QP!
Verified User
And there is better history for this than the Ballroom and that is the hanging chad's in the Bush V Gore case.
The Supreme COurt deciding if the ballots with the hanging chads should be counted stopped all counting while they considered the issue.
What that lead to was even as they got to a ruling of the 'hanging chads should be counted', BUT it was 'now too late to count them and meet certification deadlines. Thus the count must stand and Bush wins.'
There is no chance, NONE, that they did not do that deliberately, as it was warned by opposing counsel who requested the count continue while the case was being heard. And Courts are supposed to make those rulings based on a legal concept called 'The Balance of Equities', meaning if there is one that causes real harm and another that does, while the case is being determined then stop the harm where that can be done.
There would be no harm, NONE, to allowing the count to continue while the Bush V Gore case was being heard. If they ruled against the Chad's being used, so what if they got counted. Throw them out. But we saw the very real harm in not allowing them to be counted.
If it was Bush and not Gore who needed those votes i have no doubt the same SC would have ordered them counted and sealed while they made their decision.
The Supreme COurt deciding if the ballots with the hanging chads should be counted stopped all counting while they considered the issue.
What that lead to was even as they got to a ruling of the 'hanging chads should be counted', BUT it was 'now too late to count them and meet certification deadlines. Thus the count must stand and Bush wins.'
There is no chance, NONE, that they did not do that deliberately, as it was warned by opposing counsel who requested the count continue while the case was being heard. And Courts are supposed to make those rulings based on a legal concept called 'The Balance of Equities', meaning if there is one that causes real harm and another that does, while the case is being determined then stop the harm where that can be done.
There would be no harm, NONE, to allowing the count to continue while the Bush V Gore case was being heard. If they ruled against the Chad's being used, so what if they got counted. Throw them out. But we saw the very real harm in not allowing them to be counted.
If it was Bush and not Gore who needed those votes i have no doubt the same SC would have ordered them counted and sealed while they made their decision.
