I was not skirting but rather responding directly to the lies and distortions of the original author.
When one takes words out of the middle of quotes, such that it creates a meaning and impression, that is exactly opposite of what was said, it is a lie. (It’s not like these were separate parts of a large paragraph or something, they were three sequential sentences for goodness sakes) When one attributes quotes, or writings to persons, that were never said or written, it is a lie. When one asserts events that never happened, it is a lie. I was very careful, only to identify as lies, that which was provable, and not subject to an interpretations. Harsh? Yes. Accurate also.
Your reasonable questions, are a bit broader in scope, I will do my best.
With regard to First, is it not reasonable to believe that if the FSC set a recount standard that would pass equal protection muster it would be overturned as writing law from the bench? etc.
No for two reasons: First, as long as a standard (any standard at all), can be reasonably said to be within the “intent of the voter”, it would be considered normal statutory construction. Say for instance they ordered the “Palm Beach” standard to be used. To be outside normal statutory construction (and make new law) one would have to prove that the “Palm Beach” standard, violated the “intent of the voter”. That would be an extraordinarily heavy burden. Also consider that, if this were true, the Bush team would have a case against the Palm Beach standard, because it did not exist before and dimples were never counted before.
The second reason, is that the Contest section of Florida Law, gives the judiciary broad power to fashion a remedy in the Contest. Since an objective standard would have been part of the remedy, again it would be an extraordinarily heavy burden, to demonstrate that new law was being created.
The catch-22 idea is a bit of a stretch, because it implies motive for a ruling that what the something other than what the law says. I have seen many disagreements with the Florida Supreme court, but I belive they are rooted in philosophy not politics. Also remember, that the original author, built the argument here on the statement “Legislature declared that the only legal standard for counting vote clear intent of the voter”, which is provably false.
Did the Supreme Court have the authority to set, say, December 17th as the date
I suppose they could have. That would have taken the Florida electors outside of safe harbor. To do so would be to violate the intent of the Florida legislature, and the interpretation of state law by the Florida Supreme court.
With regard to the State Court deference; The majority opinion does not dispute any interpretation of state law. The December 12 date is when the election contest must be final. The Florida Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court agree on this.
The petition presents the following questions: whether
the Florida Supreme Court established new standards for
resolving Presidential election contests, thereby violating
Art. II, §1, cl. 2, of the United States Constitution and
failing to comply with 3 U. S. C. §5, and whether the use of
standardless manual recounts violates the Equal Protec-tion
and Due Process Clauses. With respect to the equal
protection question, we find a violation of the Equal Pro-tection
Clause.
(The explanation of why goes on from there, never at any time states that the Florida Supreme Court “established new standards for resolving presidential election contests”) The question of equal protection, of course is a federal issue.
news.findlaw.com (US Supreme Court decision per curiam p.4)
The concurring opinion from Chief Justice Rehnquist does have some questions regarding state law interpretations. And I would note here, that this concurring opinion, is where Justice Ginsberg’s dissent is primarily aimed when talking about deference to state courts. In any case the concurring and dissenting opinions, are not relevant.
But to respond to your question directly, yes, Federal courts are USUALLY deferential to State Courts in matters of state law. They are even more deferential to State Legislatures.
It is important to note here, the lie of “December 12 is not binding” by the original author was critical, to establish that the US Supreme Court ruling somehow violated it’s own principles for political purposes. Since that is provably false, the argument falls apart. When the federal court should give deference to state courts and legislatures and when it should not, is a difficult question that reasonable people can disagree on. However, it did not happen here.
doesn't this decision raise the equal protection requirements for recounts higher than the equal protection rights for original vote counts
No because there is no assertion, that the intent of the voter is given any more weight, once it is reasonably ascertained. Remember, what was happening here, a dimple in one county was a vote, a dimple was not a vote, in another. This gives more weight to one voter over another.
don't election laws need to be examined to be brought in line with this decision, as the Georgia lawsuit alleges ?
When any significant Supreme Court decision is made laws are and should be examined. Some may need to be brought in line with the decision.
But remember the narrowness of this decision, only to how the recounts were handled. The Georgia lawsuit, is about the use of different voting systems within the state. The majority decision does not directly rule on this, but it is very clear that they would find different voting systems to be unconstitutional, because of reasons previously discussed.
Another thing to consider is that, even if, you have the same machines all over the state, you could still have the same problem created in Florida. Lets say for instance, in a very close election, several machines across the state break down or have some sort of malfunction, and the necessary manual recount, were to be done with differing standards.
I have no doubt that many legislatures will review their laws. And also dump the punch card machines, if for no other reason than to avoid the hassle. The voters no doubt, will demand it. It will be done. As it should be. |
