First and foremost, I must admit that I voted for George W. Bush. Failure to mention this would be wrong, in that my readers have the paramount right to know where I'm coming from. This is my 3rd election with Federal implications, and is the first time I have voted for a non-Republican for any significant office. If you must know, I voted for a Libertarian for the US House.
Second, I'm not rich, I'm unemployed. So don't try to use any stereotypes if you disagree. I don't like it, and it makes me respond rather harshly.
Now, you'll hear a lot of spin on the decision. I looked at the actual text. This is by far the most fragmented decision I've seen. Ever. I'm hardly a legal scholar, but 6 opinions seems extreme, and is, I think, a perfect example of why the Supreme Court HAD to make a decision. The nation is split along so many lines that only an unappealable source of a decree stands any chance of bringing any sense of closure to the situation.
"Counting the votes" would not lend finality, as many Democrat partisans claim. A reasonable person cannot expect a Bush supporter to consent to the recount as it proceeded in Broward County. A little bend in the paper is hardly sufficient cause to declare a ballot a vote. I had to vote correctly, so why the heck are we counting ballots where a little sweat might have deformed the paper as a vote?
Now on to the verdict, you'll hear 5-4 and 7-2 a lot. The verdict is neither. 5 justices believe that the Florida Supreme Court acted in such a way that demanded reversal, and the extra slap of having a restriciton placed on future actions this election. 2 disagreed with the reversal and slap, and thought a remanding with instructions was more appropriate. 2 disagreed with the decision wholesale.
There were also 3 of the 5 justices who voted to reverse who thought that the other 2 didn'teally go far enough. I fall in with this group, though not their reasoning. They rely too heavily on interpretations of different laws, court decisions, and so forth. The simple question is who has tthe right to dictate election policy. That is clearly vested in the state legislature. Now, the issue becomes whether or not the election laws changed. Well, the lawyer for the Attorney General of Florida testified to the Supreme Court that NEVER has voter error been considered an error in vote tabulation. The Florida Supreme Court has decided to make a third category of situations that MUST (where the law says "may") be the basis for a manual recount. Furthermore, the statutes demand that manual recounts be of ALL ballots. Obviously, these are not statutes passed by the Legislature, but they are certainly revisions to the election code. Hence, it is not Constitutional. Second, the issue of deference to the Legislature, having been addressed within the month, and no new justices being seated, requires that the decision lack much of the professional courtesy of the first. In this case, a reversal isn't sufficient, but something stiffer. In this case, O'Conner, Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist decided that barring a further count, which seemed to be the ultimate end of the offending court, was appropriate scolding.
You cannot decide the issue on pique, though the severity of the punishment can be decided on such factors, provided you have the legal authority to make the verdict you did. However, the US Supreme Court should not be accused of any error of judgment as a whole here. Rather, it is the Florida Supreme Court that has been in error. It is a failure of one's duty to reach a decision, then search for the merits, which is, right or wrong, the impression of 3.75 members of my family with regards to Florida's Supreme Court (hence, FLSC). My mom is more forgiving than the rest of us. This should not be the feeling leveled at the USSC. By hearing the stay application, all 9 justices had been asked to consider and effectively rule on the case before full briefs had been filed. One must find a reasonable explanation as to why they should NOT have heard the stay to level this type of attack. Furthermore, one must also claim that they were so wrong on 2 issues as to be bereft of reason. Had counting in Florida continued with a mix of standards, is it reasonable to believe that George W Bush would not have suffered some harm in his authority as President? The answer is a clear yes. One need only look at the difference between Broward and Palm Beach County to see the potential for harm: illegal votes being counted for Al Gore. You must also assume Bush did not have a solid case. Not ONE dissenting opinion stated that the arguments raised were completely wrong, though some came close. Therefore, you are looking at a situation where it is judicial priorities, not a matter of clear law that they are deciding on. Hence, 5 justices felt his arguments were in line with their concerns to an extent that they believed they would rule in his favor. That is sufficient for a stay, and as of yet, they have not violated a single prinicple enshrined in the Constitution.
It's amazing, to me, that the few people who came out of this situation with a positive opinion are all Democrats. Judges N. Sanders Sauls and Charles Burton. DNC chairman Ed Rendell. Law professor Susan Estrich.
What happened on election night is a clear mandate for the moderates. The rest of us apparently are so divided that only the moderates will get their agenda through. Ed Rendell, intelligent man he has proved to be (and for which he will probably be fired), knows that 2 years of bickering will only serve to make people turn on the Democrats. George W Bush knows this as well, and is no doubt working Dick Cheney hard to get the party in line for the next session of Congress.