Recount Page #11

We know that spokesman Craig Waters

at one point in his statement...

I want to request an immediate stay

in the U.S. Supreme Court

to stop the recount.

We have to prove "irreparable harm".

On what grounds would the counting

of votes cause irreparable harm to Bush?

Well, how about the fact

that the Florida supremes

just gave Al Gore a statewide recount,

and he didn't even ask for one?

They're not even trying

to appear to be fair.

That's true,

but it doesn't prove irreparable harm.

Wait a minute,

did you look at justice Wells's dissent?

I have a deep and abiding concern

that the prolonging

of the judicial process

propels this state and this country

into an unprecedented

and unnecessary constitutional crisis.

If this election is not resolved

by December 12th,

a very interesting scenario arises.

According to the electoral

count act of 1887,

if an election is not resolved

by december 12th,

then statelegislators can decide

who to award

their state's electoral votes to.

Wait a minute,

the Florida legislature could award

its 25 electoral votes to Bush,

no matter what the results

of the recount?

My people have talked

to several constitutional scholars

and they all agree it would be a legal

interpretation of the constitution.

We're calling it

the "nuclear bomb" option.

If this election is not resolved

by the safe-harbor deadline

of December 12th,

then it is the legislators'

duty to ensure

that Florida's 25 electoral votes

are not placed in jeopardy.

- Mr. Speaker!

- Yes.

Any validity to allegations

you're coordinating your efforts

with Bush lawyers?

I have not had any contact

with any member of the Bush team

probably since...

In a good 24 hours.

I need more phones

and whiteboards, guys.

Ron, they asked the United States

Supreme Court for a stay.

I seriously doubt they'll grant it.

There's no way the counting of votes

can cause irreparable harm.

Congress resolves presidential disputes,

not the U.S. Supreme Court.

The protectors of the constitution

know damn well

to stay the hell away from all of this.

If the current pace is maintained,

they might be able to finish

by about 9:
00 tonight.

Escambia County... plus three.

Michael, Okeechobee...

plus 10.

Okeechobee... plus 10, guys.

Madison... plus two.

You've gotta come down four.

Madison... plus two.

- Jeremy

- Yeah.

Down two more. Down two.

What are we at?

Osceola... up three.

Osceola... up three.

That's just one.

Just one.

We picked up three in Suwannee

and three in Desoto.

We're minus three for Palm, okay?

Minus three.

Orange County... plus 18.

Jan, we got Manatee...

Manatee's down one.

Down one, Manatee.

Clay's up two.

- What's that?

- 98 votes.

We're down by 98 votes.

- Wait, how many more counties?

- 51.

- Madison... plus two.

- Madison... plus two.

Hey, guys,

the U.S. Supreme Court

just issued a stay.

All counting across the state

has to stop immediately.

- You gotta be kidding.

- On what grounds?

- How could they have...?

- I don't know.

I'm getting Boies.

Turn up the T.V. is that on?

The U.S. SC, one, stays the order

of the Florida state Supreme Court

which seemed to stop

the recount in its place;

and secondly,

has agreed to a writ of certiorari,

will hear the case on monday...

It's terrific.

...dissents were over the fact

that they did stop.

They say "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."

So the dissent is based on the fact

that they shouldn't have

acted so quickly.

Guys, just got this from Al Gore.

He says, quote, "make sure no one

trashes the Supreme Court",

end quote.

Preventing the recount

from being completed

will inevitably cast a cloud

over the legitimacy of the election.

The Florida Court's ruling

reflects the basic principle

that every legal vote should be counted.

The majority has acted unwisely.

I believe a brief response is necessary

to justice Stevens's dissent.

The counting of votes that are

of questionable legality does in my view

threaten irreparable harm

to the petitioner, George W. Bush,

and to the country,

by casting a cloud upon what he claims

to be the legitimacy of his election.

Mr. Boies, Mr. Boies.

Since the United States Supreme Court

set the hearing for December 11th,

won't this prevent you

from completing the recount

by the December 12th deadline?

It's the single most disappointing thing

that the five justices have done.

To put it simply,

they ran out our clock.

How counting votes could have

caused irreparable harm to Bush

is mind-boggling.

Mr. Boies, Mr. Boies.

Second row.

Do you have a strategy for the hearing?

Yes.

Excuse me.

Our strategy begins

with one fundamental truth...

every vote from every citizen

deserves to be counted.

And we believe that is what will

prevail in the courts. Thank you.

It is the decisive moment

in this election

and the crowds who surround

the Supreme Court today know it.

demonstrators have been here

on the steps of the SC for hours,

awaiting the beginning

of today's arguments.

The justices inside this building

are the ultimate arbiters.

So Olson's primary argument

is that the Florida Supreme Court

changed the law

when they extended the deadline.

Kennedy has never seemed impressed

with the "new law" argument.

What about the equal

protection argument?

I don't think Olson

has much faith in it.

It's buried in

the last five pages of their brief.

I'm only eating the red ones today.

I think Kennedy is our only shot.

This is it, isn't it?

Yes, Ron, this is it.

Oyez,

all persons having business

before the honorable

Supreme Court of the United States

are admonished to draw near

and give their attention,

for this Court is now sitting.

God save the United States

and this honorable Court.

I understand you think that the system

that's set up now is very unfair,

because it's different standards

in different places.

but what in your opinion

would be a fair standard?

Certainly, at minimum, Justice Breyer,

a penetration of the ballot card

would be required.

Well, would the starting point be what

the Secretary of State

Katherine Harris decided

was the uniform standard?

I would agree with that,

Justice O'Connor.

I'd still like to get your view

as to what would be the fair standard.

A reasonable standard

would have to be, at minimum,

a penetration of the chad in the ballot,

because dimples or indentations

are no standard at all.

I think there is a uniform standard.

The standard is whether

or not the intent of the voter

is reflected by the ballot.

That's very general.

even a dog knows the difference between

being stumbled over and being kicked.

so would you say from the standpoint

of the equal protection clause,

each county

could give its own interpretation

as to what "intent" means?

I think what's bothering justice Kennedy

Rate this script:0.0 / 0 votes