# SCOTUS really DID choose the president after all **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 15, 2001, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-really-did-choose-the-president-after-all/93459 "2001-11-15T04:40:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Tejota](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/958977/32.png) [@Tejota](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tejota)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2001, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-really-did-choose-the-president-after-all/93459/1 "2001-11-15T04:40:30Z")
From the [Washington Post](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27064-2001Nov14.html) (who are in turn quoting the Orlando Sentinel). > [@](#): > > "The Orlando Sentinel has done it again. In their media recount story, David Damron and Roger Roy had the wit to call up Leon County Circuit Court Judge Terry Lewis, who was supervising the actual recount of Florida votes on Saturday, November 9, when it was stopped by the U.S. Supreme Court. Lewis told the Sentinel that **'he would not have ignored the overvote ballots.'** > … > the Sentinel notes – since salvaging valid overvotes turns out to have been ‘Gore’s only path to victory.’ . . . > … > “In other words, the entire premise of the Bush-ratifying spin given the media recount by the NYT and numerous other press organs – that (as the Times’s lede puts it) ‘George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward’ – is bogus. If the recount had gone forward Judge Lewis might well have counted the overvotes (at the Bush camp’s urging!) in which case Gore might well have won in spite of his misguided undervote-centered strategy.” Despite all of the media spin to the contrary, It is likely that if SCOTUS had allowed the recount to go forward the overvotes AND the undervotes would have been hand counted. Thereby giving the victory to Gore. [sub]are you listening Rhenquist, Scalia? This will be what people 100 years ago remember about your time in the supreme court.[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2001, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-really-did-choose-the-president-after-all/93459/2 "2001-11-15T04:46:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tejota \* > \*\*are you listening Rhenquist, Scalia? This will be what people 100 years ago remember about your time in the supreme court. \*\* [sub] While Democrats are busy mooning over the past, Republicans will win elections in the future. Shhhh. Don’t wake them up… ;)[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2001, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-really-did-choose-the-president-after-all/93459/3 "2001-11-15T04:48:06Z")
**december:** _Shhhh. Don’t wake them up…_ Too late! ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2001, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-really-did-choose-the-president-after-all/93459/4 "2001-11-15T04:55:47Z")
I can’t recall off the top of my head, but I don’t seem to recall any provision in Florida Law that would have allowed a ballot with more than one candidate marked to be counted. I also don’t recall any County Canvassing Boards intending to accept overvotes, and I believe that they were the ones who decided on the standards in each county. ---
**Author:** ![Tejota](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/958977/32.png) [@Tejota](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tejota)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2001, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-really-did-choose-the-president-after-all/93459/5 "2001-11-15T05:04:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by waterj2 \* > \*\*I can’t recall off the top of my head, but I don’t seem to recall any provision in Florida Law that would have allowed a ballot with more than one candidate marked to be counted. I also don’t recall any County Canvassing Boards intending to accept overvotes, and I believe that they were the ones who decided on the standards in each county. \*\* The ones that could be counted are the ones that have a checkmark for a candidate, and also a check for ‘write in’ that has the candidates name. You wouldn’t think that there would be all that many of these, but apparently there were enough. I hadn’t intended to defend the idea that a full count of overvotes would have given Gore the lead because that fact has been so widely reported. [Overvotes, optical ballots key](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15443-2001Nov12.html) They never let you get away with anything here 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2001, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-really-did-choose-the-president-after-all/93459/6 "2001-11-15T05:06:31Z")
**Tejota** , please be more straighforward when quoting sources. Here’s the part you felt was better represented by several dots: > [@](#): > > Though he stopped short of saying he definitely would have expanded the recount to include overvotes, Lewis emphasized ‘I’d be open to that.’ Furthermore, the article also notes, at the end > [@](#): > > P.S.: Does this mean Gore’s undervote-obsessed recount strategy wasn’t foolish, as previously charged in this space? Not necessarily. By the time the issue of the overvotes was raised before Judge Lewis, on Dec. 9, **it was almost too late to count them before Dec. 12** , the date accepted (foolishly!) by Gore’s lawyers as the deadline for selecting Florida’s electors. **Any recount, even if it put Gore ahead, would have been chaotic and disputed, as this Sentinel companion story suggests**. Had Gore instead asked for a full statewide recount immediately after the Nov. 7 election, as some of his aides urged, there would have been plenty of time to count both undervotes and overvotes before Dec. 12. Additionally, in the [Sentinal](http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/nationworld/orl-asecresults12111201nov12.story?coll=orl-home-headlines) article it says > [@](#): > > The study found that, even if the recount had been allowed to proceed, and the ballots had been recounted just as election officials in each county say they planned, Bush still could have won by a 493-vote margin. > > But if the recount had gone forward, it **might have been expanded beyond what the Florida Supreme Court ordered** by the man responsible for overseeing it, Leon County Circuit Court Judge Terry Lewis. > > The recount was halted before he decided how it would finally work, but Lewis said in an interview earlier this year that he would not have ignored the overvote ballots. Though he stopped short of saying he definitely would have expanded the recount to include overvotes, Lewis emphasized, “I’d be open to that.” So there’s three ifs involved 1. If Lewis would expand beyond the Florida SC order, and over-rule the local boards. 2. If he would decide that counting over-votes was justified. 3. Whether such a count was feasable altogether given the time-frame. Perhaps a lawyer can correct me, but my impression is that judges tend to be very circumspect when commenting about what they might or might not do or have done. The fact that Lewis said he would have been “open to that” means little IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2001, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-really-did-choose-the-president-after-all/93459/7 "2001-11-15T05:13:01Z")
With regards to this: > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > Any recount, even if it put Gore ahead, would have been chaotic and disputed, as this Sentinel companion story suggests Check out the article: [Court-ordered recount was guessing game Florida’s election rules were so inconsistent that no result would have been reliable]([http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/nationworld/orl-asecrecount12111201nov12.story?coll=orl-home-headlines](http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/nationworld/orl-asecrecount12111201nov12.story?coll=orl-home-headlines)). Worth reading, for some people. ---
**Author:** ![Tejota](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/958977/32.png) [@Tejota](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tejota)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2001, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-really-did-choose-the-president-after-all/93459/8 "2001-11-15T05:41:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > > > [@](#): > > > > Though he stopped short of saying he definitely would have expanded the recount to include overvotes, Lewis **emphasized** ‘I’d be open to that.’ All he needed was evidence that there were valid votes in the overvotes, he had the power to expand, and the evidence existed. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > P.S.: Does this mean Gore’s undervote-obsessed recount strategy wasn’t foolish, as previously charged in this space? Not necessarily. By the time the issue of the overvotes was raised before Judge Lewis, on Dec. 9, **it was almost too late to count them before Dec. 12** , the date accepted (foolishly!) by Gore’s lawyers as the deadline for selecting Florida’s electors. Dec 12 is the same bogus ‘deadline’ that SCOTUS used as an excuse to stop the counting. If the counting had gone beyond then, it would have been a circus, but that hardly gives that date the force of law. Dec 12 is the date that prohibits Congress from challenging the states’ delegation out of hand, nothing more. Even in 2000, some of the states sent the delegations to congress later than that. It would have taken more balls than our collective congress contains to refuse to seat the Florida delegates in full view of the world so long as it happened before the delegates formally vote. > [@](#): > > So there’s three ifs involved > > 1. If Lewis would expand beyond the Florida SC order, and over-rule the local boards. > 2. If he would decide that counting over-votes was justified. > 3. Whether such a count was feasable altogether given the time-frame. Only one if, 1. is implied by 2., no fair upping your count by paraphrasing yourself. If he decided counting overvotes was justified then he naturally would have ordered it so. It was precisely his power to decide how the counting would be done, and NOT the local boards at that point in the game. Point 3. is non-issue, Dec 12 was a false deadline, convenient if they were done before then, but not necessary. The actual deadline was in January, which was easily doable. > [@](#): > > Perhaps a lawyer can correct me, but my impression is that judges tend to be very circumspect when commenting about what they might or might not do or have done. The fact that Lewis said he would have been “open to that” means little IMHO. On the contrary, that he said even that much speaks volumes. Circumspect would be if he refused to discuss the case. ---
**Author:** ![FortMarcy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/9de053/32.png) [@FortMarcy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FortMarcy)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2001, 8:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-really-did-choose-the-president-after-all/93459/9 "2001-11-15T08:17:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tejota \* > If [Judge Terry Lewis] decided counting overvotes was justified then he naturally would have ordered it