U.S. Supreme Court Issues Election Ruling

Well, the United States Supreme Court has given their "ruling" concerning the Florida Supreme Court. They've asked for more information fromthe Florida Supreme Court. Update: 12/04 06:01 PM by H : You can read the the actual ruling as well. Update: 12/04 07:59 PM by H :Thanks to Mr. Sturkel for this much better analysis: "In today's posting of the Supreme Court ruling on the Florida ballot case you state that the Supreme Court over turned the Florida State Supreme Court case on manual recounts; this is incorrect. The High Court "set aside" the case, not over turned it which is two different things. In setting aside the case the Supreme Court asked the Florida Supreme Court to re-examine the case and to explain and clarify further the basis of their ruling, In a nutshell, The Supreme Court wants to know why the Florida Supreme Court did what they did before issuing a final ruling on the case."

Comments

Premature Headline?

[GrievousAngel]

They didn't really overturn it; they sent it back to the Florida state Supreme Court to reconsider.

Re:Premature Headline?

[Janthkin]

This is interesting, too:
From the opinion:
"This is sufficient reason for us to decline at this time to review the federal questions asserted to be present
(Emphasis added.)

What's this mean? Well, the US SC wasn't sure exactly where the Fl SC got its ruling from, and so redirected it to /dev/null before requerrying, looking for more substantive output. If such output is forthcoming, they still have reserved the right to deal with this further. :)

Whine, Whine, Whine!

[Art_XIV]

For good or for ill (probably for ill), the Federal government has been taking power away from the states since about two days before the Constitution was ratified. In spite of the 10th Amendment.

Citizens choose candidates based upon the promises of "getting something done", "stopping something," "giving you something" that candidates make.

Invariably, these promises step on the toes of the states, who are either trying to do the same thing, do the opposite, or do nothing at all.

Statism, as opposed to Federalism, is a simple result of the tendency of voters to give away their votes for a buck or a sentiment, sometimes both.

Either quit bitching about the Feds, or learn to vote for candidates who promise to do nothing.

Re:He's done- no matter what the outcome.

[startled]

*yawn* Let me guess-- you voted Republican.

If you've been following the opinion polls on all this, everything is sharply divided. About half the country thinks the Republicans are a bunch of crafty, evil, election stealers. The other half of the country thinks the Democrats are a bunch of crafty, evil, election stealers. Each side comes up with a lot of boring, self-righteous rhetoric. The truth is, each side is trying their damnedest to win the election, ideals be damned. The Democrats say "every vote should be heard", and then fight to get military ballots invalidated. The Republicans say, "this should be decided by the people, not the courts", and then are the first to file a lawsuit.

The truth is, both candidates are going to come out of this looking bad, and low on support. They're both going to have trouble with re-election.

The Supreme Court of the U.S. managed to stay out of the entire shitstorm by not making a decisive decision about how the election results should be treated. They may catch some crap for that, but most people are quite happy that they have some enough respect for state's rights to stay out of it.

Opinion of Supreme Court

[David Hume]

A copy of the Supreme Court's slip opinion is quoted below:

"(Slip Opinion) Cite as: 531 U. S. ____ (2000) 1

Per Curiam

NOTICE:

This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 00- 836

GEORGE W. BUSH, PETITIONER v. PALM BEACH COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD ET AL.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT [December 4, 2000]

PER CURIAM. The Supreme Court of the State of Florida interpreted its elections statutes in proceedings brought to require manual recounts of ballots, and the certification of the recount results, for votes cast in the quadrennial Presidential election held on November 7, 2000. Governor George W. Bush, Republican candidate for the Presidency, filed a petition for certiorari to review the Florida Supreme Court decision. We granted certiorari on two of the questions presented by petitioner: whether the decision of the Florida Supreme Court, by effectively changing the State' s elector appointment procedures after election day, violated the Due Process Clause or 3 U. S. C. 5, and whether the decision of that court changed the manner in which the State' s electors are to be selected, in violation of the legislature' s power to designate the manner for selection under Art. II, 1, cl. 2 of the United States Constitution. 531 U. S. ____ (2000).

