Apparently you did not read my post. I said the entire decision was not based on precedent
This doesnt make it wrong. Its right/wrong based on the particulards of the case and argument supporting the conclusion.
What I'm looking for is the logical, reaosned argument as to why the 7-2 EP decision was wrong - and you havent delivered.
; I also mentioned that the natural extension of the ruling is that every state would have to have a uniform election system
You did, but you didnt say how yours is the necessary conclusion drawn drom BvG. Retating your premise doesnt support it.
but that the Supreme Court essentially acknowledged the case was bad law by stating it has no precedential value for future elections;
Again, thats what you -said- but I dont see your argument supporing your premise. Restating your premise doesnt support it.
Let me add more: The Court's argument is poor legal reasoning. Boiled down, it follows:
1) The individual citizen has no Constitutional Right to Vote for electors.
2) If a State legislature grants a citizen the Right to Vote for electors, the Right is fundamental.
3) Having once accorded the Right to Vote, the State may not value one person's vote over that of another.
4) Engaging in a vote recounting procedure that lacks a uniform system values one person's vote over that of another.
Still waiting for you to point out the logical flaw in this argument.
But, if we accept the logic of the Court's decision, engaging in a vote counting procedure that lacks a uniform system values one person's vote over that of another. Some counties used chads, some used bubble sheets, etc. There was no uniform form.
You're confusing "uniform means of evlauating a ballot" with "uniform means of casting a ballot". These are seperate concepts, and one has no bearing on the other.
That there must be a unifrom standard for evaluating a ballot in no way necessitates that balloting methods be uniform -- it doesnt matter what method you use to vote, just so long as all the ballots cast via that method are evaluated the same way.
Thats a pretrty elemntary distinction - why didnt you see it?
You're also wrong about the 7-2 decision. The 7-2 decision was that there are constitutional problems with the recount ordered by the Supreme Court of Florida;
Thats right. This is the EP decision, that the FLSC and FL election law as interpreted by the FLSC did not provide equal protection to the voters of FL.
THIS decided the election because THIS meant that the ballots in question could never be legally counted.
2 of those 7 proposed a remedy of remand to the Florida Supreme Court to order a constitutionally proper recounting procedure. So, the case would have continued. In other words, the 7-2 decision stopped the recount, but the 5-4 decision decided the election.
Incorrect, by a full 180 degrees.
By deciding that FL election law did not provide EP for the voters of FL, they in effect decided that the ballots in question could never be counted.
-To count the ballots, the standard by which they would e evaluated must be changed.
-To change the standard, you have to change the law.
-Only the FL legislature can change FL election law
-Election law cannot be changed during the election.
So, as the the flawed standard cannot be changed, it must stand; the flawed statndard necessitates that the ballots cannot be counted.
And I disagreed that the state court's decision violated the Equal Protection Clause.
You can disagree all you want - you need so support your position for it to mean anything. You're not doing that.
You may think it's silly, but the Political Question Doctrine is a long-established tradition of the Supreme Court dating back to Marbury v. Madison, the very case that established the idea of judicial review.
That doesnt change the fact that if you were right and that the SCOTUS doesnt address political issues, then the SCOTUS will make very very few decisions. Just aout -every- ruling they hand down deals with a political issue.
I won't bother to clarify the issue of jurisdiction, because as a non-lawyer I wouldn't expect you to know it.
This is called a false appeal to authority.
News for you, pally: if YOU know it, there's a VERY good chance that -I- know it. Given your arguments in this I very seriously question the veracity of your implicaton that YOU are a lawyer.
In broad strokes, your statement is correct that the SCOTUS has every reason to look at cases that might very well violate the US Constitution.
Yes. I know. And the SCOTUS has appelate jurisdiction. Case closed.
My argument was that the Supreme Court has no business deciding purely political disputes, and that the Supreme Court should have stayed out of a decision that was the province of the State.
And, again - states and state courts do not have the right to violate the US Constitution and US law, period. For your argument to have any teeth, you have to argue that they DO have that right and that said right is outside the perview of Judicial Review simply because it deals with an election.
You arent about to do that, are you?
Both of these arguments address the 5-4 decision that decided the election, not the 7-2 Equal Protection decision, because remember that two of those 7 justices would have sent the case back to the State Supreme Court to formulate a constitutional recounting procedure.
This has been addressed. the FLSC cannot "fix" the EP concern because the FLSC can neither create nor change election law during the election.
Changing the standard changes the law. The law cannot be changed, especially by a court, and so EP cannot be guaranteed. The ballots, therefore, cannot be counted because of the 7-2 EP decision.
My argument follows directly from your statement that I bold-faced. State-wide standard for evaluation implies that there must be a uniform standard for counting votes, and thus because such a standard exists in very few states in the Union, one could argue that all of our elections are invalid and violate the Equal Protection Clause.
You;d be right if all the state standards for manual evaluation of ballots were questioned. They werent,
As such, the decision applies to FL electiuon laws, and no others.
And even if so.... so what?
Why do you think that even if this decision -did- invalidate every single election result, the decision is unsound?