Saturday 9th December 2000
Yafa the Hamster comments on Monday's Court pronouncements
[Editor's Note - Yafa the hamster isn't a staff writer for
the RW and we are deeply appreciative that he's allowed us to transcribe this
text from a speech recently delivered at a businessmen's lunch in the deep
South. We've slightly emended it to make it more amenable to a
readership]
Florida (TUESDAY) - I was getting confused. What
with all this talk of Supreme Courts and Circuit Courts, titled as belonging
both to the US and to Florida and dealing with both State and Federal
issues.
Today was Tuesday - I knew that much - and the
events of the previous evening were still ringing in my ears as I listened to
Judge Sauls announce the verdict that just about anyone with half an ounce of
sense would have anticipated - but which CNN gasped at.
And I remembered that prior decision which had
resembled a legal game of tennis as the decision was passed back to some lower
group or other to revise their decision and pass it back once more. I think it
was about 30-15 in that battle and I was hoping that it might never reach deuce
because, if my estimations were correct, it would be sometime in February before
we got there.
I also remembered that proud lawyer who announced
that the present cases showed that US law worked - I was more of the opinion
that it demonstrated that US lawyers knew how to make money.
After all, even in the one court case
that Al Gore had won by having the certification deadline extended, he'd
actually lost because the extension wasn't long enough. And now, loss after
loss, he was still affirming his commitment to carry on and to lodge yet more
litigation to appeal.
It reminded me of that UK prime minister who, not
too many years ago, had vowed:
'I will fight on, I intend to win'
only to admit defeat a day or two later. And I
wondered if Al Gore might find himself in the same position in the not too
distant future.
I mean, who was advising him? Probably the lawyer
who I heard immediately after the decision last night complaining that they'd
only lost the case because the judge hadn't paid attention to the 14,000
uncounted ballots.
But that was just the point of the judgment,
wasn't it? They were supposed to have proved conclusively the need to have to
count the ballots before they could be counted - not to count them and so prove
the need.
Hadn't they understood that when they'd written
the brief? Surely there was no point griping that they couldn't win their case
if they had to win the case first before they could win?
I remember accessing the CNN web page
on Sunday and telling myself that I'd only watch a few minutes of the
proceedings but that I got so caught up with the witness on the stand that three
and a half hours flew swiftly by.
For there was an 'expert' on balloting machines -
a real anorak if ever there was one - talking about the delights of the 231p
compared to the 231a. Or was it the 321a? - I can't remember.
Whatever the exact number, it isn't important.
What got to me was the brightness with which his eyes sparkled when he began
talking about the intricacies of ballot machine design.
I could never envisage seeing a university course
being run for the subject (though, being America, there probably is one
somewhere - and, after the present election, one most certainly will be put on)
or that it would be accepted as a valid subject on Mastermind - but there must
be a convention somewhere that draws people together once a year to sit in
huddled groups and talk about their ballot machine fetish and how they've tried
to kick the habit.
Perhaps it's even a recognised illness.
But it was the lawyers who really bugged me - with
their pleasantries towards the judge by laughing at everything he said that was
remotely funny in order to find favour, their pathetic joviality that...
[Editor - we had to cut the rest of the speech as
it turned out to be libelous]
Yafa the Hamster doesn't
write for the Rodent Weekly.
This article appears courtesy of that
paper.
