Justice Stevens retiring, who will Obama choose to replace him?

[palemale]

Here's a hint (since you don't seem to understand): The electors CAN'T be chosen if the returns aren't filed by the counties. The date was law; the supreme court reaffirmed that ONLY the legislature has the right to set the date the results must be sent to the state.

Here's a hint, you don't know what you are talking about.

Here is the the portion of the decision in Bush v. Gore that is the basis for the Supreme Court's ruling:

The Supreme Court of Florida has said that the legislature intended the State’s electors to “participat[e] fully in the federal electoral process,” as provided in 3 U.S.C. § 5. ___ So. 2d, at ___ (slip op. at 27); see also Palm Beach Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, 2000 WL 1725434, *13 (Fla. 2000). That statute, in turn, requires that any controversy or contest that is designed to lead to a conclusive selection of electors be completed by December 12. That date is upon us, and there is no recount procedure in place under the State Supreme Court’s order that comports with minimal constitutional standards. 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. See post, at 6 (Souter, J., dissenting); post, at 2, 15 (Breyer, J., dissenting). 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 authorized by Fla. Stat. §102.168(8) (2000).

Now, since you don't understand what the Supreme Court wrote, I will explain it to you and demonstrate how the Court "legislated" from the bench and substituted its judgment for the judgment of the Florida legislature, rather than strictly construe the statutes.

The Court stated that the Florida Supreme Court said that the Florida legislature intended the Florida electors to, and here the SCOTUS quotes the Florida Court, "participate fully in the federal electoral process," then ended the quote, but finished the thought by adding their interpretation rather than completing what the Florida S. Ct. said. The SCOTUS finished the sentence with the following: "provided in 3 U.S.C. § 5." The Florida Supreme Court never said that the Florida legislature required all election contests to be completed by the safe harbor date provide in 3 U.S.C. § 5 (federal election statute), and no where in the Florida Statute does it say that election contests must be completed by the date set in 3 U.S.C. § 5. The SCOTUS simply made that up. The cases that the SCOTUS cites for that proposition do not support the assertion it makes.

 

[JB3]

Here's a hint, you don't know what you are talking about.

Here is the the portion of the decision in Bush v. Gore that is the basis for the Supreme Court's ruling:


Now, since you don't understand what the Supreme Court wrote, I will explain it to you and demonstrate how the Court "legislated" from the bench and substituted its judgment for the judgment of the Florida legislature, rather than strictly construe the statutes.

The Court stated that the Florida Supreme Court said that the Florida legislature intended the Florida electors to, and here the SCOTUS quotes the Florida Court, "participate fully in the federal electoral process," then ended the quote, but finished the thought by adding their interpretation rather than completing what the Florida S. Ct. said. The SCOTUS finished the sentence with the following: "provided in 3 U.S.C. § 5." The Florida Supreme Court never said that the Florida legislature required all election contests to be completed by the safe harbor date provide in 3 U.S.C. § 5 (federal election statute), and no where in the Florida Statute does it say that election contests must be completed by the date set in 3 U.S.C. § 5. The SCOTUS simply made that up. The cases that the SCOTUS cites for that proposition do not support the assertion it makes.

I understand perfectly what the supreme court wrote. YOU quite simply do not understand that the Florida legislature set a hard date for when the final tallies must be reported, and there was absolutely no way that that could be met if the Fla. Supreme Court's arbitrary recount was carried out. The Supreme Court stated quite clearly that the Fla. Supreme court did not have the legal right to decide on their own to change that date, and that the only right to do so rested with the legislature.

 

[palemale]

I understand perfectly what the supreme court wrote. YOU quite simply do not understand that the Florida legislature set a hard date for when the final tallies must be reported, and there was absolutely no way that that could be met if the Fla. Supreme Court's arbitrary recount was carried out. The Supreme Court stated quite clearly that the Fla. Supreme court did not have the legal right to decide on their own to change that date, and that the only right to do so rested with the legislature.

Don't you think if the Florida legislature had set a hard date, the SCOTUS would have said that and cited to the statute? The Supreme Court never said the legislature set a hard date. Using specious reasoning, they inferred that the Florida legislature intended that their electoral votes be submitted in time to meet the "safe harbor" date in 3 U.S.C. § 5, based on the Florida Supreme Court's statement the legislature intended the state to participate fully in the federal electoral process.

Perhaps you don't understand that the statute the SCOTUS cites to, 3 U.S.C. § 5, is a federal statute and that it does not require that all electoral vote counts be submitted by a specific date. You keep asserting that the legislature set a hard date, but can't point to a statute that supports your assertion.

Face it, in Bush v. Gore, the conservatives on the Supreme Court did not follow strict constructionism. They legislated from the bench because they did not approve of the result they would have come to if they had strictly construed the constitution, and the relevant federal and state statutes.