It is not completely out of the question that the U.S. Supreme Court could bow out of the Florida imbroglio as suddenly as it entered. Checking 'ground rules' As is their custom, the justices didn't explain why they decided to accept Bush's appeal or who voted for it. The specific questions before the justices arise from the Florida court's ruling that Harris had to wait nearly two weeks for manual recounts in particular counties before certifying the results of the election on Nov. 7. Lawyers for Bush argue that the state court essentially imposed a new deadline, in violation of federal code and a provision of the U.S. Constitution regarding the appointment of presidential electors. Bush had raised several broader constitutional claims involving due process and equal protection of the law, but the U.S. Supreme Court said it would not, for now, address those questions.
Democratic lawyers counter that the Florida court resolved a conflict in pre-existing state law.
On the separate constitutional provision, Bush says the Florida state court tread on the Legislature's power to set election rules. The U.S. justices have undertaken one of their most delicate assignments in years. They are in the tricky position of possibly changing the election results and maybe even the apparent winner. They also, no doubt, are aware of how each candidate used the court in his campaign. Gore seized on Bush's use of those justices on the court's far right to warn that if Bush were elected president, he'd appoint justices who similarly would vote against abortion rights.