I'm about to be right again for the third time!!!!

[LawyerRon]

OK, Bush is appealing directly to the U.S. Supreme Court (USSC). What's the "Federal Question" he's raising to get in? Why it's none other than 14th. Amendment Due Process/Equal Protection just like I said he would.

Now here's my prediction:
The USSC will decline to hear his petition based on the "Adequate State Grounds" doctrine. Under this doctrine, the USSC will not entertain an issue if they feel it correctly rests on "adequate state grounds". In other words, if they feel State Law properly addressed the issue, they will not hear it.

To arrive at this conclusion, the USSC will reject Bush's 14th. Amendment Due Process/Equal Protection claims leaving only this result: The USSC has no jurisdiction to decide how a State Court interprets state election laws.

(Bush will also raise a "Separation of Powers" challenge but that discussion is beyond the scope of this forum)

[Kubie]

I've been reading your comments with interest and have found them enlightening. However, I do have a question for you. I assume Bush's lawyers would know about what the supreme court will hear or not hear. If so, what would their motive be to continue?

[keithr]

Ron;

I'm far from being a lawyer, but isn't there some sort of precedent that might cause the USSC to hear a case when it envolves "compelling federal issues", which would then supersede state law? It would seem to me that electing a President would be a compelling federal issue.

Aside from that, when a state supreme court would seem to have over-stepped it's bounds, what redress would the damaged party have?

Keith

[LawyerRon]

Carlgif,
No one (including me) knows for sure what the USSC will hear or won't hear. As an Attorney, if you can make a plausable argument (here the 14th. Am. challenge) and the Presidency is on the line, you have an affirmative duty to advise your client to make the argument. In other words, if the whole ballgame's on the line, you've gotta go for it. The USSC might buy their Due Process/Equal Protection argument.

Kieth,

Quote:
"...but isn't there some sort of precedent that might cause the USSC to hear a case when it envolves "compelling federal issues", which would then supersede state law? It would seem to me that electing a President would be a compelling federal issue".

Your "Compelling Federal Issues" is really just another way of stating "Federal Qustion Jurisdiction" which is what you must invoke to get the USSC to hear your case. On the surface, it would appear that "that electing a President would be a compelling federal issue", however, it the USSC feels the Fl. SC decided the case correctly, and based their decision on "Adequate State Grounds", the USSC has no juridiction to hear the case.

People argue in the forum a lot over "States Rights", "10th. Amendment", etc., but as you can see, the States really have more power than many people realize and give them credit for.

Quote:
"Aside from that, when a state supreme court would seem to have over-stepped it's bounds, what redress would the damaged party have?"

Ahhhh,
Nice catch. Bush may of hit paydirt here. This is where he's setting up his "Separation of Powers" argument. He argues that all election decisions are under the authority of the Legislature and the Fl. Sup. Ct. violates Separation of Powers when it told the Legislature how to run its election.

[w1che]

I say they will hear the case because it is a federal issure. Not on the hand counts as such but on equal protection & the Florida supreme court over stepping their bounds by changing the law after the fact!!!

[Kubie]

Thanks for the answer Ron. I have a lawyer and one working to be one in the house for Thanksgiving. Does it feel good that they concur with your comments?
All in all, it will be very interesting when all of this washes out.
BTW, I will get the Acer cd-rw.

[stylin19]

This thread is an interesting read. This USSC has shown an inclination, at times, of declining to hear, without comment.
Is it possible they would not comment in this case ?

[LawyerRon]

stylin19,
It's very possible they will decline without comment. That usually means they agree with the court below. If I was a gambling man, I would say they will not hear the case.

[keithr]

Ron;

Thanks for your comments and observations. I DO believe the USSC will hear the case, although I'm not sure what the decision might be!

Happy Thanksgiving!

Keith

[stylin19]

whoa...no way....SUPREMES hears the case !

[Kubie]

yyyeeeessssssss!!!! :):):)

[w1che]

I believe I was right this time & other times when I said it WAS a federal issue. How they are going to rule who knows, but I think they will say the rules or law can't be changed after the election. For the election at hand!! We shall see??

[keithr]

WOW!

I was right!

Imagine that.......

Keith