The distinction is one of constitutional politics which no court may presume to intrude upon, and constitutional law, which is the province of the judiciary. Though I think they would be mistaken, the Court could find that the Constitution's express commitment to state legislatures of the authority to fix the time, place, and manner for the election of electors, and that the same constitutional commitment to Congress to amend, revise, or supersede the acts of those state legislatures concerning the electoral process, is purely a matter of constitutional politics to be resolved politically and ultimately by those two bodies who are constitutionally authorized to settle the question through legislative action. If the Court decides under the political question doctrine not to decide the case, however, it could not avoid contributing moral and legal authority to the Florida legislature and Congress to exert their authority in the event Mr. Gore eventually manages to steal the election. This is because to decline to rule under the political question doctrine will require the Court to forcefully and unambiguously declare that the Constitution has located authority over the subject in the state legislatures and Congress. As a practical matter, this would be the same as declaring that the Florida supreme court usurped the authority of Congress and the Florida legislature in violation of the Constitution and federal law.
Closure needs to come quickly.
Mr. Gore is unlikely to exit gracefully, or for that matter, to exit at all unless the Supreme Court makes it impossible for him to stay. Even then, I am more confident in attempting to predict how the Court will rule than I am in suggesting that anything or anyone could ever persuade Mr. Gore that he has lost the election. Stern Library Internet Filtering Movie Gallery NEA Other Issues AFA is a member of AFA.net is designed specially to be used by 4.0 browsers and above.