I wonder if perhaps there's one point on which almost all would agree.
- Whether the repub lawyers made their case before the supreme court or not,
- Whether the court was justified to step in or not,
- Whether the chaos created by the Florida courts deserved federal intervention or not,
Involving the federal judiciary in that state's election process was a terrible, terrible idea!
Might it have been better to allow the ugliness to play itself out, even if it interfered with electoral timing?
Even if Gore won by judicial acclaimation and took office in June?
Once upon a time popular referendum had nothing to do with the selection of presidential electors.
Did the medicine cause more harm than good?
Would the patient have been better off had the disease been allowed to run its course no matter how ugly?
Should last fall's threat to democracy should have been met with "faith in the process" that the patient would eventually get back to health?
You may not understand that, but I'm sure Jefferson would!
Interfering was politically expedient, but left a tumor behind, says me.
Democracy has a way of righting itself naturally, said Jefferson or Madison (maybe both)
I don't think Americans have lost their sense of fair play; but I do think that of the lawyers and judges.
We learned a terrible lesson about goin to war without considering the long term consequences and vowed to let no further "Viet Nams" occur.
Could we not say that we've just learned a corollary lesson? This time is was judicial power, instead of military power, that corrupted the natural process.
Do you think it preposterous that one day Viet Nam may have free and open elections, while down in florida a politbureau of judges and lawyers have seized control?
Too far fetched?