opinion

I feel reluctant to correct so eminent a professor as Prof. Foley, but he repeats a grievous error: The decision for Bush v Gore was NOT 5-4. It was 7-2. The remedy was 5-4 (http://www.4lawschool.com/conlaw/bg.shtml ). I found this site within a few seconds. Sorry Professor. And shame on you.

The 7-2 ruling was in regards to the lack of a consistent standard in the Florida recount. What the Professor Foley is referring to in this piece is the 5-4 ruling that stopped the establishment of consistent standard that would have allowed the recount to continue. Had one Justice voted the other way there would have been a very thorough recount in Florida. That never happened.

Why is this drivel allowed to be published here. I lean right, but am no means a republican. I believe that any panel involving judges will be impartial, that is their job, to be impartial. The insinuation that the curent panel is not impartial because of how it was selected is a faulty assumption. Everyone in the nation with any skin in the game has their eye on this recount. One error or preceived mistep and they all know they will end up in front of the MN Supreme Court, if not the National one. I am personally insulted by the implication that this panel will act politically or inappropriately.