>It speaks to the assumption that you are a partisan shill who can't be bothered by the facts.

I have ripped Bush, Gore, and Clinton as well throughout this thread. And your facts are apparently coming from the media. Like I wrote earlier, if you have omething better, I'll be happy to look at it. But statements like it has been in the media don't carry a lot of weight with me. I have already been burned believing Gore when he said he asked the court to count all the ballots. As David Stevenson pointed out, saying it don't make it so.

>The FLSC *was* biased. Regardless, if the Supreme uphold the Florida SC, then what? They gave a ruling that all counts had to be in last Sunday. And they were.

It goes beyond that. They gave a ruling that many conservatives, including Bush, argue oversteps their authority. That is one of Bush's questions in his suit before the court. And as I have pointed out, if the USSC rules that the FLSC was within their bounds, it gives some amount of legitmacy to the court, IMO. And that legitimacy may be a factor in the contest phase, the court's decisions on the manual recount, and the FL state legislature.

>>>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?
>
>Like that deserves an answer?

That was in response to "Contrary to your position". My position, for the record, started with a dialogue between David Stevenson and I on the power of the local canvassing boards, which I have noted, apparently have broad discretion during the protest phase. While conservatives have pointed out their belief that the law clearly states the legislature's intent to have the certification end after 7 days, then is it not also true that the canvassing boards, according to the law, have broad discretion in conducting the recount.

If that is not true, I have no problem someone telling me why. But again, saying it is so does not carry a lot of weight. And I am not defending any decisions by the canvassing boards in their attempt to divine voter attempt. Some of it appears very biased to Gore. But I am not even debating that. Personally, I do not like that much power in the hands of the canvassing boards, but again, that is not my point.

This has gotten way past the point of belligerent, and I certainly take my share of the blame. I apologize, not only to you, but others participating in this thread.