jim baker

[John Nagle]

I didn't hear Jim Baker, but it seems remarkable that that he (or anyone
else) would be criticized for criticizing the court.  The court is *not*
supreme; the People are.  And in this particular controversy, the court is
just one forum for determining what the People have said.

I also find it surprising that the court would describe the right to vote
as paramount in the sense that they did.  They use that claim to defeat
statutory deadlines regarding how the vote is to be determined.  If the
right to vote trumps such deadlines, then why couldn't someone who didn't
make it to the polls on election day be able to decide that they want to
vote today?  Or how do registration requirements survive?  The court should
have said that the rule of law is paramount, because it is only by
following objective, predetermined rules that we can determine how the
people have exercised their right to vote without fears of partisan
manipulation.  One can disagree about whether there are such rules in the
various aspects of this dispute, but that debate should continue rather
than being pretermitted by a generalized assertion of the undoubted
importance of the right to vote. -- John

At 11:58 PM 11/21/2000 -0500, you wrote:
>i'm listening to jim baker trash the florida supreme court.  that strikes
me as remarkable.  if he thinks the courts so much in error, there are
appeals to be taken, arguments to be made to other courts.  they may not
get anywhere.  it could be the florida supreme court is supreme for now.
but we generally try to avoid such blatant trashing of courts.
>
>agree?  disagree?
>
>
>Barry Friedman
> Professor of Law
>NYU School of Law
>40 Washington Square South
>Room 317
>New York, NY  10012
>
>(212) 998-6293
>
John Copeland Nagle
Associate Professor
Notre Dame Law School
Notre Dame, IN 46556
(219) 631-9407
(219) 631-4197 (fax)