On November 8, 2000, the day following the Presidential election, the Florida Division of Elections reported that Governor Bush had received 2,909,135 votes, and respondent Democrat Vice President Albert Gore, Jr., had received 2,907,351, a margin of 1,784 in Governor Bush' s favor. Under Fla. Stat. 102.141( 4) (2000), because the margin of victory was equal to or less than one-half of one percent of the votes cast, an automatic machine recount occurred. The recount resulted in a much smaller margin of victory for Governor Bush. Vice President Gore then exercised his statutory right to submit written requests for manual recounts to the canvassing board of any county. See 102.166. He requested recounts in four counties: Volusia, Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami- Dade.

The parties urged conflicting interpretations of the Florida Election Code respecting the authority of the canvassing boards, the Secretary of State (hereinafter Secretary), and the Elections Canvassing Commission. On November 14, in an action brought by Volusia County, and joined by the Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, Vice President Gore, and the Florida Democratic Party, the Florida Circuit Court ruled that the statutory 7- day deadline was mandatory, but that the Volusia board could amend its returns at a later date. The court further ruled that the Secretary, after "considering all attendant facts and circumstances," App. to Pet. for Cert. 49a, could exercise her discretion in deciding whether to include the late amended returns in the statewide certification.

The Secretary responded by issuing a set of criteria by which she would decide whether to allow a late filing. The Secretary ordered that, by 2 p. m. the following day, November 15, any county desiring to forward late returns submit a written statement of the facts and circumstances justifying a later filing. Four counties submitted statements and, after reviewing the submissions, the Secretary determined that none justified an extension of the filing deadline. On November 16, the Florida Democratic Party and Vice President Gore filed an emergency motion in the state court, arguing that the Secretary had acted arbitrarily and in contempt of the court' s earlier ruling. The following day, the court denied the motion, ruling that the Secretary had not acted arbitrarily and had exercised her discretion in a reasonable manner consistent with the court' s earlier ruling. The Democratic Party and Vice President Gore appealed to the First District Court of Appeal, which certified the matter to the Florida Supreme Court. That court accepted jurisdiction and sua sponte entered an order enjoining the Secretary and the Elections Canvassing Commission from finally certifying the results of the election and declaring a winner until further order of that court.

The Supreme Court, with the expedition requisite for the controversy, issued its decision on November 21. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, Nos. SC00- 2346, SC00- 2348, and SC00- 2349 (Nov. 21, 2000), App. to Pet. for Cert. 1a. As the court saw the matter, there were two principal questions: whether a discrepancy between an original machine return and a sample manual recount resulting from the way a ballot has been marked or punched is an "error in vote tabulation" justifying a full manual recount; and how to reconcile what it spoke of as two conflicts in Florida' s election laws: (a) between the time frame for conducting a manual recount under Fla. Stat. 102.166 (2000) and the time frame for submitting county returns under 102.111 and 102.112, and (b) between 102.111, which provides that the Secretary "shall . . . ignor[ e]" late election returns, and 102.112, which provides that she "may . . . ignor[ e]" such returns.

With regard to the first issue, the court held that, under the plain text of the statute, a discrepancy between a sample manual recount and machine returns due to the way in which a ballot was punched or marked did constitute an "error in vote tabulation" sufficient to trigger the statutory provisions for a full manual recount.

With regard to the second issue, the court held that the "shall . . . ignor[ e]" provision of 102.111 conflicts with the "may . . . ignor[ e]" provision of 102.112, and that the "may . . . ignor[ e]" provision controlled. The court turned to the questions whether and when the Secretary may ignore late manual recounts. The court relied in part upon the right to vote set forth in the Declaration of Rights of the Florida Constitution in concluding that late manual recounts could be rejected only under limited circumstances. The court then stated: "[ B] ecause of our reluctance to rewrite the Florida Election Code, we conclude that we must invoke the equitable powers of this Court to fashion a remedy . . . ." App. to Pet. for Cert. 37a. The court thus imposed a deadline of November 26, at 5 p. m., for a return of ballot counts. The 7- day deadline of 102.111, assuming it would have applied, was effectively extended by 12 days. The court further directed the Secretary to accept manual counts submitted prior to that deadline.

As a general rule, this Court defers to a state court' s interpretation of a state statute. But in the case of a law enacted by a state legislature applicable not only to elections to state offices, but also to the selection of Presidential electors, the legislature is not acting solely under the authority given it by the people of the State, but by virtue of a direct grant of authority made under Art. II, 1, cl. 2, of the United States Constitution. That provision reads:

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress . . . ."

