Some Dare Call It Justice
of "equal protection," so the argument\r\nruns, la\\' in the faihire of the Florida\r\nSupreme Corut to declare a statewide\r\nstandard to he used in counting, thus\r\nlea\\'iug unclear whether the reeounters\r\ncould find xalid votes where there were\r\ndimpled chads, pregnant chads, swinging\r\nchads, hanging chads, et cetera. The\r\nresulting possibilit}' for different standards,\r\nthe Court declared, might be nnduK'\r\nprejudicial to George W. Bush, as\r\nGore partisans proceeded to give Gore\r\nthe benefit of the doubt with too man\\'\r\nballots.\r\nThis was novel Supreme Gonrt doctrine\r\n(as Bugliosi and Dershowitz\r\nproperh' remind ns), since prc\\'iousl\\' on-\r\n1\\- voters who had been injured had standing\r\nto sue for relief and since virtualh'\r\nc\\er\\- state in the nation allows a fair\r\namount of \\ote-counfing discrefion at the\r\nprecinct and eount\\' le\\'els. As Dershowitz\r\nputs it.\r\nThe implications of |the U.S.\r\nSupreme Court's j reasoning are so\r\nfar-reaching that, taken to their logical\r\nconclusions, tlic\\ would invalidate\r\n\\irtualh' c\\er\\' close elechon in\r\nour past and our future . . .\r\nThere is no doubt that there was votecounting\r\nchaos in Florida, and since\r\n"equal protecfion" has a democrafic ring\r\nand se\\'en of the justices were willing to\r\nsubscribe to the rationale, members of\r\nthe Court must have felt it better from a\r\npidjlic-rclations standpoint to present\r\nAmerica with a decision in which seven\r\njustices...
Join now to access the full article and gain access to other exclusive features.
Already a member? Sign in here