Doesn't every school child know that our constitution frowns on
"post-fact" laws?   Anyone who does not see that the US Supreem, acted
to correct this injustice, is either dishonest or stupid.  I do not
subscribe to the ufimism of calling such gambits, "playing politics".
When the Florida Supreme, violated the constitution, by making law
after the game had already started, why have some dishonest parties
ignored this currupt act, yet criticize the US Supreme, for putting
venal bastards in their place?

Once again, this question seems to be answerable only with opinion,
and the majority of the question is a leading statement.

Don't expect an answer to this question.

Mward is correct; I think your hypothesis is based on deceptive
messages from the media. I suspect both the Florida and the USA
Supreme Courts (and most everone else) are playing mind games with the
public, nor am I confident that The USA would be better off with Al
Gore as president. How would you have resolved the dispute?  Neil

An interesting analysis of the Bush v Gore litigation can be found on
The Nation's website, None Dare Call It Treason, by Vincent Bugliosi.
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010205&s=bugliosi&c=1

An "ex-post facto law" is a LAW that applies retroactively, especially
in a way that negatively affects a person's rights, as by
criminalizing an action that was legal when it was committed.  Ex-post
facto criminal laws are prohibited by Article I, Sections 9 and 10 of
the United States Constitution.

The actions involved did not constitute the passing and enforcement of
a new "law" nor was the matter "criminal".

weisstho-ga

Dear Mr. M. Ward,

Thank you, thank you for your input.

I see nothing wrong with opinions that are accompanied by honest
logic.
And you are right I am trying to lead you toward being a toughlover
like me; after all I am counted amoung a growing number of black
registered Democrats who can distinguish between what is good for the
country, from what's good for the masses (me). By that I mean, it may
be good for me if Gore, a fellow democrat, won against justice, but
that would smear our justice system.

I admire that you seem to be the only one to acknowledge that the
Florida Supreme, has any culpability.  In fact I do not veiw the case
as Gore vs Bush, but instead US-1 vs Florida, because no state Supreme
has the right to make law. No court for that matter.  And this is what
the US supreme has the right to redress regardless of the secondery
players Gore and Bush.

Dear, dear Mr. Expert,

I started to read the Epistle you referred me to, and so far I note
that the arthor concatinates a multitude of goousers who all refute
but fail to confute the legality of the US Supreme Court's action. 
The author rambles on about the past failings of the court to adress
similar injustices, as if it is better to latch the court into its
poorer performances.  By the way I believe all well thinking lawyers
should detest the principle of presidences, because courts are made of
falable and often venal humans; so if we rely on presidences, we will
too often latch the courts into wicked laws. Incidentally, not one of
these "professors" addressed the fact that Florida Supreme did worng,
by legislating from the bench.

As soon as I complete this article, I will return to the seen of this
crime.:-)

Dear Mr. N. Zero,

Thank you for your input,

What media decption, can you recall any, other than delaying winning
reports of the GOP and rushing to pridict our side as winners?

Are you not able to seperate the points of law from the then
candidates?

Are you not able to appreciate the fact that Florida law says that no
re-count is indicated short of an act of God?

Are you aware that the Florida Supreme, overruled one of our own
Democritic judges and tried to legislate from the bench?

Are you able to appreciate that the US Supreme, had the obgligation to
put down any lower court who tries to make law, especially in the
middle of a "game"?

Doctor Neal, there is nothing that clenses the soul like "tough love".
 Try on my mantra for size: even reasonable men disagree, but fanatics
disagree without reasoning...

Dear Mr. Weiss,

Thanks for straightening me out on this law that I could not even
spell.

However as my friend Barry Farber used to say: "dont let manner spoil
meaning".
One does not even need to know which law applies.  Every sinue, every
corpostle, every tisue, in my body tell me that the Florida Supreme
Court, nor any other court for that matter, should try or succeed in
changing a rule in the middle of a "game", despite the existing
Florida law that required only an act of god to allow a re-count.

So permit me to make the case that if the Fl. Supreme, was allowed to
male new law to force a recount, and if the officials refused to go
along, then the would become criminals.  So there you have all of the
elements for your ex post... legislture law says don't count,
officials go to jail for following that law and not judges' new law. 
Well I tried...