Although we did not address the same question petitioner raises here, in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 25 (1892), we said: [ Art. II, 1, cl. 2] does not read that the people or the citizens shall appoint, but that 'each State shall' ; and if the words ' in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct,' had been omitted, it would seem that the legislative power of appointment could not have been successfully questioned in the absence of any provision in the state constitution in that regard. Hence the insertion of those words, while operating as a limitation upon the State in respect of any attempt to circumscribe the legislative power, cannot be held to operate as a limitation on that power itself."

There are expressions in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Florida that may be read to indicate that it construed the Florida Election Code without regard to the extent to which the Florida Constitution could, consistent with Art. II, 1, cl. 2, "circumscribe the legislative power." The opinion states, for example, that "[ t] o the extent that the Legislature may enact laws regulating the electoral process, those laws are valid only if they impose no ' unreasonable or unnecessary' restraints on the right of suffrage" guaranteed by the state constitution. App. to Pet. for Cert. 30a. The opinion also states that "[ b] ecause election laws are intended to facilitate the right of suffrage, such laws must be liberally construed in favor of the citizens' right to vote . . . ." Ibid.

In addition, 3 U. S. C. 5 provides in pertinent part: "If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its final determination of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, by judicial or other methods or procedures, and such determination shall have been made at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such determination made pursuant to such law so existing on said day, and made at least six days prior to said time of meeting of the electors, shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the

6 BUSH v. PALM BEACH COUNTY CANVASSING BD. Per Curiam

counting of the electoral votes as provided in the Constitution, and as hereinafter regulated, so far as the ascertainment of the electors appointed by such State is concerned."

The parties before us agree that whatever else may be the effect of this section, it creates a "safe harbor" for a State insofar as congressional consideration of its electoral votes is concerned. If the state legislature has provided for final determination of contests or controversies by a law made prior to election day, that determination shall be conclusive if made at least six days prior to said time of meeting of the electors. The Florida Supreme Court cited 3 U. S. C. 1- 10 in a footnote of its opinion, App. to Pet. for Cert. 32a, n. 55, but did not discuss 5. Since 5 contains a principle of federal law that would assure finality of the State' s determination if made pursuant to a state law in effect before the election, a legislative wish to take advantage of the "safe harbor" would counsel against any construction of the Election Code that Congress might deem to be a change in the law.

After reviewing the opinion of the Florida Supreme Court, we find "that there is considerable uncertainty as to the precise grounds for the decision." Minnesota v. National Tea Co., 309 U. S. 551, 555 (1940). This is sufficient reason for us to decline at this time to review the federal questions asserted to be present. See ibid.

"It is fundamental that state courts be left free and unfettered by us in interpreting their state constitutions. But it is equally important that ambiguous or obscure adjudications by state courts do not stand as barriers to a determination by this Court of the validity under the federal constitution of state action. Intelligent exercise of our appellate powers compels us to ask for the elimination of the obscurities and ambiguities from the opinions in such cases." Id., at 557.

Cite as: 531 U. S. ____ (2000) 7 Per Curiam

Specifically, we are unclear as to the extent to which the Florida Supreme Court saw the Florida Constitution as circumscribing the legislature' s authority under Art. II, 1, cl. 2. We are also unclear as to the consideration the Florida Supreme Court accorded to 3 U. S. C. 5. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is therefore vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered."

Source: Dec. 4: High court ruling on recounts.

Re:Wrong

[David Hume]

The Bush campaign did not ask for the decision to be overturned, they specifically asked for it to be set aside. The Supreme Court decided in favor of Bush, so as requested the Florida decision was set aside.

I don't want to be rude, but you are simply wrong regarding the effect of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision.

The U.S. Supreme Court's slip opinion, which I posted below, does not reverse the opinion of the Florida Supreme Court, it instead vacates and remands the decision in order to obtain clarification. The U.S. Supreme Court specifically states:

It is fundamental that state courts be left free and unfettered by us in interpreting their state constitutions. But it is equally important that ambiguous or obscure adjudications by state courts do not stand as barriers to a determination by this Court of the validity under the federal constitution of state action. Intelligent exercise of our appellate powers compels us to ask for the elimination of the obscurities and ambiguities from the opinions in such cases." Id., at 557.

