"Legal" explanation of Supremes' wrongness?

[SuaSponte]

I didn’t finish answering your question.

*Originally posted by IzzyR *
**Sua,
What caused a problem was the Florida SC instituting a vote recount that was actually treating different citizens differently. In light of this, it is not irrational to limit the decision to this case, as the crux of the issue depends on the particular circumstance of a given recount. **

If any of the other 33 states in question attempted a recount in which the standard was “the clear intent of the voter”, by the Supremes’ reasoning this would be a subjective standard that would differ according to the interpretation of the person(s) doing the counting, and therefore unconstitutional. The FSC simply pointed back to the language of the statute (and the language of the statutes of the other 33 states) as the standard. That standard was found wanting.
It is irrational to assume that the canvassing boards of all 100+ counties in California would come up with the same “clear intent” standard if they were faced with a recount.

Sua

[Sterra]

You know people generally just delete chain letters when they see them.(i generally flame whoever sent me the chain letter too:))

[lissener]

Thanks, Asmodean, for your invaluable contribution to the discussion.

:rolleyes:

[Scylla]

I thought about doing a point by point, but most of these have been discussed ad nauseaum in the various election threads over the past month or so.

The Q&A format of loaded question/lopsided answer doesn’t do a particularly good job of illustrating the complexities of this extraordinary election process. Many of the facts and motivations ascribed to the SC and others are questionable at best. It reminds me of Plato’s dialogues and shares the pitfalls therein.

In short, if Rush Limbaugh was a liberal, he’d probably be reading it on the air.

I consider it a pretty bitter and one-sided piece of propaganda and ultimately harmless for most people will see it for what it is and take it with the necessary 1 pound box of salt.

That aside the challenge at the end is asinine.

[IzzyR]

*Originally posted by SuaSponte *
**one of the things already commented upon is that the FSC provided no interpretation. It simply said that, in the recounts, the standard to determine a vote is what the statute says - “the clear intent of the voter”. The supremes said that that standard is too loose and open to differing interpretations, which would result in votes being counted differently in different counties. So it was the legislative standard itself that was the problem.

If any of the other 33 states in question attempted a recount in which the standard was “the clear intent of the voter”, by the Supremes’ reasoning this would be a subjective standard that would differ according to the interpretation of the person(s) doing the counting, and therefore unconstitutional. The FSC simply pointed back to the language of the statute (and the language of the statutes of the other 33 states) as the standard. That standard was found wanting.
It is irrational to assume that the canvassing boards of all 100+ counties in California would come up with the same “clear intent” standard if they were faced with a recount.

I don’t see how you derive your assertion that the problem is with the law itself. It is true that the FSC did not interpret the law, but someone did, specifically the vote counters. It is the varying interpretations of the various counters that are the basis for the constitutional problem. Theoretically, another state with the same standard might not be subject to the same problem. They might be using a voting system that does not lend itself to such wide discrepancies in interpretation, or they might have a single governing body empowered to enforce a uniform standard. Or they might have a statewide tradition of interpreting in a particular way. Also a given recount may be only countywide (for a county post). Bottom line is that it will depend on the circumstances, and the USSC was justified in noting that fact.

the FSC didn’t need to find in Florida statute a basis for a second deadline to hold that the first deadline was not set in stone. The “may/shall” issue and the fines for late delivery of results were sufficient indicators of legislative intent. As the December 12 mention in the earlier FSC decision was therefore not necessary to the ruling, it was not part of the holding in the case, and therefore dicta.**

Is this true? The Florida SC says specifically that they are being guided in their interpretation of the deadline issue by their belief that the legislature had two goals in mind (one of them being the deadline). Can the USSC not rely on this because there would have been grounds to throw out the deadline anyway, even without coming to this new understanding? (I am not challenging your assertion, but am a bit unclear on this “dicta” business).

Until someone makes an argument otherwise, my limited knowledge leads me to believe that the 12th was in fact a deadline. My point is that it wasn’t the Supremes job or within their competency or authority to determine that bit of Florida law.

I am not sure why you are assuming that it was a deadline. It seemed to me that the Florida SC pulled it out of their hats.

Regarding the final suggestion of the e-mail, I would note that the Democrats may have set the ball rolling in terms of politicizing the USSC by their battles over Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. Suggestions that they continue this type of tactic with greater intensity will only acerbate this process.

BTW, for a summary of some legal attitudes about the decision, see CNN.