Greatly simplified, the Florida Supreme Court was originally asked by
Gore to resolve a conflict in Florida State election law between the
section that provided for a manual recount of ballots in certain
circumstances and the section which imposed a specific date for the
certification of election returns. The Court found that the recount
physically could not be completed by the certification date, which
rendered the right to a recount meaningless in law. It is a legal
principle that one section of law cannot render another section
meaningless, and the Court found that the the certification date could
be moved back in order to allow the completion of the recount, the
spirit of the law requiring that voters should be enfranchised rather
than disenfranchised by any interpretation of voting law.
Additionally, the court ordered that already completed recounts must
be included in the certification. On appeal to the US Supreme Court,
this ruling was set aside and the case was sent back to the Florida
Supreme Court for reconsideration, based upon the need to clarify
whether the original Florida ruling had implications for the Federal
certification of electors in December. The Florida Supreme Court
replied belatedly that the Federal date for certification was not
placed in jeopardy by the brief delay in state certification. This
case became moot, however.

In the meantime, another case was brought by Bush to stop recounting
on the basis of its alleged unconstitutionality. The Florida Court
ruled that the recounting was constitutional, but the US Supreme Court
reversed this ruling, on the 14th Amendment grounds of unequal
protection, namely that the recount was not done with an uniform
standard applicable to all counties in the state. The US Supreme Court
did not hold that recounts were unconstitutional, only that they must
be conducted with uniform standards. The majority (5-4) US Supreme
Court did rule that the Federal deadline for certification of electors
would not be met if recounting were not completed on time, and the
minority complained that the majority had failed to provide a remedy
in law by which the recounts could be completed. The US Supreme Court
reversal had the effect of preventing a completion of the recounting.
The only controlling date was that for the Federal certification of
electors. Significantly, the US Supreme Court ruling upheld the
inclusion of the recounted ballots that had been completed by the
extended Florida certification date. If the Florida Supreme Court had
ordered a complete recount of the state's ballots under an uniform
standard, and it could have been completed by the date for
certification of electors under Federal statute, the recounting could
have continued. The constraining factor was time. The Florida Court
erred by failing to address the equal protection question and by
failing to set a standard. It did not make new law, however, by
resolving a conflcit in the existing law. That is one function of the
Court, to resolve such conflicts.

There were a number of contentious aspects to the US Supreme Court's
ruling, among them the fact that a slate of electors had already been
certified by Florida and would have been able to cast their ballots as
required by law, regardless of the length of time required to complete
the recounting, the fact that, had another slate of electors been sent
as a result of a change in the winner due to a recount, the House of
Representatives had the final power to decide which slate to accept,
and the fact that the Florida Legislature could have appointed its own
slate of electors if necessary. It could be argued that the US Supreme
Court's ruling was unnecessarily restrictive, in that the law already
provided for a resolution of the conflict, and that it usurped the
Constitutional power of the Congress to decide the election.

The answer to your question is, therefore, no.

hlabadie-ga

Well, hello Councelor Labadie, 
Welcome to the fray.
your presentment, is deserving of an A+ rating and it certainly
qualify for my patented classification as a "refute but not a
confute", and since I proclaim that tho reasonable men may disagree,
fanatics disagerr without reasoning, let me hasten to submit the
reason.

The logic that eluded all the legal minds was that before we come to
the conflict my feeble mind observe that the extant law that required
an act of god to indicate a re-count was not met. I beg your humor me
with the concept of law if any this passing-over of that mile stone,
to argue the conflict, when the conflict would never materialize if
the both parties did not ignore that requirement of the law.

Infact I sent the Bush Barrister, an e-mail pointing out this fact but
they probbably never read it. Until newer views shall apear to be
truer views, I submit that the courts should have had to rule that the
act of God law was unconstitutional before jumping to repercussions
that never would have materialized, but for this unindicated action.

It also seems clear to me that the Florida Supreme, would have had to
perform a "Joshua Stunt" to avoid the time constraints.  It seems
quite obvious to me also that the Legislators struggled with the same
time juggling and eclectically assigned the critical amount of time to
handle that part of the process.  It seems clear to me also that the
reason they selected an act of God as the exception, is that typically
such occurences would be uneversial in scope to alter all functions of
the election enough to even pospose the entire election.

In other words the entire election process was designed to sustain
across the board errors in the interest of productivity and eficiency
as seems to be the case in other areas of the country.  As I see it,
even the uncalled for ilegal change in the law that the Fl. S. Court
implimented will not dove-tailinto the operation for future elections
Which makes it adhok to say the least.

Incidentally, nobody remarks on the decisions of the Lower Courts. I
think that three lower courts coming in against the Fl. S. Court
stands for something. I believe Samuel Sauls deserve a seat on the US
Supreme Court.  After all it should be more admirable to have a noble
judge rather than a even a Solomon.

Lets talk some more, as Barry Farber would say "I like your words, tho
not your music"...    Let prevail upon Google to provide a Spell
Checker for this site.