By
Tom DcDermott
Last week, I attended the protest at the College of Law. I was one of four voices of support for the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, William H. Rehnquist, in a crowd of about 200. The protest was a healthy and lawful statement of First Amendment Rights, which should be encouraged.
However, my friends and I felt obliged to be voices of dissent. No matter how small our efforts, we were there to let the chief justice know he is welcome at the University of Arizona.
The poorly-spelled signs of the protesters (one read "Hail to the Theif") were indicative of the lack of civility that characterized the election brouhaha. The same people who accuse President Bush of mean-spirited divisiveness held signs calling our chief justice a "Good 'Ol Boy" and our Attorney General "racist white trash."
Isn't bipartisanship wonderful?
As long as a justice of the caliber of Chief Justice Rehnquist sits on the bench, the Constitutional rule of law will always prevail over mob mentality like this.
No Supreme Court justice would ever want to be in the situation into which Mr. Rehnquist was forced because of Al Gore and the Florida Supreme Court's disregard of black-letter state and federal election law. But the Chief Justice accepted his duty to his country and to the rule of law with honor and integrity.
Bush vs. Gore was a well-crafted, well-reasoned affirmation of sound constitutional principles. The holding was a victory for the Equal Protection Clause, the Supremacy Clause and for fundamental fairness in the election process.
Even the very liberal Justices Breyer and Souter agreed with Rehnquist that the constantly changing standards of the hand recount in Florida were a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Anyone can throw out wildly speculative numbers about how many Floridians intended to vote for Gore, or for Bush for that matter. One source estimated that over 60,000 Bush votes in the Republican panhandle were suppressed by the early call of the state for Gore. But no one has any way to prove numbers like these.
Thinking about voting is a far cry from actual voting. The pertinent fact is that more people who intended to vote for Bush took the time to do so properly than those who intended to vote for Gore. And all the divining rods and crystal balls in the state weren't enough to conjure up enough votes for Gore after repeated attempts.
Should the counties count the votes of overzealous Bush voters who wrote in his name after punching the card simply because their intention can be divined from the ballot? Absolutely not.
Voting is a precious right. But rights never exist without responsibilities. When one fails in his responsibility, his right is imperiled through no one's fault but his own.
After the dust cleared, it was established that George W. Bush would have gained more votes in the state of Florida than Al Gore had the hand recounts continued. The Palm Beach Post reported that Bush would have had a net gain of votes in Miami-Dade county, where Gore needed several hundred votes to make up his deficit. If you recall, when the count was called off, the Miami-Dade recorders had not even begun recounting any of the Cuban districts.
So protest all you want. In the end, the true victor was inaugurated president and the Constitution held fast against the forces attempting to pull off what would have been the greatest theft in American history, thanks in large part to the Chief Justice.
When court is not in session, Mr. Rehnquist could choose to teach a class at Harvard, Yale or Stanford, but instead he chooses to teach here. I will be proud to tell my colleagues that I graduated from a law school that counts the Chief Justice of the United States among its faculty.
On behalf of my fellow students, thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
