This page has been formatted for easy printing

The Circus of Law
Reaction to Florida Supreme Court Decision

by Jonathan Wilson
November 22, 2000

The Circus of Law_Jonathan Wilson-Reaction to Florida Supreme Court Decision The circus of litigation began in 1987, when Oliver North and Admiral Poindexter made a mockery of the Iran-Contra hearings, by taking refuge in doublespeak with terms such as "plausible deniability," and in the popular support of North's fan-mail.

Later, early in Bush's term, John Tower was denied senate confirmation, I believe to head up the CIA. And Ted Kennedy rallied liberals against the confirmation of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court. But then this political, partisan circus became reduced to a WWF match, with the hearings and confirmation of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. Remember?

Then it was O.J. And then Monica. And now, the high court of Florida.

The country has been living with the effects of judicial activism for decades, but the past 15 years have been disastrous for the mindset and expectation of Americans. Litigation has infected our airwaves, with such programs as Divorce Court and Judge Judy. The expectation is that wisdom resides in our courts, and we look to them to invent solutions to our problems.

Partial Observer readers will note that I called the election for Al Gore on November 13. Despite a 900 vote-gap in Bush's favor, my prediction seems to be coming true, as the Democrats have won the most important court battle yet, with the Florida Supreme Court ordering the Secretary of State to certify hand-count totals.

If a Republican Secretary of State could not be trusted to interpret the plain language of Florida statutes for certifying an election, why should we trust an all-Democrat Supreme Court?

The Democrats have spoken, and, to no one's surprise, they have over-ruled the Republican Secretary. This is after another decision in an appelate court, that overturned one judge's interpretation of HIS OWN COURT ORDER. The Florida Supreme Court has extended time for hand-recounts and ordered that they be included in the certified results. Rather than plain laws being enforced, we are seeing partisanship turn our balance of powers into a three-ring circus.

My next prediction, on which my calling the election for Gore hangs, is that the Democrats will be able to design the rules by which votes will count. Their agenda is that people who ruined their own opportunity to exercise competence and care in the selection of the most powerful person on the planet, should defer responsibility for their errors to the court. They hope that the court will order vote-counters to read minds rather than ballots.

This is consistent with the direction courts have taken for decades. The intent of the people's will, and of a lower court's judge, cannot be trusted to be communicated in plain language, so higher courts freely interpret the law, even to the point of flatly contradicting it. Now, intent cannot be measured by what actually appears on the ballot--nor can a spoiled ballot be disqualified. This is consistent with judicial reasoning in our country.

As the nation is pursuing spiritual directions in keeping with its legal directions, I propose that Nancy Reagan and Hilary Clinton contribute to their partisan teams by sending their favorite psychics to Florida. They are to touch each ballot, one at a time, and on the basis of the "psychic signature" left on each, interpret for the commissioners the voter intent. Lots of circuses have fortune-tellers, don't they?

This article was printed from
Copyright © 2018 All rights reserved.