so. It was precisely his power to decide how the counting would be done, and NOT the local boards at that point in the game. > [@](#): > > _[Recount’s brief revival is as eventful as ever](http://www.usatoday.com/news/vote2000/pres231.htm)_ > As ordered by the Florida Supreme Court on Friday, county canvassing boards segregated the “undervotes,” those ballots that had registered no presidential choice. Once the boards fished out the undervotes, board members, under public observation, examined the ballots one by one to determine whether each voter intended to vote for someone but missed making a clear mark on the ballot. > > Many canvassing boards had to run ballots through counting machines again to find the undervotes. To complete the task, some boards had the scanner companies rush special software. None of the boards said it would be unable to complete the recount by the deadline of 2 p.m. Sunday that had been set by Lewis. > > … > > But Lewis, relying on Friday’s Florida Supreme Court decision, left the criteria to the canvassing boards. It’s quite clear that only undervotes were being recounted. Not a single canvassing board was looking at overvotes and it’s highly doubtful Lewis would change that before his deadline. So at 2 p.m. Sunday, with all the undervotes counted, we find that Bush’s lead has increased (according to the study upon which this thread is based). So how does the overvote count occur? If Judge Lewis orders it, he appears partisan. If the Gore team requests it, they look like sore losers. Plus they didn’t argue the overvote question when the vote difference was smaller. If Lewis did somehow decide the overvotes should be counted, his decision would be immmediately appealed to the Florida Supreme Court. The justices would then be in the unenviable position of overruling their own decision on how the recount should occur. They would have to order a recount of votes that they considered unneccessary a few days earlier when the election was actually closer. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tejota \* > Despite all of the media spin to the contrary, It is likely that if SCOTUS had allowed the recount to go forward the overvotes AND the undervotes would have been hand counted. Likely? Not very. ---
**Author:** ![Ned](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/848f3c/32.png) [@Ned](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ned)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2001, 9:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-really-did-choose-the-president-after-all/93459/10 "2001-11-15T09:59:02Z")
> [@](#): > > Not a single canvassing board was looking at overvotes Factual statement or guess? The software you refer to was used in punch card jurisdictions with central tabulation which isn’t where the overvotes were. Optical scan counties had existing software that spit out any ballot which did not register a vote so the overvoted ballots would have been segregated as well. They were being noticed at the time. I recall reports prior to the count being shut down that they were being noticed. In one county where the count had been complete they gave a number for the valid overvoted ballots found which would not be included in the count under existing rules. Clearly someone had kept track. You think it would be partisan to count valid votes? More partisan than the republican county that just decided that the automatic recount was wrong without reexamining the ballots perhaps? I don’t know how Lewis could have ignored legal votes that were uncovered during the count. ---
**Author:** ![Tejota](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/958977/32.png) [@Tejota](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tejota)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2001, 10:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-really-did-choose-the-president-after-all/93459/11 "2001-11-15T10:07:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by FortMarcy \* > So how does the overvote count occur? > > If Judge Lewis orders it, he appears partisan. > > If the Gore team requests it, they look like sore losers. Plus they didn’t argue the overvote question when the vote difference was smaller. Aparently you didn’t read all of the OP. I’ll quote a bit again so you can be sure to see it > [@](#): > > . If the recount had gone forward Judge Lewis might well have counted the overvotes **(at the Bush camp’s urging!)** in which case Gore might well have won in spite of his misguided undervote-centered strategy." It happens because Bush is asking for it (mostly to stall, I believe, but that’s neither here nor there). And because evidence was even then becoming available that at lease 1 opscan county (collier as I recall) had already looked at their overvotes and found valid votes there. The combination of the two factors would have forced Lewis to consider the overvotes, and as soon as he looked at them, he would be forced to conclude that they should be counted. > [@](#): > > If Lewis did somehow decide the overvotes should be counted, his decision would be immmediately appealed to the Florida Supreme Court. Sure, if Bush wanted to continue his campaign of obstruction. But since my thesis is that the SC decided the election by stopping the count, this merely supports argument. ---
**Author:** ![FortMarcy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/9de053/32.png) [@FortMarcy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FortMarcy)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2001, 12:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-really-did-choose-the-president-after-all/93459/12 "2001-11-15T12:24:23Z")
You’re ignoring the crucial fact that the recount was already in progress. Only votes from the undercount were being examined. The author may speculate that Bush would have urged an overvote recount, but that’s highly doubtful. The Bush team had fought every previous recount attempt. It would have been politically compromising for them to ask for one of their own. They would have had to been in a dire situation to do so. Dire circumstances would not have arisen since they would have been aware of how the undervote count was proceeding. Once the undervote recount started, the only thing that could have stopped it was the Supreme Court. If they hadn’t intervened, at 2 p.m. Sunday would have left Bush in the lead and no one in a position to ask for another recount. