress is a political body that is accountable to voters, whereas SCOTUS is a group of lifetime appointees who are not politically accountable. I have always said that i thought Bush would have won, because the GOP Congress would have resolved these issues in his favor on a straight party line vote, but at least we would have known who got more votes in Florida. Instead, and despite the fact that Title 3 identifies a role for the State Courts and the Congress in deciding Presidential elections -- BUT NOT SCOTUS -- 5 conservative justices decided to appoint Bush to the Presidency and the notion of elections where voters determine who wins was trashed. Your equation (in Souter's decision) of "arbitrary" to "unconstitutional" is laughable and plainly mistates Souter's opinion. And your saying that his acknowledgement that, as long as the FSC was being reversed, that they should cure the problem regarding the differing procedures for recount in two counties rather than appointing Bush president, constitutes a concurrence with the majority, reflects a desperation (typical of conservatives and Bush supporters) to make it seem that there was greater consensus than actually existed to throw out the FSC decision. Which begs the following question: What law school did you go to? The Rush Limbaugh School? It was a bad decision, the perfect start to an illegitimate presidency.