>>Doug - they didn't insert themselves. A case was brought before them (after being heard in a lower court), in which the Bush folks argued that the certification date should be upheld (and some other stuff) and the Gore folks argued that the right to recount took precedence. It is absolutely the role of a court to make determinations when two laws are in conflict, which is the case here.
>>
>>Tamar
>
>Tamar,
>
>Well, we'll just have to disagree then. All the news media I read said that they acted before they were asked to and from where I sit that's an insertion. I do understand that they were going to be asked anyway and all that but they did still act before being asked.

Doug - the case in question is the one now before the Supreme Court. Here's a quote from www.cnn.com about this case: "The case before the Supreme Court stems from a Bush challenge to a recount in Palm Beach County, one of four counties where Gore -- trailing by just a three-digit margin out of 6 million ballots cast -- sought hand recounts to discover any ballots wrongly discarded in a mechanical recount."

Here's another quote (also cnn.com) that indicates that the court didn't just jump in unasked:

"Just hours after Republicans asked Florida's top court on Sunday to reject manual recounts in three counties, Democrats urged the justices to set a "generous standard" for determining voters' intentions in the presidential election."


On the issue of whether their ruling was correct, I think the following is interesting (also from cnn.com):
--begin quote ---
The problem presented to the court was a problem that is often presented to courts which is that the statute's text is not clear. So the court has to use something other than the text of the statute to figure out what it was that the legislators intended," she said.

Justices said there were a number of reasons why section 102.112 should be followed.

• Section 102.112 is more specific, because it says late returns may be returned, and that canvassing board members can be fined for not meeting the deadline.

• Section 102.112 was passed in 1989, 38 years after section 102.111, so it is the "clearest and most recent expression of legislative intent."

• The fine mandated in Section 102.112 would be meaningless if late returns were ignored under Section 102.111 because there would be no reason for election officials to turn in their results after the deadline.

• The court said that state statutes should be read as a whole and that section 102.111 would have the effect of blocking other statutes that allow candidates to request a manual recount until the election results are certified.

• The court also said that the legislature had enacted section 102.111 because it wanted all votes cast during an election to be submitted at the same time, but that is no long possible because of the later federal deadline for overseas absentee ballots.
---end quote---

Tamar