-Caveat Lector-

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a3290c47374.htm
00-949x

Cite as: 531 U. S. ____ (2000) 1

SCALIA, J., concurring

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

_________________

No. 00- 949 (00A504)

_________________

GEORGE W. BUSH ET AL. v. ALBERT GORE, JR. ET AL.

ON APPLICATION FOR STAY [December 9, 2000]

The application for stay presented to JUSTICE KENNEDY and by him
referred to the Court is granted, and it is ordered that the
mandate of the Florida Supreme Court, case No. SC00- 2431, is
hereby stayed pending further order of the Court. In addition,
the application for stay is treated as a petition for a writ of
certiorari, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.
The briefs of the parties, not to exceed 50 pages, are to be
filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or
before 4 p. m. Sunday, December 10, 2000. Rule 29.2 is suspended
in this case. Briefs may be filed in compliance with Rule 33.2 to
be replaced as soon as possible with briefs prepared in
compliance with Rule 33.1. The case is set for oral argument on
Monday, December 11, 2000, at 11 a. m., and a total of 1 1 /2
hours is allotted for oral argument.

JUSTICE SCALIA, concurring. Though it is not customary for the
Court to issue an opinion in connection with its grant of a stay,
I believe a brief response is necessary to JUSTICE STEVENS'
dissent. I will not address the merits of the case, since they
will shortly be before us in the petition for certiorari that we
have granted. It suffices to say that the issuance of the stay
suggests that a majority of the Court, while not deciding the
issues presented, believe that the petitioner has a substantial
probability of success. On the question of irreparable harm,
however, a few words are appropriate. The issue is not, as the
dissent puts it, whether "[ c] ounting every legally cast vote
ca[ n] constitute irreparable harm." One of the principal issues
in the appeal we have accepted is precisely whether the votes
that have been ordered to be counted are, under a reasonable
interpretation of Florida law, "legally cast vote[ s]." The
counting of votes that are of questionable legality does in my
view threaten irreparable harm to petitioner, and to the country,
by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of
his election. Count first, and rule upon legality afterwards, is
not a recipe for producing election results that have the public
acceptance democratic stability requires. Another issue in the
case, moreover, is the propriety, indeed the constitutionality,
of letting the standard for determination of voters' intent-
dimpled chads, hanging chads, etc.- vary from county to county,
as the Florida Supreme Court opinion, as interpreted by the
Circuit Court, permits. If petitioner is correct that counting in
this fashion is unlawful, permitting the count to proceed on that
erroneous basis will prevent an accurate recount from being
conducted on a proper basis later, since it is generally agreed
that each manual recount produces a degradation of the ballots,
which renders a subsequent recount inaccurate. For these reasons
I have joined the Court' s issuance of stay, with a highly
accelerated timetable for resolving this case on the merits.

Cite as: 531 U. S. ____ (2000) 1

STEVENS, J., dissenting

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

_________________

No. 00- 949 (00A504)

_________________

GEORGE W. BUSH ET AL. v. ALBERT GORE, JR. ET AL.

ON APPLICATION FOR STAY [December 9, 2000]

JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE SOUTER, JUSTICE GINSBURG, and
JUSTICE BREYER join, dissenting. To stop the counting of legal
votes, the majority today departs from three venerable rules of
judicial restraint that have guided the Court throughout its
history. On questions of state law, we have consistently
respected the opinions of the highest courts of the States. On
questions whose resolution is committed at least in large measure
to another branch of the Federal Government, we have construed
our own jurisdiction narrowly and exercised it cautiously. On
federal constitutional questions that were not fairly presented
to the court whose judgment is being reviewed, we have prudently
declined to express an opinion. The majority has acted unwisely.
Time does not permit a full discussion of the merits. It is
clear, however, that a stay should not be granted unless an
applicant makes a substantial showing of a likelihood of
irreparable harm. In this case, applicants have failed to carry
that heavy burden. Counting every legally cast vote cannot
constitute irreparable harm. On the other hand, there is a danger
that a stay may cause irreparable harm to the respondents- and,
more importantly, the public at large- because of the risk that
"the entry of the stay would be tantamount to a decision on the
merits in favor of the applicants." National Socialist Party of
America v. Skokie, 434 U. S. 1327, 1328 (1977) (STEVENS, J., in
chambers). Preventing the recount from being completed will
inevitably cast a cloud on the legitimacy of the election.

It is certainly not clear that the Florida decision violated
federal law. The Florida Code provides elaborate procedures for
ensuring that every eligible voter has a full and fair
opportunity to cast a ballot and that every ballot so cast is
counted. See, e. g., Fla. Stat. �� 101.5614( 5), 102.166 (2000).

In fact, the statutory provision relating to damaged and
defective ballots states that "[ n] o vote shall be declared
invalid or void if there is a clear indication of the intent of
the voter as determined by the canvassing board." Fla. Stat. �
101.5614( 5) (2000).

In its opinion, the Florida Supreme Court gave weight to that
legislative command. Its ruling was consistent with earlier
Florida cases that have repeatedly described the interest in
correctly ascertaining the will of the voters as paramount. See
State ex rel. Chappell v. Martinez, 536 So. 2d 1007 (1998);
Boardman v. Esteva, 323 So. 2d 259 (1976); McAlpin v. State ex
rel. Avriett, 19 So. 2d 420 (1944); State ex rel. Peacock v.
Latham, 169 So. 597, 598 (1936); State ex rel. Carpenter v.
Barber, 198 So. 49 (1940).

Its ruling also appears to be consistent with the prevailing view
in other States. See, e. g., Pullen v. Milligan, __ Ill. 2d __,
561 N. E. 2d 585, 611 (Ill. 1990).

As a more fundamental matter, the Florida court' s ruling
reflects the basic principle, inherent in our Constitution and
our democracy, that every legal vote should be counted. See
Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 544- 555 (1964); cf. Hartke v.
Roudebush, 321 F. Supp. 1370, 1378- 1379. (SD Ind. 1970); accord
Roudebush v. Hartke, 405 U. S. 15 (1972). Accordingly, I
respectfully dissent.

=================================================================
             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

Reply via email to