Reply #63: The rationale is that the Constitution gives the right not [View All]

[Igel]

to the states, but to the states' legislatures. The state legislature said 'safe harbor', and the state court said, "No, we rule." Actually, no, that was one rationale. (That's one principled problem with the decision, multiple reasons given for one action.)

There was some business about differing standards; that's a vicious kind of argument.

I think the consensus was if the court had done things different, within the parameters set by the state legislature, the case would have gone differently. But then it rests on whether the state court had stipulated a full recount using the standards Gore wanted, * wanted, or some other standard.

Yuck. There's little intelligent that can be said about the ruling, simply because it's a morass.