I used to
respect the
US Supreme Court. Then I read part of their recent
5-4 decision against
Al Gore. I'll admit it, I'm a
flaming liberal who has wanted to see
Gore win from the beginning. If the ballots had been fully counted and
George W. Bush had won, I would've accepted that. If the
US Supreme Court had found some sound reason why those
recounts should not go on, I would've accepted that. However, I do not believe either of these requirements were satisfied. Here are some quotes from the
majority opinion:
"The Supreme Court of Florida has said that the legislature intended the State's electors to 'participate fully in the federal electoral process' ... as provided in 3 U.S.C. 5.
"That statute, in turn, requires that any controversy or contest that is designed to lead to a conclusive selection of electors be completed by December 12. That date is upon us, and there is no recount procedure in place under the State Supreme Court's order that comports with minimal constitutional standards.
"Because it is evident that any recount seeking to meet the December 12 date will be unconstitutional for the reasons we have discussed, we reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida ordering a recount to proceed. Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a remedy. .... The only disagreement is as to the remedy.
I find this to be completely
insane. The
Supreme Court, the most revered body in all our
government, is claiming that the recounts cannot go on because they cannot be finished in time. Why can't they be finished in time? Because the
Supreme Court suspended the
recounts instead of ruling on their
constitutionality after they were finished, and then delivered their
opinion at the end of the day the
recounts
supposedly needed to be over by.
December 12th isn't even the last day for electors to be chosen, it's just the last day of
safe harbor. The electors do not really
have to be chosen until
December 18th! The
dissenting opinion says something similar:
"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 U.S.C. 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 opinions of Justice Stevens, Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer. I write separately only to say how straightforward the issues before us really are .... 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 the case to the courts of Florida with instructions to establish uniform standards for evaluating the 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."
I could go on, but I think you get the
idea. I was
naive before, now I see just how
partisan the
US Supreme Court really is. I may be
paranoid, but
realize the following:
The majority is made up of the kinds of justices George W. Bush is likely to appoint.
Many members of that majority--Rehnquist, Scalia--are likely to retire during Bush's term.
Bush will appoint the replacements for those justices.
Somehow, I just have a
problem with this situation.