The first clear sign that a "heist" was under way was when Democrat
Party hit men and professional character assassins worked hand in dirty
hand with media allies to demean and discredit Florida Secretary of
State Katherine Harris. The woman who was elected by the voters of
Florida to supervise elections was the object of scathing personal
attacks and the subject of dirt-digging investigations, which were
intended to cower her into submission and invalidate her opinions and
actions. No stone was left unthrown.
This was a clear declaration of political war and an intention to win
it by any means available, fair or foul. The real news is that it was
not news to the media that right in front of their eyes, for the first
time in modern history, a campaign was launched to overturn a certified
presidential election result with a barrage of lawsuits, forged by an
army of legal mercenaries.
Advertisement - story continues below
The real news is that not much was made of it when the Supreme Court
of the United States judiciously vacated (voided) a decision of the
Florida Supreme Court to rewrite Florida election statutes and redefine
an established process for choosing presidential electors.
And not much was made of it -- except by way of celebration -- when,
a few days later, a 4-3 majority of that Florida court did exactly the
same thing all over again, choosing to ignore a federal law which
prohibits changing the rules after an election is over, and choosing to
disregard the Constitution itself, which says that the state
legislature, not the court, has the unlimited power to choose
presidential electors any way it sees fit.
TRENDING: White House cleanup team
This judicial rebellion forced the U.S Supreme Court to again
intervene and put a halt to the reckless legal adventurism of the
Florida court. This action may become a historic benchmark, if it
signals the reversal of a long-standing trend of judicial usurpation of
powers the Constitution assigns to the legislative branch of government.
Liberals everywhere were surprised and upset when confronted with a
constitutional truth they have long ignored, that there are genuinely
legitimate limits to the authority of courts. Indeed, so accustomed has
our society become to the court as the Ultimate Arbiter of all disputes,
Supreme Advancer of liberal causes, and Beloved Bestower of special
benefits and rights that could not be obtained by popular vote or
legislation, that it came as an unwelcome shock that constitutional
limits on the judiciary actually exist.
Advertisement - story continues below
Liberal partisans were aghast when the Florida legislature said it
might perform its constitutional duty to protect the integrity of a
certified vote, but they had no problem with the unconstitutional
usurpation of legislative power by a rogue court.
Florida Chief Justice C.J. Wells, who supported his court's first
overreach of its authority, proved that you can teach an old liberal new
tricks by writing a blistering dissent to the second attempt of his
fellow judges to thwart the law: "I could not more strongly disagree
with their decision to reverse the trial court and prolong this judicial
process. I also believe that the majority's decision cannot withstand
the scrutiny which will certainly immediately follow under the United
Chief Justice Wells viewed the recount decision as illegal in that it
had "no foundation in the law of Florida." He was also critical of the
recount procedure on grounds other than its illegality: "A continuing
problem with these manual recounts is their reliability. It only stands
to reason that many times a reading of a ballot by a human will be
subjective, and the intent gleaned from that ballot is only in the mind
of the beholder. This subjective counting is only compounded where no
standards exist, or, as in this statewide contest, where there are no
statewide standards for determining voter intent. ..."
Conventional "wisdom" says that manual counts are much more accurate
than machine counts. In certain circumstances that might be true, but in
the circumstances of the Florida recounts, as accurately described by
Judge Wells, it is wrong. There is no way, except by wishful thinking,
to conclude that the manual recount mandated by the Florida Supremes
would have or could have yielded a fair and objective measure of the
will of the people of Florida.
Vice President Al Gore has now discovered and liberals everywhere
have been reminded that there is indeed a "controlling legal authority."
It is the Constitution of the United States, interpreted by justices who
honor the letter and the spirit of what it says. May their numbers