Where is the irreparable damage? I’ve been under the impression that a temporary injunction will not issue unless there is an imminent threat of irreparable harm. The recount was going underway nicely and it may have been finished by 12/12. Now, that will be impossible. So why the injunction? If the Supremes decide that the recount violates Fla. law, it could be stopped or ignored. What was the need for the injunction?
Maybe this would be better in IMHO.
I was wondering about this too. My only thought is that perhaps this is a means for the court majority to make recounts impossible, without issuing a ruling based on the traditional 5-4 split. This way, by monday afternoon, when the court gives it opinion, the justices can vote however they want. They could all vote in favor of Gore’s position even. Wouldn’t matter, though, no time.
Perhaps injunctions carry less weight historically than decisions. An injunction can be issued based on the narrow majority and nobody will remember. A divided decision, on the other hand, would diminish the Coutr’s credibility.
I wouldn’t be too sure that there would not be any time. If the Supremes decide for the recount and Gore wins, albeit after 12/12, they still have to 12/18 before the electors are known. I’m a little hazy on those dates. Can they change them any time before 12/18?
But even if it’s after 12/18 and Gore then wins and the Fla. SC says Gore is the winner. Then what? There would be two slates of electors, one by the ct and one by the legislatures. The US Const says the legislatures shall determine the electors, but what if two slates are submitted to Congress? Could they throw both slates out the window and elect the next president themselves?
Here’s the thing. Florida election laws on the books as of the date of the elevtion give the circumstance to Bush. The Legislature needs to have all rules/laws in place 7 days prior to any election. The Florida SC is somewhat activist, meaning literally they set law from the bench. That is un-constitutional as warranted by the US SC over many years and countless judgements.
Bush has the 25 Electoral votes by certification of Florida’s Secretary of State. Those were allowed by the US SC and are legit.
In addition, the US SC has said the state legislature has ultimate decision on the matter, Gore’s appeals and suits are to manipulate public opinion against the Reps for future elections.
The final authority is the FL legislature as to which candidate gets the voters, as stated by the US SC.
In addition, to count “undervotes” in ANY Florida county discounts “undervotes” in California, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Colorado, et al.
I believe it was in the Kennedy / Nixon election that Hawaii’s electors were not selected until December 26. There is precedent for a delayed electoral vote and this should not prohibit Gore from obtaining his recounts.
Check out CNN’s site.
SOme USSC judges agree with you. The majority felt [I can read intent from here, amybe I should be a vote counter] that it would look bad to count votes which might be declared invalid. Then you would have two totals. It would also mean the USSC would be overturning a state election, which they are trying not to do.
The USSC is still waiting to offically hear back from the FSC on why the FSC’s first recount should be allowed. Until then, the USSC does not want the FSC to have a second recount.
As I see it, the USSC, under the principle of separation of powers, feels that the state legislature, not the state judiciary, should settle Presidential election disputes since a Presidential election is the only election where the legislature has sole authority under the US Constitution.
I’m a bit confused by the OP. What, exactly, is the question here? Perhaps barbitu8 or another of the posters in this thread could enlighten myself and the other clueless folks here?
From Scalias’ concurrence with the SC decision: “The counting of votes that are of questionable legality does in my view threaten irreparable harm to petitioner, and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election.”
Of course, he fails to discuss the the irreperable harm caused to the Gore campaign by the counting of the illegally solicited ballots in Seminole county. By his reasoning, Gore should be ahead by several thousand votes, at least until all appeals of those lawsuits are complete.
Chronos, the q. is “where is the irreparable harm?” I did note that this may better be in IMHO, but I do have a q. And it hasn’t been answered, inspite of what the majority of the Supremes said. Any “harm” caused by the recount (if harm there be) certainly is not irreparable. The recount, as I said before, can be ignored.
There was a prior post that the Supremes ruled in favor of Bush in its prior decision, and I’ve seen it phrased like that on the MSNBC alert I get, with a public poll to get your opinion. I didn’t vote in the poll because the question was not factual. The Supremes remanded the prior case for clarification. They made no decision either for Bush or against him.
The answer to “where is the irreparable harm?” is contained in the earlier-quoted opinion from Justice Scalia:
In my humble opinion, this ends the GQ portion of this question. If you contend that Justice Scalia doesn’t know his butt from a hole in the ground, as evidenced by this opinion, then I rather suspect GD is the place to make that case.
I guess GD would be the place to go. Justice Scalia states that there are two irreparable harms: (1) democratic stability by counting first and ruling upon the legality afterwards. Surely even Scalia doesn’t believe that. (2) he states that the ballots will be degraded by manual counting for another recount in the event that a uniform standard is adopted, and that is “generally agreed.” Why? Where is the general agmt? Are the counters going to dimple chads or punch out the chads?
That was just a political stay with no irreparable harm established. Scalia manufactured two out of thin air. Anyway, that’s my opinion and I’ll be silent now.
Basically, the justices don’t want a recount to be done–esp. if it shows that Gore received more votes than Bush, which everyone is assuming is likely–if said recount is not legal (not legal because all votes had to be certified by a certain date). They think the irreparable harm will be that a sense of illegitimacy will be cast upon Bush’s presidency, should it become known in a recount that Gore has more votes but the recount was illegal in the first place, and therefore the pre-recount count (whew!) has to stand.
IMO, the big flaw in this reasoning is that Florida’s “Sunshine Laws” allow all kinds of access to the votes after the election is over. Thus, the media will INEVITABLY conduct a recount or two of their own when all this is over. So if they determine THEN that Gore had more votes than Bush, irreparable harm will be done to Bush anyway.
I agree with toadspittle, Scalia’s reasoning is nonsense. A democratic consultant (Carvell?) was on Crossfire last weekend and said the best possible result of this (for the Democrats) will be the Florida Legislature to select their own slate of delegates who are pledged to George W. Bush. Along about July when the media have examined the “uncounted” ballots everyone will realize that Gore won the popular vote **and **the electoral vote, but the election was stolen. At least that was his theory. If it works out that way I don’t think that a Republican could get elected as dogcatcher in Florida in 2002. Nevermind what effect it will have on the legitimacy of Bush’s presidency.
Yes, but I agree with Bricker. For General Questions purposes, this questions is asked and answered.
Discussing whether the reasoning is “nonsense” belongs in Great Debates.