Court’s Application of Equal Protection

According to Anthony G. Amsterdam (“The Law Is Left Twisting Slowly in the Wind,” Commentary, Dec. 17) the U.S. Supreme Court is guilty of “abandonment of any pretense at behaving like a court of law” because it overturned the Florida Supreme Court’s decision to continue recounting the Florida vote. The court did this, according to Amsterdam, because it can and because it “usually gets away with masking result-driven, political, unprincipled decisions in the guise of obedience to rules of law which the judges feel free to twist and retwist to suit their purposes.”

Why was the U.S. Supreme Court “result driven” in its 7 to 2 decision based on constitutional guarantees of equal protection but the Florida Supreme Court was not result driven when it improperly ignored equal protection and overturned not only the secretary of state but also Judge N. Sanders Sauls’ ruling? Without objective standards, Al Gore wins because the Democrat-controlled canvassing boards in large counties want him to. This, no doubt, would be a result that not even Amsterdam would quarrel with.

GEORGE NEIIENDAM

Costa Mesa

*

Various legal scholars you quote (“High Court in Awkward Spot Over Equal Protection Ruling,” Dec. 16) found the Supreme Court’s decision unsettling, hard to explain or undeveloped because it so thoroughly contradicted the Rehnquist court’s long-standing bias against applying the equal protection clause.

This puzzlement is probably because the majority was being too subtle when it wrote that its decision was limited to the present circumstances. It should have been more explicit--note: This decision and the legal theory underlying it only apply to elections in which George W. Bush might lose the disputed 25 electoral votes in the state of Florida. In all other equal protection cases, please refer to our previous decisions.

PAUL GULINO

Irvine

*

Your legal analysis can lead to only one conclusion: It was a political decision (to terminate the ongoing electoral process with a victory for Bush) without any real legal basis. It amounts to a judicial coup d’etat.

HERBERT WEISS

Woodland Hills

*

No one can honestly say that Gore won the popular vote. The alleged difference amounts to three-tenths of 1% of the votes cast. The margin of error in tabulating votes is much higher. We will never know.

SAMUEL F. RINDGE

South Pasadena

*

Re “Florida Ballots to See Light of Day Again,” Dec. 17: In the picture of undervote ballots accompanying the article on Florida ballots being recounted by the press, I couldn’t help but notice that one was readable. It was also clearly a vote for Gore. I have to wonder why that didn’t get counted and how many more obvious votes were undercounts and why. Others may say the Bush presidency is legitimate. But as long as there are such obvious uncounted votes, I will not.

JUDY ANDERSON

Orange