From: Matt Jensen (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Nov 27 2000 - 13:59:52 PST
On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> The 'reports' say that the fl supreme court stated harris could 'optionally'
> wait until 9:00 AM monday morning to certify the results. Seems to be a mush
> headed decision on part of the justices to set two "deadlines" ...
The conclusion I drew from their decision was that they suspected
Harris might not accept the results if submitted on a Sunday, the office
being technically closed.
> They knew
> with certainty when they set these two "deadlines" that the larger counties
> would not be able to complete handcounts. WTF.
Really? I disagree, since:
1. There's nothing in the decision to support that, nor was there
anything in the hearing itself (I heard the audio stream ).
2. Boies's team would have complained immediately after the decision was
announced, and they didn't.
3. The court could not know that a county would stop counting because of
protesters entering the building, or that a county would not count on
Thanksgiving Day and jeopardize their schedule.
4. Gore and Boies had said several times that a recount could be done in
"days, not weeks." The decision came out Tuesday night, giving up to five
days until the deadline.
5. The court needed to split up the time between then and December 12th to
allow time for contests and appeals. The 12/12 deadline is federal.
6. Most important of all, you seem to imply that the whole Florida Supreme
Court (decision was unanimous) was either incompetent or deceitful.
That's a really big claim to make with no evidence.
---  http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/election2000/fsc1121decision.pdf  Not archived yet, but should be someday at http://wfsu.org/gavel2gavel/  http://www.nandotimes.com/noframes/story/0,2107,500282308-500444015-502872419-0,00.html  http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/11/24/deutsch/index.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Nov 27 2000 - 14:27:57 PST