Perhaps the horse is dead, but the "photo finish" of that race remains facinating.
My question concerns Florida's constitution. If it is true that the Secretary of State (Harris) can legally declare a winner, even though the FL supreme court has approved a full recount, then the Supreme Court decision is correct by deferring to State's rights. It's unseemly as hell that a campaign manager for Bush would be in position to make this decision, but it is a problem for Florida to solve.
If the FL supreme court could constitutionally demand a recount, whether the SoS had declared a winner or not, then the Supreme Court decision would be seriously flawed. That, my friends, is extremely rare.
But, my question still remains:
Quote:
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says the high court did not inject itself into the 2000 presidential election.
Speaking at the Time Warner Center last night, Scalia said: "The election was dragged into the courts by the Gore people. We did not go looking for trouble."
But he said the court had to take the case.
"The issue was whether Florida's Supreme Court or the United States Supreme Court [would decide the election.] What did you expect us to do? Turn the case down because it wasn't important enough?"
The conservative justice, who grew up in Queens, contended there would have been a difficult transition had the court not stepped in.
He also pointed out that studies by news organizations after the election showed Bush still would have won a Florida recount.
|
Quote:
|
The Florida Supreme Court ordered a statewide recount of undervotes on Dec. 8, but it was stopped the next day by the U.S. Supreme Court and the legal action returned to state courts.
|
Quote:
|
A pivotal moment came Nov. 26, when Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris -- saying she was following state law -- certified Bush the winner by 537 votes.
|
If my understanding is correct and based upon Scalia's comment, the Florida Supreme Court would have been deferred to by SCOTUS to continue the recount. Did Scalia misspeak (and I would marvel that he got confused on something this important), or have I missed something very important in SCOTUS deferring to Harris's decision?