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2001, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-really-did-choose-the-president-after-all/93459/13 "2001-11-15T14:03:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tejota \* > > > [@](#): > > > > So there’s three ifs involved > > > > 1. If Lewis would expand beyond the Florida SC order, and over-rule the local boards. > > 2. If he would decide that counting over-votes was justified. > > 3. Whether such a count was feasable altogether given the time-frame. > > Only one if, 1. is implied by 2., no fair upping your count by paraphrasing yourself. If he decided counting overvotes was justified then he naturally would have ordered it so. Again, I don’t think this follows. He may not have decided to expand the recount beyond what was ordered by the FSC, and may not have chosen to intervene in the local election boards, even if he personally thought it was a good idea to count them (recall: this is the same guy who had previously ruled that Katherine Harris had properly excercised her discretion in stopping the original recounts, until he was overruled by the FSC). > [@](#): > > It was precisely his power to decide how the counting would be done, and NOT the local boards at that point in the game. This may have been theoretically so, but does not necessarily reflect reality. Fact is that the recounts had already begun, and Lewis had not imposed a uniform standard - actually he pretty much left each board on their own. > [@](#): > > Point 3. is non-issue, Dec 12 was a false deadline, convenient if they were done before then, but not necessary. > The actual deadline was in January, which was easily doable. This is irrelevant. All sides at that point had accepted that the recount had to be completed by that point (due to the “safe harbor” issue), including the FSC. I recall this quite distinctly. The fact that the opinion of **Tejota** differs is irrelevant. > [@](#): > > On the contrary, that he said even that much speaks volumes. Circumspect would be if he refused to discuss the case. Well I think circumspect is when you say that you would consider everything, and rule nothing out. YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2001, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-really-did-choose-the-president-after-all/93459/14 "2001-11-15T17:40:44Z")
One of the hallmarks of Anglo-American jurisprudence is something called the “rule of law.” What this means, quite simply, is that we choose (directly by electing or indirectly by elected representatives appointing) judges, with tiers of appeal authority, we submit our disputes to them instead of staging rebellions or coups d’etat, and we accept their decisions as final. Unless enough of us get irked about them, as in Chisholm v. Georgia, Scott v. Sandford, and Pollock v. Farmers Trust & Loan, when we amend the Constitution to say how we feel it should have come out. At this point, and since about November 20, 2000, there is absolutely **nothing** that **anybody** can say or do which will make a substantial majority of the country happy with Presidential Election 2000. There will always be a substantial amount of people saying “Bush stole the election from Gore” or “Gore tried to steal the election from Bush.” And, whichever side you fall on, you have to admit that the other side does have a point. Which, at bottom line, means that the problem is insoluble. A quick comment to those who say that machines will be more accurate than honest humans: I presume you will pay up without complaint the $5,000 Straight Dope users fee that was generated because some poor minimum-wage clerk at the Chicago Reader forgot to type in the decimal point on 12,000+ $50 fees (supposing that is what the fee is when it’s imposed), and the machine did not use common sense to realize that that was the wrong charge. I consider that anything other than finding out what the results _would_ have been if recounts had been completed under differing vote-acceptance scenarios, as a historical exercise, is simply continuing to beat a dead horse. It strikes me that the appropriate thing to do at this point is to ensure that every jurisdiction has equipment and procedures in place to prevent any recurrence of this, and to consider whether we want to add Bush v. Gore to the list of SCOTUS cases resulting in Constitutional amendments by abolishing or reforming the Electoral College and/or how it’s chosen. ---
