>JCF,
>
>>Yes! and I think I wrote it in another reply. I think she stepped outside of her duties when she told one of the counties to stop the recount.
>
>Sorry if I missed it, but do you have the text of her reply to their request for clarification? You say she "told one of the counties to stop the recount", so I'd be interesting in seeing exactly what she told them (the entire response to their request, if you have it).
>
>>FWIW, I commented because what I'm hearing from you is that a secretary of state whose candidate is Bush has more integrity than several justices of a supreme court whose jobs are to be impartial. I don't see how that argument holds water.
>
>Faulty logic here. Her job also is to be impartial. Just because you say the justices' jobs are to be impartial, doesn't mean that they are.
>
>In a close contest like this, the ONLY way to be impartial is to hold exactly to the letter of the law. That's the only safe place to stand. Unfortunately, that's not acceptable to Gore, who apparently wants extra grace and leeway given to bend the law to his purposes.
>
>The 5 pm Sunday deadline was fixed by the Supreme Court, with Monday given as a backup plan to be used only if her office was not opened on Sunday. She notified all the counties involved on Wednesday that the office would be open on Sunday. Therefore, Palm Beach knew BEFORE they took off for Thanksgiving that the deadline was Sunday 5pm.
>
>THEY blew it, yet the Gore supporters attack her as partisan, when she was being impartial by holding to the letter of the law.

I have a hard time finding complete and decisive fairness in the actions of Florida's secretary of state. Now that's just my opinion of course.

What I fail to grasp is the insistance that the justices can be biased just because their party affiliation is democratic but we should not doubt the integrity of one secretary of state, regardless of party affiliation (and the fact that she was campaigning with Bush). Sure judges may lean to the left or right, but I am inclined to believe that only in those cases were verdicts are made by only one. In any case I would put more weight on the judgement of several people (and we're not talking just anyone) as opposed to just one.

About the text, I am sure you can find it in the briefs filed before the first judge to be appointed. I am going by what I saw on CSPAN where one of Gore's lawyers told the judge that the affidavits where this is described were filed on that court.

To make a long story short, I am merely objecting to the blind belief observed in many postings in this thread that the players involved are not all biased to putting their man in the presidency.
Call me a cynic, but I personally think that this is exactly what Florida's secretary of state did and is trying to uphold. But we'll disagree on that I am sure.