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

Perfect, I think that speaks for itself.

>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.

And my earlier post was:

"From what I have seen, the election boards have broad discretion according to Florida law."

>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 don't think anything of the sort, and where you come up with this, I don't know. I want to know what conservatives are going to say if the USSC upholds the FLSC ruling. Are the going to accept the ruling of the USSC or allege the USSC is biased, as they have with the FLSC?

>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.

What position?

>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.

>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.

>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.

I just ask you to defend statments such as:

"This is a strict violation of Federal law"

I am going to find this in the Florida statutes? My knowledge of the law is limited, but I would be surprised to find federal law in the florida statutes.

And your argument is, well, if you don't know, I'm not going to tell you? Perfect, let's just leave it at that.