**Author:** ![FortMarcy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/9de053/32.png) [@FortMarcy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FortMarcy)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2001, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-really-did-choose-the-president-after-all/93459/15 "2001-11-15T19:28:43Z")
This thread isn’t really about what did happen or what should have happened or what should happen in the future. The assertion being debated is that Gore would have been elected had the Supreme Court not stopped the recount. We’re trying to determine whether this is a 100% certainty (thread title), or more than a 50% certainty (OP). [hijack] > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Polycarp \* > A quick comment to those who say that machines will be more accurate than honest humans: I presume you will pay up without complaint the $5,000 Straight Dope users fee that was generated because some poor minimum-wage clerk at the Chicago Reader forgot to type in the decimal point on 12,000+ $50 fees (supposing that is what the fee is when it’s imposed), and the machine did not use common sense to realize that that was the wrong charge. A clerk makes an error and we’ll blame it on the machine. Gotcha. [/hijack] ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2001, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-really-did-choose-the-president-after-all/93459/16 "2001-11-15T19:46:17Z")
Polycarp is exactly correct. However, I’ve come to the reluctant conclusion that no smattering of logic - or, indeed, torrent thereof - will sway the people who wish to endlessly debate this. Unfortunately, I feel that vital attention is being siphoned from the “how do we prevent it from happening again?” question by the “Look, look, look what happened!” crowd. What are you doing to assure that Florida 2000 is not repeated in your state? - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2001, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-really-did-choose-the-president-after-all/93459/17 "2001-11-15T19:52:31Z")
Fort Marcy: Something of my point. There _were_ people in Palm Beach County who averred in sworn statements that they had erroneously punched Buchanan instead of Gore due to the butterfly ballot, and rather than being given replacement ballots as mandated by Florida state law, were told to punch Gore as well and circle the response they meant, and election judges would read their ballots as votes for Gore. Given that information, how would a machine read that ballot? How would an election judge being duly apprised of the facts as stated above? I don’t blame the machine. I suggest that human fallibility is best corrected by human common sense, not blind faith in machinery. ---
**Author:** ![Futurist110](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e4f/32.png) [@Futurist110](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Futurist110)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2015, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-really-did-choose-the-president-after-all/93459/18 "2015-11-25T04:18:04Z")
> [@Tejota](#): > > From the [Washington Post](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27064-2001Nov14.html) (who are in turn quoting the Orlando Sentinel). > Despite all of the media spin to the contrary, It is likely that if SCOTUS had allowed the recount to go forward the overvotes AND the undervotes would have been hand counted. Thereby giving the victory to Gore. > > [sub]are you listening Rhenquist, Scalia? This will be what people 100 years ago remember about your time in the supreme court.[/sub] Out of curiosity–would it have been in Judge Terry Lewis’s authority to reexamine the absentee military ballots as well and to throw out the dubious military ballots? Indeed, if Judge Lewis could have determined the validity of both overvotes and undervotes, then could he have also given himself the ability to determine the validity of overseas military ballots? I apologize if my question above is stupid, but I am simply curious about this; after all, if the U.S. Supreme Court would have refused to hear the Bush v. Gore case, then a statewide manual hand recount of both undervotes and overvotes, plus a rejection of the approximately 290 dubious military absentee ballots, should have resulted in Gore winning Florida in 2000 by a margin of between 350 and 450 votes. Anyway, any thoughts on this? ---
**Author:** ![Futurist110](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e4f/32.png) [@Futurist110](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Futurist110)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2015, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-really-did-choose-the-president-after-all/93459/19 "2015-11-25T04:21:41Z")
> [@Tejota](#): > > Sure, if Bush wanted to continue his campaign of obstruction. But since my thesis is that the SC decided the election by stopping the count, this merely supports argument. Out of curiosity–couldn’t such a move on Judge Lewis’s part have caused either the Florida Supreme Court to overrule Lewis or to have the U.S. Supreme Court overrule both Lewis and the Florida Supreme Court (if it would have supported Lewis)? After all, couldn’t the U.S. Supreme Court argue (using some fancy legalistic wording, obviously) that the Florida recounts should be stopped due to the fact that Florida Supreme Court was changing its recount rules in the “middle of the game”? Any thoughts on this? ---
**Author:** ![Futurist110](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e4f/32.png) [@Futurist110](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Futurist110)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2015, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-really-did-choose-the-president-after-all/93459/20 "2015-11-25T04:23:15Z")
> [@Tejota](#): > > Point 3. is non-issue, Dec 12 was a false deadline, convenient if they were done before then, but not necessary. > The actual deadline was in January, which was easily doable. Wasn’t the actual deadline before the Electoral College met, though? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-really-did-choose-the-president-after-all/93459.md?page=2)