Chat Transcript: ABCNEWS Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin (Dec. 12, 2000)

Dec. 12 -- After weeks of courtroom wrangling, the presidential election is back in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court as the nation awaits a ruling that will likely determine the outcome of the election. How might the court’s nine justices approach this case? Will politics play a role in their decision? ABCNEWS legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin joined us today in a live chat. The transcript appears below.

Jeffrey Toobin at 12:59pm ET

Hello, everyone. I'm joining you from the Supreme Court pressroom, so I will have to leave if there is a decision.

Moderator at 12:59pm ET

What did you make of yesterday's high court hearing? Are Al Gore's prospects any brighter than they were before?

Jeffrey Toobin at 12:59pm ET

Fundamentally, no. Five justices granted a stay, saying that they thought it was likely Bush would win on the merits. I didn't see anything to indicate that any of those five had changed their minds.

Moderator at 1:00pm ET

Which legal team, in your opinion, presented the better case?

Jeffrey Toobin at 1:00pm ET

I thought Ted Olson did a solid, effective job, and I think that David Boies was not exactly at the top of his game, and missed a few important opportunities.

Moderator at 1:00pm ET

Some say the court may forge a compromise ruling. What might this look like?

Jeffrey Toobin at 1:01pm ET

A compromise might instruct the Florida Courts to establish a single standard on what counts as a vote, but the only justices who seemed interested in such a compromise were in the minority in Saturday's opinion on the stay.

Scott Levine from mpowercom.com at 1:02pm ET

With regard to the "fairness" of counting the undervotes in a "uniform" manner, isn't this impossible since so many different types of ballots and different types of voting machines are utilized in the different counties of Florida? And wouldn't the creation of a standard used to count all of the votes be in essence a new law, since the Florida legislature only designated the "clear intent" of the voter?