Specifically, we are unclear as to the extent to which the Florida Supreme Court saw the Florida Constitution as circumscribing the legislature' s authority under Art. II, 1, cl. 2. We are also unclear as to the consideration the Florida Supreme Court accorded to 3 U. S. C. 5. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is therefore vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Thus, even this specific matter is far from over. The Florida Supreme Court could clarify its decision, make it clear that it knows that the Florida Constitution does not circumscribe the legislature' s authority under Art. II, 1, cl. 2 of the U.S. Constitution, and reach the same result. The U.S. Supreme Court could then review the new decision by the Florida Supreme Court.

Re:IT WAS UNANIMOUS

[The Cunctator]

Reuters is wrong.
The ruling was per curiam .

It's pretty safe to bet that there was some major dissent within SCOTUS but they knew that they couldn't afford to issue a split decision, so they fell back on the slightly cute per curiam dodge saying "we're confused".

What they mean is "we're arguing, rewrite your decision so we can stop arguing".

Re:Too bad it's not the end

[BeBoxer]

I don't know what you mean by "a result that's within the margin of error." If you mean that the margin of error far outmeasures the margin of victory, you are correct. But if that's what you mean, how should the result be "closed"?

The sad truth is that we will never know who won the popular vote in the state of Florida. The number of votes which are up for interpretation far outnumber the margin of victory. The scary part is that an election whose results will never be accurately known is going to decide the next president. We will truly have a government "Of the lawyers, by the lawyers, and for the lawyers" as we begin the 21st century.

Too bad nothing good will probably ever come of this. What is happening this year is just an extreme example of a systemic problem with the way we elect our President. The simple fact is that a margin of 1000 votes should not be deciding the election. The current electoral college system paired with winner-takes-all election in Florida is what created this mess. If Florida choose it's electors in proportion to the popular vote, this would be a non-issue. If the president was elected via popular vote, this would be a non-issue. Sure, the national popular vote was close also, but Gore's lead in the national popular vote is at least an order of magnitude larger than Bush's lead in FL.

Nothing will change, though. Most potential voters don't even bother to show up. The rest don't realize that the current two-party system is engineered in the election laws. They take it on faith that there are two parties because people want only two parties. Most Americans don't realize the severity of the current problem, much less see the systemic weaknesses causing it. Americans have no clue that the rest of the world is looking on thinking that our country is being run like some third rate "fledgling democracy" with rigged elections and everything (plus the largest nuclear arsonal in the world.)

Madeleine Albright can't be president

[Rupert]

She wasn't born in the United States.

--

It never stops...

[Shotgun]

The War of Northern Agression Continues...

8*)

Wrong Category?

[ghoti]

Shouldn't this be under "USA" or whatever it is called (the flag). I don't really get the significance of this message for the Internet ...

Not Unanimous!

[gorsh]

What the Supreme Court sent back was not a unanimous ruling, but an unsigned ruling, meaning that we have no idea how many of the justices supported the decision. It's extremely likely, in fact that this was a bittrly fought split decision.

Don't blame me...

[vex24]

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!

PER CURIAM

[smarner]

IAAL, but more importantly, I can read. 95% of the slashdotters who have posted on this subject have obviously not even bothered to read the short order issued by the Supreme Court (7 pages). (Of course, based on the teaser for this story, it doesn't look like Hemos read it either.) 1. The order was issued "PER CURIAM" which means "by the court." Black's Law Dictionary defines "PER CURIAM" further: A phrase used to distinguish an opinion of the whole court from an opinion written by any one judge. Sometimes it denotes an opinion written by the chief justice or presiding judge, or to a brief announcement of the disposition of a case by court not accompanied by a written opinion. 2. Although the Supreme Court remanded (sent back) the decision to the Florida Supreme Court, it made clear that the Florida Supreme Court could NOT rely upon some of the grounds cited in the opinion - - like the right of suffrage the Florida Supreme Court found in the Flordia Constitution. But it remains possible that the Florida Supreme Court could write (although it probably couldn't do it with a straight face), that it was merely interpreting conflicting state statutory provisions, and that as a matter of statutory interpretation it determined that the deadline was flexible, etc. Why hasn't anyone in the media bothered to point out how ridiculous some of the logic in the Florida Supreme Court decision was? The court found a conflict in two provisions: one that said the Secretary of State SHALL disregard late ballots, and another saying the she MAY disregard such ballots. How can anyone rationally say that the way to resolve this supposed conflict is to combine "MAY" and "SHALL" into "CANNOT!??"

