I asked you before to stop posting out of context to try to prove a point. The "...." you chose to insert into the first paragraph conveniently glided over this:
"See post, at 6 (Souter, J., dissenting); /post/, at 2, 15 (Breyer, J., dissenting)." And even that particular ruling was over consistent standards regarding enforcing the Equal Protection Clause violation - the ruling to "stop the recount" was 5-4. Regardless of the outcome of a ruling, there's almost always one or more justices dissenting. That's the nature of law - everything's pretty much "good enough". A 5-4 decision is still a decision, but your implication that there was "no choice" is a lark. Any single justice changing their mind in a split such as this changes the entire ruling, implying there most certainly was a choice, and more of the justices at that time felt that one path was the best. That the majority found Breyer's remedy "inappropriate", only implies inappropriateness in that they disagreed with it. Had Breyer's remedy been taken up, then the remedies proposed by Scalia or Thomas or Kennedy would have been deemed "inappropriate" by the majority. There's no absolutes here, although you seem to be grasping for something along those lines. Anyway, Sam, going back to the original issue, with Dan Rather and this whole "some say..." thing. I'll ask you this: You're up in arms over Rather saying "...some say, politically and ideologically motivated Court" (or the like), interpreting it to mean that he was parroting DNC talking points. However, since you're obviously on the side of the majority opinion, did you think then, or do you think now that the 4 dissenting justices, who voted against halting the recount, were politically or ideologically motivated, or would you say they were implacable, neutral executors of the interpretation of the law? - Jim Sam wrote: >"Because it is evident that any recount seeking to meet the December >12 date will be unconstitutional for the reasons we have discussed, we >reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida ordering a >recount to proceed. Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are >constitutional problems with the recount ordered by the Florida >Supreme Court that demand a remedy. .... The only disagreement is as >to the remedy. > >"Because the Florida Supreme Court has said that the Florida >Legislature intended to obtain the safe-harbor benefits of 3 U. S. C. >5, Justice Breyer's proposed remedy remanding to the Florida Supreme >Court for its ordering of a constitutionally proper contest until >December 18 — contemplates action in violation of the Florida election >code, and hence could not be part of an 'appropriate' order .... > >"None are more conscious of the vital limits on judicial authority >than are the members of this Court, and none stand more in admiration >of the Constitution's design to leave the selection of the President >to the people, through their legislatures, and to the political >sphere. > > > > >On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 09:23:25 -0600, Jim Campbell wrote: > > >>Sam, that's completely disingenuous; if the court had "no choice" then >>it would have been a 9-0 decision; and if the law were "very clear", >>there would have been no dissenting opinion. If the entire purpose of >>the court system is simply to rubberstamp laws and never interpret the >>application thereof, then I'd love to hear your opinion of why exactly >>we should have them in the first place. >> >>"I can imagine when you'd want to mention things questioned by the people." >> >>Well, that's a start. >> >>- Jim >> >> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Flash for programmers - Flash MX Pro http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=56 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:150261 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
