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 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.
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.
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).
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.