[DeFault User]

In the cases you cite above (Bush v. Gore, Lautenberg, 9th Circuit recall decision) plus the University of Michigan decision, it seems that the courts used rather fuzzy principles to reverse lower courts or they ignored specific constitutional provisions and other statutes that better addressed the situation.

The Lautenberg case turned NJ election law with specific deadlines on its head because of (as I recall) a "compelling interest" to have a candidate for the Democrats. Likewise, the University of Michigan case ignored blatantly plain language in the 14th Amendment because Michigan had a "compelling interest" in promoting diversity.

SCOTUS reversed the Florida Supremes based on "due process" despite specific Federal statutes that stated you can't change election law after the election--which is what the Florida Supreme Court attempted.

Why the reliance on "compelling interests" or broad (easily misinterpreted principles) instead of specific language in the Constitution or in Federal statutes?

If you apply a "compelling interest" or broad principle when a specific one is more appropriate, you open the gates for miscarriages of justice in the future.

[jmstein7]

My favorite SNAFU in the Florida Supreme Court decision is how they misuse the four canons of statutory construction that they reference. If you read the friend of the court brief that the Florida Legislature filed, you will notice that the seven SCOFLA justices have absolutely no idea what the rules and procedures of the Florida House and Senate are. If it wasn't so serious, it would be funny!