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

Yes, you are wrong.Bush v. Gore was on petition for certiorari* from a case in Florida state court. The case had made it to the Supreme Court of Florida, which had ordered a manual recount.It is important to remember that Bush v. Gore wasn’t formally the justices picking the president they preferred. The legal question was whether or not the way the recount was being conducted violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and whether there was an alternative method of counting that would not.The Supreme Court of Florida has full and legitimate legal authority to answer that question in the State of Florida. If the Supreme Court had not taken the petition, the ruling of the Supreme Court of Florida would have stood, though would not have produced any binding precedent outside of Florida.Of course, the justices in the majority of Bush v. Gore made it very clear that this was a “good for this time only” decision that effectively does not have any precedential value. You can certainly make a case for why the Supreme Court ought to have intervened, but “they established a clear rule” is not one of them.*It’s actually a bit more complicated than that, but for our purposes close enough.

If it wasn’t clear, Donald Trump isn’t a politician or even a political candidate: he’s a wannabe mob boss who sees every relationship as a transaction, and every transaction as a zero-sum game, one which he absolutely has to win.Whilst President, Trump was able to make three appointments to the Supreme Court: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. In Trump’s mind, this invariably means that all of those judges effectively exist to do his bidding, and considering that their appointment gave the Republicans a conservative majority, that absolutely includes using their authority to overturn an election in his favour.Bear in mind, of course, that this all stems from Trump’s usual ignorant approach to politics: he doesn’t understand why the Supreme Court wouldn’t hear any of the cases pertaining to the election, and why the Republican-led states (notably Texas) that brought a case forward did not have the judicial standing to do so. The fact that the majority of Trump Campaign cases brought before courts were rejected similarly doesn’t process: as far as he’s concerned, the Democrats stole the election from him and the courts were okay with this.The reality, though? The Supreme Court don’t typically intervene in elections, and were widely criticised for doing so in Bush v Gore, when their order to stop recounts in Florida handed the Presidential election to George Bush. Trump was undoubtedly hoping for a repeat performance, but the Supreme Court didn’t have good reason to intervene, particularly in light of a lack of substantive evidence of the fraud that Trump has been claiming since before November even rolled around.What it boils down to, however, is a simple transactional approach: Trump believed that he owned the Supreme Court (because three of the justices owed him their appointments), and that they should therefore do what he wanted, regardless of appropriateness or even constitutionality.In his mind, they owe him their careers, and he intended to collect on the debt. When they failed to pay up, they earned his ire.

To be clear: it won’t.‘Contesting the election’ isn’t something that the Supreme Court itself can deal with: the election isn’t a single election, but instead fifty separate elections that combine results into one outcome. The laws governing those elections are the purview of the states themselves, beyond where specified in the Constitution. That requires any judicial contestation of the election to happen within the states - and when a state Supreme Court rules, that’s pretty much the end of the line.The notable exception to this was Bush v Gore, which by itself was a very unusual situation. We had the following electoral map:What’s notable here is that both candidates had enough votes to win, depending on the status of Florida. In the absence of Florida, neither could win, but that single state secured for either one would give them the Presidency. This naturally led to the state being contested.The gap between the two candidates was less than 1,000 votes, which mandated a recount. Ultimately, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that a further recount was necessary, since ballots were found untabulated, but the Supreme Court itself overruled this and stopped the recount. This ultimately left Bush the winner of Florida, and therefore the election.To be clear: this was not a case of the Supreme Court deciding the election. They simply intervened with recounts, and only in one state, purely because there was a violation of Equal Protections (with different counties having different procedures for the recounts). This is not currently applicable to the 2020 election.More to the point, the states which the Trump Campaign has challenged have already certified their election results. We’ve seen recounts and hand-assessment of ballots, and the formal legal certification of the results has been completed, and the legal timeline to contest that was only five days - time which has mostly now elapsed.Furthermore, the Trump Campaign’s large slew of cases around various US judiciaries were largely dismissed due to a lack of evidence. If they were to appeal those cases to the Supreme Court, there’d have to be a damn good reason for it, largely suggesting that the court’s conclusions were incorrect based on the evidence presented. Suffice it to say, the Supreme Court isn’t going to overrule the judgement of any lower court on that basis, simply because the Trump Campaign didn’t present any evidence to justify their cause of action. As was correctly noted by several courts, what the Campaign was ultimately asking for was for a large number of voters to be disenfranchised absent evidence. That’s unconstitutional by itself.Thus far, the legal procedures for the election have been followed: the Trump Campaign filed court motions which were all largely dismissed, and with recounts and sampling completed, none of the states being contested found enough irregularities or issues to a) corroborate accusations of fraud or b) overturn the result of the elections in those states. Thus confident of the integrity of their elections, both Republicans and Democrats in those states certified the results.Shortly, we’ll see that confirmed by the Electoral College when they vote: with 48 of the 50 states (Nebraska and Maine being the exceptions) voting for a President based on the outcome of the state popular vote. That will give Joe Biden 306 EC votes, and the Presidency.The Supreme Court doesn’t have a role in this. The legal battles that have been fought were lost, and there’s no reasonable basis to contest those battles that would be likely to be taken up by the Court.Put bluntly, this is over and done with. The Supreme Court aren’t going to be needed to arbitrate a result that’s pretty much a foregone conclusion.Edit: I should, moreover, add the same electoral math I’ve been going on about for some time. The current math stands as Biden’s 306 to Trump’s 232. This means that Trump would need to overturn at least three different swing states to overturn the election. Even if the Supreme Court heard a case that advocated overturning the result of one state, it would not be sufficient to change the result. They’d need to hear and sustain three or more results - and that would be utterly unprecedented in US history.Just not going to happen.