My head is starting to hurt.

>>There were local regulations in at least one county (PBC) dating back to (I think) 1988 that were disregarded for the manual count. How convenient. And the GOP *has* challenged that aspect in one or more of their omnibus filings.
>
>As I asked earlier, please cite it. I am not saying this to be a smart-ass. I genuinely want to know. If the PBC Canvassing Board is breaking their own rules, I would like to know.

I have no idea where to find the PBC case law or regulations but they have been oft quoted in the media.

>>Correct! But by Federal law, they must stick to the laws that were in place before the election, for one. For two, when they try to exercise their discretion, such as Miami-Dade discontinuing a recount, someone sues them because they don't happen to like the law.
>
>Like I wrote earlier, where are these laws? Where is the law in Palm Beach County that says how the canvassing board will conduct the manual recount? As I wrote earlier, I am not saying it does not exist, but I have to see it.

Go back to an earlier post of mine where I posted the link to Online Sunshine, the online statutes of the State of Florida. In the state laws, it says that in the protest period, the county canvassing boards have the discretion as to whether or not to manually recount.

>The point I was trying to make is that if the US Supreme court rules that the Florida Supreme Court did not overstep their bounds, will conservatives accept that, or claim the USSC is biased as conservatives have alleged?

Ahem!!!!! With 7 of the 9 Supremes appointed by GOP presidents, you seem to think that a bias will be alleged by conservatives regardless of outcome? The Supreme Court ruling tomorrow is a draw-win by Bush as far as I can see. If they rule against Bush, he's put in exactly the same position as he is now. If they rule in favor, the manual recounts are history and he wins.

I just have to laugh at this: Contrary to your position, liberals and some moderates go psychotic over the Supremes rulings most of the time; they are a very Constitutional constructionist court. I believe that the conservatives will respect the decision regardless, because it will be founded in Constitutional principles. When you look at the issue, it could swing either way depending on the interpretation. Did the Florida Supreme Court interpret or invent law? I'm not 100% sure either way. I know that they took a rather activist stance. As I heard one pundit say (and I agreed), they knew what they wanted to say before they heard argument.

Anyone who claims foreknowledge of what will happen tomorrow is full of crap. I do have the feeling that however they rule, it will be of the "ton of bricks" variety and they will slam on one side or the other.

>>>Are you talking about the 1996 Presidential election? I am going to take a wild guess here and say the machine count wasn't challenged because even if Dole won (and I do not know who actually took Florida), it didn't matter.
>>
>>I amn talking about every single election held with the Votomatic equipment since 1965.
>
>And my point still stands... the results are being challenged because it was a close election. Pure and simple. As you write down below, why is this so hard to understand?

Chris, it's not the fact of the challenge, which is legally merited and defensible, it's the nature of the desired recounts and the interpretation of undervotes.

>>Fine. The laws on balloting should be reviewed and adjusted in the next few years as I am sure that they will. But you can't retroactively change laws to cover an election that was already held. This is strict violation of Federal law. Why is this so hard to understand?
>
>Cite the law governing the rules for the manual recounts, and I will have no problem agreeing with you.

I don't have to cite because you are missing the point entirely. I urge you, again, to read the Florida statutes, readily available online! Draw your own conclusions from this material, as I have tried to do, before posting. Don't ask me to defend the laws which you are not reading.