ad info

 
CNN.comTranscripts
 
Editions | myCNN | Video | Audio | Headline News Brief | Feedback  

 

  Search
 
 

 

TOP STORIES

Bush signs order opening 'faith-based' charity office for business

Rescues continue 4 days after devastating India earthquake

DaimlerChrysler employees join rapidly swelling ranks of laid-off U.S. workers

Disney's GO.com is a goner

(MORE)

MARKETS
4:30pm ET, 4/16
144.70
8257.60
3.71
1394.72
10.90
879.91
 


WORLD

U.S.

POLITICS

LAW

TECHNOLOGY

ENTERTAINMENT

 
TRAVEL

ARTS & STYLE



(MORE HEADLINES)
 
CNN Websites
Networks image


Early Edition

Ragavan: Olson and Tribe to Do Some 'Legal Cross-Dressing' Before U.S. Supreme Court

Aired December 1, 2000 - 8:21 a.m. ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

LINDA STOUFFER, CNN ANCHOR: You're looking at a live picture now outside the U.S. Supreme Court building, a hearing there to start at 10:00 a.m. Eastern time on whether manual recounts in Florida should actually count, the Bush camp is asking the Supreme Court to consider that.

Well, it is less than two hours before the U.S. Supreme Court begins hearing landmark legal arguments in that Florida recount dispute. We want to get some perspective now from a journalist who covers the Justice Department and law beat for "U.S. News & World Report."

Chitra Ravagan joins us from the U.S. Supreme Court. You might also be familiar with her work from National Public Radio.

Chitra, thank you for being with us today.

CHITRA RAGAVAN, "U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT": My pleasure.

STOUFFER: First of all, why do you think the justices agreed to take this case?

RAGAVAN: As you know, it is a question that a lot of legal scholars are asking, everyone was very, very surprised and it showed a lot of pundits wrong. And one theory is that, at the time that the Supreme Court took the case, that the Florida elections had not yet been certified, no one knew the outcome of the elections and there was a tremendous amount of tension in the country. And perhaps, legal scholars say, the U.S. Supreme Court felt that it needed to enter into this most important issue because many public opinion polls show that the court is regarded as a fair and legal arbiter and perhaps the court felt that if it made its views known that it might be able to calm things down a little bit. But we will have to wait until the court rules to find out really what happens?

STOUFFER: Absolutely, and a lot of analysts types and people are hoping that the court will actually speak with one voice and come out with some sort of decisive action. What do you see happening?

RAGAVAN: It is a very interesting question. The court normally does not take up these kinds of issues where election disputes are at stake and also where it is essentially a state matter. And so there is some talk that the court's own credibility will be at stake, and this is a court with a conservative majority, they have ruled 5-4, along ideological lines, on some very critical issues. But on a matter of such national importance there is a feeling that perhaps the court will want to seek strength and comfort in unanimity, And if the court cannot find that unanimity some legal scholars say that perhaps the court might want to wait it out a bit, stay its hand, see what happens in the state contest filed by Gore before it makes its views known, although typically the court is used to acting very quickly in such matters.

RAGAVAN: And Chitra, help get us ready for what we will hear later on today. Give us a sort of pre-game matchup of the attorneys, how you see the attorneys going head to head here?

STOUFFER: Well you've got two veterans of the Supreme Court. For Governor Bush, you have got Theodore Olson, who has appeared before the Supreme Court 13 times. For Vice President Gore, you have got Laurence Tribe, who is considered as one of the most important constitutional thinkers of our times and he has been before the court 29 times. So you've got two legal veterans, and it is probably good that they have this kind of experience because they are going to be doing a little bit of what I call legal cross dressing. They are going to be arguing positions that they are usually not used to taking.

For instance, Theodore Olson for the Republicans is going to seek federal intervention from the Supreme Court in the state election dispute, which is something Republicans tend not to do. And, of course, Laurence Tribe will be arguing a very counter-intuitive position for Democrats, which is that the U.S. Supreme Court should not interfere, that this is a matter of states' rights.

So it is going to be very interesting to watch and that is one of the themes you are going to see in the court today. And as you know, the central question before the court is: Did the Florida Supreme Court violate a federal statute and the Constitution by delaying the certification of elections and by asking Secretary of State Katherine Harris to accept the manual recounts.

And the other thing you are going to your today is: Did the Florida Supreme Court make a new law by changing the deadline, as the Bush lawyer will argue? Or did it essentially interpret the law, as Laurence Tribe will argue?

And this is a debate that you have seen a lot occur in jurisprudence, and I think it goes back all the way to Hamilton and the Federalist Papers, who talked about the judgment of the judiciary versus the will of the legislature, and that is what you're going to be hearing about today.

STOUFFER: OK, Chitra Ragavan, we have pregnant chads, might as well have legal cross dressing. Thank you very much for your insights today.

RAGAVAN: My pleasure.

STOUFFER: Thank you. TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com

 Search   


Back to the top  © 2001 Cable News Network. All Rights Reserved.
Terms under which this service is provided to you.
Read our privacy guidelines.