With all the cries of the right regarding standards to be used in doing manual recounts of undervotes, with their proclaim that the Florida Supreme court did not give specific standards, we are missing the fact that the FLorida statutes only give us the "clear intent" standard and nothing else.

There is an inherent contradiction in a party to an action on the one hand saying that the Florida Supreme Court should have made the standards clear, and on the other hand scream bloody murder when they perceive that court as rewriting the laws. You cannot have it both ways. In fact, had the Florida Supreme court decided it was two corner or three corner chads only that should count, that would have CLEARLY been a change in the law-as the statute only says "clear intent".

Also, in the case to stop the hand recounts in the 11th circuit court(I read their last opinion yesterday), the republican side basically argued that certain FLorida Statutes, including the clear intent statute, were unconstitutional on the face. In fact, so of the points they argued in this court directly contradict those being argued with the USSC now. They are accusing the FLorida Supreme court of circumventing laws which in another court the republicans are arguing that those very laws are unconstitutional! This is amazing to me, but true. Read it for yourself.

But as the post is titled, the real bozos are the people who wrote these laws. From the absurdity of having a deadline 7 days after an election, without enough time to fully recount highly populous areas should those area's canvassing boards decide to do that, to the vague language in the contest statutes about clear "intent", they have so bumbled their election laws that there appears to be no remedy at hand for a challenger.

The legislature has failed to provide standards, failed to define "legal" vote, and have written statutes which contradict one another. They have included judicial review in the contest phase, but if you are to believe the republicans, no appelate review to what the circuit courts decide in a contest. If the supreme court of the US decides in their favor, this leaves no remedy at all to the contestant.

I think this is patently unfair, as all law is about grievance and redress, and there should not be situations where there is no remedy available.

With clear election laws this would have never gotten to this place. What a shame. Maybe we are all suffering now so that every state will make a fearless inventory of their election laws so they do not become the joke that Florida has become.

-- ConstitutionalScholar (I@actually.read.it), December 11, 2000

Answers

ConstitutionalScholar,

I could tell without a doubt that you were a scholar just by reading the thread title.

The way that you used the word "legislatures" instead of "legislators" was a big clue.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), December 11, 2000.

J:

What an erudite observation from our resident iconoclast. My humblest apologies for proliferating such a grave and indiscriminate use of the english language. It was with horror that I read your answer and realized what a mental midget I must be for making such a gargantuan mistake.

How can I recover? How can I ever post on this board again? How can I ever hope to compete or debate, and, most importantly, exist on the same board with the likes of of you aboard?

How could I not know that by having a spelling error in the title of the post it would nullify everything I would say? I must have missed that in the finishing school I attended, which obviously was not as good as the one which you attended.

I thank you from the abyss of my heart for raising my consciouness to the apex of yours. I stand to corrected for the most horrendous injustice I have committed with my egregious use of the wrong word.

I promise no to post again until I can measure up to the degree of accuracy you ALWAYS show on this board with your language.

I also humbly await your re-appearance after reading the 11th circuit courts opinion and after you have read both sides briefs to the supreme court for todays hearing. You can find them at www.findlaw.com.

Until then I will completely stop what I am doing, because I am having a hard time catching my breath due to the astonishment you have laid upon me.

-- ConstitutionalScholar (I@actually.read.it), December 11, 2000.

To the top.

-- TheInstigator (See@J.kvetch), December 12, 2000.