>i read the NYT review of dershowitz's and posner's forthcoming books about
>bush v. gore and thought that posner's defense of the decision, as reported
>by the reviewer, to be remarkable. posner seems to find no legal
>justification for the decision but concludes nevertheless that the decision
>was correct because it was good for the country. i haven't read the book
>(yet), and am well aware of the dangers of relying on a book review for an
>accurate summary of a (possibly) complex 250+ page argument. still i thought
>it worth sharing.
thanks for this, k. he didn't even get this far in the interview. what he said on this morning was that there was no basis for an "intent of the voter" standard. furthermore, he said, gore didn't have a right to call a recount anyway. he was allowed to call for a sample recount and if nothing came up fishy, then game's over. it was the former claim that seemed pretty dishonest. true, it was for a sound byte of the fookin' FOX morning show, but hey! but maybe i'm way off base, since i certainly don't recall the details of the case for the "intent of the voter" standard. at the time, i didn't pay attention since i was enjoying chuck and joe's eternal orgasm too much to care.
kelley