Chat Transcript: Legal Expert William Lash III (Dec. 1, 2000)
Dec. 1 -- On Friday, the nation's highest court will hear arguments over whether Florida's late results — reached by manual recounts — are legitimate. What should we expect from the nation's most powerful justices?
William Lash III, a professor of law at George Mason University and an expert in complex federal litigation, joined us in an online chat following an appearance on Good Morning America. The chat transcript appears below.
Moderator at 12:02pm ET
William Lash joins us live from Washington, D.C. Can you outline the arguments made by the Bush and Gore legal teams at today's Supreme Court hearing?
William Lash at 12:04pm ET
The main argument for the Bush team is that the Florida Supreme Court usurped the role of the state legislature when it adopted new rules for the selection of electors. The Supreme Court is going to look at that question, and another question:
Did the Florida Supreme Court violate title 3, section 5 file of U.S. code? Under this law, disputes concerning selection of electors must be done in accordance with laws enacted prior to Election Day. The new Florida Supreme Court ruling establishing new methods post-Election Day violates this law.
The Gore legal team argues that the Florida Supreme Court simply interpreted Florida law.
Moderator at 12:14pm ET
How strong is the Bush team's case?
William Lash at 12:15pm ET
The Bush team has an excellent brief, and an excellent case. The arguments are well-supported by U.S. Supreme Court precedent, federal law, and, most importantly, the United States Constitution.
Moderator at 12:19pm ET
And how strong is the Gore team's case?
William Lash at 12:20pm ET
The Gore team makes a desperate argument that this is a garden variety matter of interpreting state laws. They assert that, when the Florida legislature enacted the election laws, they de facto empowered the Florida Supreme Court to reach this "novel" ruling using "broad equitable powers."
Moderator at 12:06pm ET
Only two sitting justices are Democratic appointees. Could partisanship play a role in the court's decision?
Related Stories
ABC News Live