Chris,

I'll step in... <g>

>>>...supreme court whose jobs are to be impartial
>>
>>I guess you feel that the Fl. Sup. Ct. was impartial when they extended the recount deadline. Well, be that as it may....
>
>I am completely comfortable with the US Supreme Court deciding this. Not George W., not Al Gore, not James Baker, and not Jesse Jackson. If the court rules in favor of the Florida Supreme court, will I see you back here questioning the legitimacy of that decision? I won't, and I won't question the decision if they rule in favor of Bush.
>
>Anyone else in this thread care to commit to that?

>snip<

1) On principle I do not think that a court should choose a President. This is the pervue of the voters and the several states and their legislatures. That's in the US Constitution.

2) Our laws allow this approach though to proceed through the courts. I think this is an example of the results of attempting to legislate via the courts and is intrinsically wrong.

3) I am disappointed we've been forced to take this approach.

4) I think Mr. Bush has a good case and has the better chance to win.

5) I will accept the outcome regardless.