This sums up the situation well

[Chester K]

A summary of the State of the Nation
(http://www.ihatelinux.com/images/TIME_cover.jpg)

Re:He's done- no matter what the outcome.

[aozilla]

That's not the way I read the polls. "Fifty-seven percent say Gore should concede the election, about the same as the 60 percent on Nov. 26, the night of the certification.... At the same time, 57 percent in this ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll say the two counties that didn't complete the hand counts that Gore requested -- Miami-Dade and Palm Beach -- should do so, and should have those tallies counted in the final total. That's the central issue in Gore's contest of the Florida results, being heard in Tallahassee. This isn't a change in opinion; back on Nov. 16 about the same number, 56 percent, favored including hand counts in the final tally."

The fact that many Gore supporters want Gore to concede does not seem to me to be that they don't agree with Gore, just that they feel that he isn't going to win. Just as if Bush were holding a gun to the head of the Democratic Party, demanding the presidency, many Gore supporters would be agree with the VP, but hope he concedes for the sake of the party.

Inaccuracy

[Logic Bomb]

Damnit Hemos...to be perfectly honest, political coverage on /. is horrid. Anytime a post-election item has been put on the main page, it's always accompanied by a totally uninformed blanket statement like "Bush is the winner." It's STILL not over -- to be precise, the Supreme Court decision was that the justices were not convinced that the Florida Supreme Court could rely on the Florida State Constitution for what they did, and said the Florida court needed to find a different way to justify its decision, like statutory clarification. One possible (and likely) scenario is that the Florida Supreme Court will look for a way to rewrite its opinion, probably just by removing any references to the state constitution so that it is merely deciding a conflict between two seemingly contradictory laws. This is beside the fact that simply reversing the Florida Supreme Court's decision does not end the election anyway because there are proceedings in other courts that remain uneffected.

Anyway, PLEASE don't attempt to be a political reporter! It can be very misleading if you don't know all the details. Just link to an AP story or something and let it be.

Re:He's done- no matter what the outcome.

[Xerithane]

The only way a country can be divided this badly, is if the only options are equally stupid.

Boy are you guys confused...

[commandant]

The US Supreme Court is not asking Florida for more information, and they have issued a final ruling. Read the decision yourself.

They didn't overturn the decision, that's true. They vacated it. What's the difference, you ask?

Overturning a judge is turning to him and saying, "You made the wrong decision. We're making the decision for you." The overturned judge gets no say in what's going on.

Vacating a decision, however, is turning to the judge (or in our case, the Florida Supreme Court) and saying, "You made the wrong decision. Make a new one that doesn't conflict with our opinion."

This is not a request for new information. This is not a "temporary" ruling pending further information. The US Supreme Court couldn't care less why the Floridians ruled the way they did.

What the Supreme Court said is that they don't understand why the Florida court made its decision, and that the decision is wrong. Therefore, the Florida Supreme Court must go back and correct its mistake.

That's the final ruling.

There are potential situations, however, where the Fla. Court makes a new decision which is inconsistent with the US Court ruling, whereby Bush or another party may take up the matter with the US Supreme Court. That isn't a reconsideration of the present opinion, though; that's a separate legal matter which deals with a court's noncompliance with the US Supreme Court order.

If you don't believe me, look at the bottom line of the ruling: "It is so ordered." If they were requesting more information, they wouldn't issue an order. The last line would be, "This decision is valid pending further information from the Florida Supreme Court."

Sheesh, get the damn news straight already.

I do not belong in the spam.redirect.de domain.

Best source for Campaign 2000 Legal Documents

[bobwyman]

Given that msnbc is the primary source of information for most of the commentators here, much of this converstation isn't surprising... www.FindLaw.com provides complete and timely PDF's of all original filings, briefs, etc. as well as mp3's etc of testimony. Take a look at:
http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/us/election/elec tion2000.html
They have every filing from every legal action related to the issue. Today's SCOTUS ruling can be found at:
http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/election2000/usc0 0836final.pdf

bob wyman

Hemos, get real!

