-Caveat Lector-
HOW GORE COUR TED ANARCHY
Thursday,December 14,2000
By ADAM BRODSKY
The New York Post
WHEN President Clinton suggested alternate meanings for the word
"is," he showed that he viewed the law not as a fixed standard
against which disputes can be measured and resolved but as a tool
that can be twisted into a weapon to destroy opponents.
What Clinton managed to start, however, was a process of
destroying not so much his opponent as the law itself.
In Florida, Al Gore picked up Clinton's cue. And the damage to
the law - or, at least, respect for it - is now considerable.
By staging repeated challenges to the Nov. 7 election - in
unprecedented fashion - Gore perpetrated untold harm on the very
foundations of American life.
The veep not only further poisoned the political well, allowing
some to say they suspect George Bush's legitimacy; he also
undermined faith in the courts, in the lawmaking bodies of the
land and in the Constitution itself.
The erosion of confidence in the rule of law can be seen in the
public reaction to the 5-4 and 4-3 splits and in the polarized
language of the justices in those decisions.
It can be seen in the large number of us now peering behind the
legal doors the courts have cracked open. What are non-lawyers
to think when they see confusion among even the legal experts
following Tuesday night's ruling?
The flailing TV commentary suggested the law has been rendered so
murky that, like the proverbial blind men and the elephant,
anyone can see anything in it.
Suppose Gore had not conceded yesterday. And suppose the Florida
Supreme Court had interpreted the U.S. high court's ruling as
having enough "wiggle room" to permit another recount - even if
the 5-4 majority had intended no such thing.
What would happen?
By tradition, if not by rule of law itself, the nation's top
court should prevail. But what if the state court said it was
following the high court's orders - even though the high court
thought it wasn't? Washington's Supremes could have overruled
again - but the same cycle might kick in.
A similar scenario can stew up in a debate between a court and a
legislature.
Take the Florida flap.
The U.S. Constitution says that state legislatures have the last
word over setting the process for choosing their state's
electors. And Florida's top court said it recognized that
authority. Yet it completely disregarded the state Legislature's
deadlines and the discretion it gave to the state's executive
branch.
The Florida justices deny that, of course; on Monday, they told
the U.S. court they hadn't changed deadlines or usurped the
Legislature's authority.
Fine. Suppose that's true.
But suppose, also, that the Legislature itself had then disputed
the Florida jurists' asssertions. Suppose lawmakers told the
justices: "You did usurp our powers."
What's to stop the court from "interpreting" even that line in a
counter-logical, Clintonesque way?
"What the lawmakers meant," the court might say, "when they said
we usurped their powers was that, in fact, we did not usurp their
powers."
Courts - and citizens - can interpret language, in good faith or
not, differently. And if there is no strong consensus on the
meaning of "is" or on the language of court rulings, then there
is no law in the land. Anarchy prevails.
What makes it even messier this time is that the fight involved a
political battle; it wasn't a question of, say, financial
obligations or damages.
This was a court battle to decide the next president. What could
be more political?
The courts traditionally avoid such matters. But here they had
no choice. And, naturally, their own partisan leanings came into
question - further eroding faith in the courts.
So now the Joes on the street will sneer at the courts the way
they have at the pols. Hello, anarchy.
It's all part of the Clinton-Gore legacy.
=================================================================
Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh, YHVH, TZEVAOT
FROM THE DESK OF:
*Michael Spitzer* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Best Way To Destroy Enemies Is To Change Them To Friends
=================================================================
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
