Good Grief!!!!

The dissenting opinions strongly criticized the five justice majority for involving the Court in state-level affairs.


Justice Stevens' dissent (joined by Justices Breyer and Ginsburg) concluded as follows:
What must underlie petitioners' entire federal assault on the Florida election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make the critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their position is wholly without merit. The endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.

Article Two, Section One, second paragraph, reads in its entirety:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Supremes had no jurisdiction to intervene in Florida.

David. You do realize that there were state laws in place that Gore
was following or is the law something to be ignored?
Recounts should be conducted under the laws and procedures
in place even if the laws are considered vague by someone.

Gore couldn't have stopped all recounting.

The law would have been the prevailing control of when and how recalls are conducted.

TALK ABOUT BEATING A DEAD HORSE!

The only one beating a dead horse is you David.

Perhaps you should get off it and read what I said rather than creating your own strawman to argue about. I never said Gore would have won. By the way, if you want to be really accurate, you should not say that Gore lost all recounts conducted by the papers. He lost some and won some depending on how the papers did the recounts. (I seem to recall the papers reported that Bush would have lost under the standard he proposed for recounts and Gore would have lost under the standards his side was proposing.)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/jan/29/uselections2000.usa
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2001-05-10-recountmain.htm

I guess u don 't know the "void for vagueness" criterion of unConstitutionality.

He cud have and he wud have
done his most earnest best to stop all re-counting,
the first time that he won. That did not happen; do u wonder Y not ??

f those newspapers had discovered that Gore WON,
the MAGNITUDE of the resulting outcry 'd have made the O.J. trial
seem like relatively nothing.





David

I voted for W 2ice and I got 8 years of his Administration.

So you don't think that the GOP stole the election from Gore?

The SC decision was merely an error of jurisprudence committed in good faith by persons of honorable intent?

You don't think Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush helped the GOP steal the election from Gore?

Same questions to you Joe[

I think Jeb Bush is the only Bush offspring who got his father's gene for ethics.

I voted for W 2ice and I got 8 years of his Administration.

I can see how that made you happy, Om.
You love prezes that commit heinous war crimes,
that butcher innocents, that seek to steal the wealth of others.

I guess u don 't know the "void for vagueness" criterion of unConstitutionality.

Except they didn't declare the law unconstitutional for vagueness.

He cud have and he wud have
done his most earnest best to stop all re-counting,
the first time that he won. That did not happen; do u wonder Y not ??

You are an idiot. But then you probably know that already.
The court stopped any recount with Bush doing what you want
to claim Gore would have done. Under our system, we should be
able to do one recount but that wasn't even allowed.
That throws into question the legitimacy of a winner when they
won't allow a recount before declaring a winner. Look to all the
dictators that don't allow recounts or poll watchers.

I remember from the time, that there were many re-counts,
and Gore lost them all.