[Zak3056]

Well, the United States Supreme Court has issued their unanimous ruling. They've ruled against the Florida Supreme Court, meaning that Bush is the winner. What's interesting here is that inadverently, GWB's case has transferred a significant amount of power from the States to the Federal Government.

I know it's en vogue on slashdot not to actually READ the linked story before commenting, but I'd have hoped the slashdot staff was above that. Apparently not. All this opinion says is, in essence, "We don't know why you did what you did. Please explain." This is HARDLY a "transfer of power" from the states to the Federal government.

Re:Hemos, get real!

[Foamy]

I wish I could moderate this post up to 5. There needs to be a new moderation category in addition to 'flamebait', 'interesting', etc. 'editors get a clue'.

Let me interpret this for...

[Reality Master 101]

... all you programmers (Java-style).

The Citizen->PresidentialCandidate->GeorgeWBush class passed as input the return value from the State->Justice->SupremeCourt->Florida object to the Federal->Justice->SupremeCourt object. The Federal->Justice->SupremeCourt has thrown an InsufficientLawPrecedentException. The detail fields of that Exception has been repassed to the State->Justice->SupremeCourt->Florida object, along with the original parameters. We are waiting for the return value.

--

More federal power? Hardly!

[WombatControl]

Well, comsidering that federal supremacy has been the norm since McCollough v. Maryland in the early 1800s, I wouldn't be real surprised by this ruling. The Florida Supreme Court severely overstepped its bounds by adding time to the election procedings, which is a violation of the Article II of the US Constitution which gives control over election procedings to the state legislatures. The state judiciary has no right to dictate the terms of a state election, especially when not asked to do so.

This is a very easy ruling for the SCOTUS, as there was a clear violation of the Constitution by the Florida Supreme Court. Not only that, but the case Roe v. Alabama sets a federal precedent against changing election procedures while an election is still being counted. Clearly the SC was acting within the confines of federal and Constitutional law, and was not eroding state's rights in any way. States rights do not include the ability to violate federal law.

BTW, IANAL, but I am a political scientist.

Both are hypocrites when it comes to states rights

[scotay]

"What's interesting here is that inadverently, GWB's case has transferred a significant amount of power from the States to the Federal Government."

Democrats are all for the federal government stomping over states rights to impose the federal nanny state. Only when they want their man in the White House, to they find that old time states rights religion.

Republicans are all for states rights when it comes to gun laws and restricting abortions. When your state decides to decriminalize medical marijuana or physician-assisted suicide, the Republicans come out of the woodwork to impose the power of the federal government on these uppity states.

Just goes to show that both major parties are inconsistent and hypocritical when it comes to states rights. The one good thing that can come of the mess is a new resurgence in third-party voters. This Libertarian doesn't have much hope, but there can't be a clearer example that the major parties stand for nothing. There is no principle that they will let get in the way of their victory.

Please correct the many errors

[The Cunctator]

Here's the ruling. (The decision is in the last few lines.)

First off, I think you put this in the wrong category--I'm pretty sure this isn't an Internet issue. (Okay, I see you fixed that while I wrote this. Good.)

Second, the Supreme Court did not overturn the Florida Supreme Court. They remanded the decision. The proper headline is "SCOTUS Sends Case Back to SCOF" (since /. should be using wonkish acronyms, don't you think?)

Third, as others have pointed out, it wasn't a "unanimous ruling", it was an unsigned ruling.

Fourth, "meaning that Bush is the winner" is misleading and vague, particularly since it doesn't say what he is the winner of. And he didn't really win anything, except more PR fodder.

Fifth, you should present some justification for your conclusion about the transference of power; I expect you can't, particularly since the news about this decision is vague and incomplete. Even if SCOTUS had ruled against the Florida Supreme Court, that wouldn't have transferred power away from the states to the federal govt., it would have transferred power away from the people and the courts to the legislative and executive branches.

However, I want to say that I don't particularly blame CmdrTaco for being so misleading, since the coverage has been confused--as the story first came out on the Net, the one-line reports were changing. General media coverage has been confusing, but they're starting to fix their sites and get the story right--I hope CmdrTaco will correct his post as well.

Finally, I want to say that I am very thankful that CmdrTaco posted this, because for anyone who cares about the long-term health of the republic and believes in the ideals of democracy this election is of utmost concern.

So, thank you, but get your facts straight.