In The Florida Supreme Court Case No: Fill & Download for Free

Effectively zero. No matter what happens, the Court isn’t going to order somebody to declare a particular person the victor in an electoral contest at the federal level.The court can and does intervene in Due Process cases, and this can control who wins. But even then, it will be the Secretary of State of the involved state who makes the decision in alignment with the Supreme Court’s decision.The Bush v Gore mess in Florida in 2000 is a good example. Despite the popular left wing trope, the Court did not “hand the election” to Bush.You remember the “hanging chads?” That’s what it was about. The court did not have a problem with the state of Florida attempting to determine the “intent of the voter.”(All citations from the Slip Op per curiam in the case, published here.)Florida’s basic command for the count of legally cast votes is to consider the “intent of the voter.” This is unobjectionable as an abstract proposition and a starting principle. [Citations omitted]The problem they court did have was the method the Florida Supreme Court mandated for this to be determined.The problem inheres in the absence of specific standards to ensure its equal application. The formulation of uniform rules to determine intent based on these recurring circumstances is practicable and, we conclude, necessary.It’s fairly long for a per curiam opinion, but the bottom line is the Florida Supreme Court erred in failing to supply a set of instructions that evenly applied standards of interpreting voter intent across the state; which failure resulted in uneven application across much smaller subdivisions such as counties and even precincts:As seems to have been acknowledged at oral argument, the standards for accepting or rejecting contested ballots might vary not only from county to county but indeed within a single county from one recount team to another.Their actual objection was not what was done, but how it was accomplished:The recount process, in its features here described, is inconsistent with the minimum procedures necessary to protect the fundamental right of each voter in the special instance of a statewide recount under the authority of a single state judicial officer. Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.That, the court concluded, was a violation of Equal Protection and “One Man, One Vote”:Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a remedy. See post, at 6 (Souter, J., dissenting); post, at 2, 15 (Breyer, J., dissenting). The only disagreement is as to the remedy. Because the Florida Supreme Court has said that the Florida Legislature intended to obtain the safe-harbor benefits of 3 U.S.C. § 5 Justice Breyer’s proposed remedy–remanding to the Florida Supreme Court for its ordering of a constitutionally proper contest until December 18-contemplates action in violation of the Florida election code, and hence could not be part of an “appropriate” order authorized by Fla. Stat. §102.168(8) (2000). [Citations retained in their entirety]And finally, what the court actually ordered Florida to do:The judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.Note, please, nowhere in the final sentence did the Supreme Court order Florida to do anything specific at all, and most especially not to “hand the election to Bush.” In fact, I wasn’t going to include this because it’s not particularly relevant to the decision, but here’s the paragraph immediately before the final sentence:None are more conscious of the vital limits on judicial authority than are the members of this Court, and none stand more in admiration of the Constitution’s design to leave the selection of the President to the people, through their legislatures, and to the political sphere. When contending parties invoke the process of the courts, however, it becomes our unsought responsibility to resolve the federal and constitutional issues the judicial system has been forced to confront.That’s nowhere near a usurpation; in fact, it’s almost an apology for being forced to rule. But the bottom line on it is, the Court didn’t force Florida to do anything. They sent the case back to the Florida Supreme Court, having noted their objections to the FSCs previous actions, and then left that court entirely free to do anything they liked in regards to determining the electoral outcome, provided only it was of even application across the state.Now, as it turns out, the state of Florida decided not to do a recount. They did this because they were out of time if they were going to meet the statutory day to return electors and thus have a voice in determining the outcome. In the event, they simply certified the first total they got before all the recount mess started. But they didn’t have to, and they weren’t ordered to. They made the decision themselves, to avoid a worse fate. The only guidance they got from the Supreme Court was “you can’t do what the Florida Supreme Court ordered you to do because it is unfair through uneven application.” They didn’t get any guidance from the Supreme Court as to what they should do, even though they’d probably have preferred that outcome. The Supreme Court left it in Florida’s hands, because that’s where the Constitution puts the responsibility.…If some other contest should arise out of the election in 2020, the Court will do exactly the same. They’ll make sure the process is fair and evenly applied, and then tell the states to make the call.

What is this fascination people have with mentioning people for the Supreme Court just becausea.) They know the nameandb.) They have a Law degree.No, Ted Cruz is not going to become the next Supreme court Justice, and if it was offered to him he would turn it down because he still wants to be President someday.As always with Trump Court Nominees, Trump will point to the next name on the list handed to him by the ultraconservative Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society.The two most likely nominees right now are:Amy Coney BarrettBarrett is a Trump appointee on the 7th US Cricut court of appeals. A Notre Dame grad and a staunch pro-life advocate, she is strict constitutional originialist in the mold of Antonin Scalia for whom she once served as a clerk.Barbara LagoaAnother Trump appointee, this time to the 11th US Circut Court of Appeals, Lagoa was the first Cuban American to serve on Florida’s Supreme Court. The Florida connection and her Hispanic heritage make her a strong fit politically for Trump as he battles for votes in Florida's extremely tight race.Of the two, I actually think Lagoa is more likely despite Barrett probably being the Federalist Society’s preference. I say that because it’s just in Trump’s transactional nature.Lagoa was one of 2 Trump appointees on the 11th Circut Court who ruled against the voting rights of Florida’s former felons who were recently re-enfranchised by Florida’s voters in a 2016 ballot referendumFlorida felons lose voting rights case in federal appeals court

The last Supreme Court case to dispose of a lawsuit between two states was Florida v. Georgia which was decided on June 27, 2018.The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over all lawsuits between states, and in this case they followed normal procedure and appointed a special master to hear evidence and make a decision for review.The lawsuit, like many interstate lawsuits, involved water rights, in this case rivers that start in Georgia and flow into Florida’s Lake Seminole. Florida sued for an apportionment of water in the basin, claiming Georgia wasn’t allowing enough water to flow into Lake Seminole. The United States was also a party to the suit because some of the water is controlled by the Army Corps of Engineers, but the federal government didn’t waive sovereignty, so the court could not make a ruling binding the federal government. The master ruled that since the Corps could not be bound by the order, Florida had no redress against Georgia’s upstream water use.The Supreme Court disagreed with the master, saying that the condition set was too stringent. They sent the matter back to the master for instructions so the case is still ongoing.