No. 00-836 ========================================IN THE Supreme Court of the United States --------------------George W. Bush, Petitioner, v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, et al., Respondents. --------------------On Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida --------------------SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF RESPONDENTSAL GORE, JR., AND FLORIDA DEMOCRATIC PARTY--------------------(Additional Counsel Listed Laurence H. Tribe In Signature Block) (Counsel of Record) Hauser Hall 420 1575 Massachusetts Ave. Cambridge, MA 02138 November 30, 2000 ----------------------------------------
Petitioner's opening brief contained no separate due process argument and mentioned the phrases "due process" and "fundamental fairness" only in passing, as part of a discussion of Roe v. Alabama, 43 F.3d 474 (CA 11 1995) (per curiam). See Pet.Br. 28. Accordingly, Respondents had no occasion to respond to any due process issue in their reply brief. However, Petitioner's reply brief now seeks to resurrect a due process claim. Pet. Reply Br.18-19. That attempt is improper, both because the claim was not raised adequately in the opening brief and because it seeks to smuggle in questions relating to the conduct of manual recounts on which this Court has denied certiorari. In any event the claim has no merit. The Florida Supreme Court's decision did not constitute a retroactive change in the law at all. Even if it had constituted such a change, it would not have deprived Petitioner of any protected liberty or property interest or worked any unfairness, for the reasons we have already stated in our opening brief, at pp. 44-49.
Petitioner's Reply Brief continues to press arguments that simply are not encompassed by the questions that this Court agreed to decide. Thus, Petitioner and his amici have continually raised the possibility that the Florida Legislature might convene to enact legislation intended to appoint Florida's electors if the State's courts fail conclusively to decide the disputes pending before them by December 12th. Pet. Reply Br. at 19-20. The validity of speculativefuture conduct by the Florida Legislature is not before this Court. It is quite clear in particular that the question whether such state legislation in the wake of an election is authorized by 3 U.S.C. § 2 is not before this Court for decision. The questions presented by petitioners and the additional question suggested by this Court are directed entirely at the validity of the Florida Supreme Court's action as measured against 3 U.S.C. § 5 and Article II, § 1, cl. 2 of the United States Constitution. Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (1988) (question not presented in petition for certiorari will not be considered); General Talking Pictures Corp. v. Western Electric Co., 304 U.S. 175, 177-78 (1938).
CONCLUSIONThe judgment should be affirmed.
Respectfully submitted, Teresa Wynn Roseborough Laurence H. Tribe David I. Adelman (Counsel of Record) James A. Orr Hauser Hall 420 John H. Fleming 1575 Massachusetts Ave. 999 Peachtree St, NE Cambridge, MA 02138 Atlanta, GA 30309 David Boies Ronald A. Klain Boies, Schiller & Flexner Andrew J. Pincus 80 Business Park Dr., Ste. 110 c/o Gore/Lieberman Recount Armonk, NY 10504 430 S. Capitol St. Washington, DC 20003 Kathleen M. Sullivan 559 Nathan Abbott Way Kendall Coffey Stanford, CA 94305 Coffey Diaz & O'Naghten2665 South Bayshore Dr. Thomas C. Goldstein Miami, FL 33133 Amy Howe 4607 Asbury Pl., NW Washington, DC 20016Jonathan S. Massey Peter J. Rubin 3920 Northampton St., NW Neal K. Katyal Washington, DC 20015 Georgetown Univ. Law Ctr. 600 New Jersey Ave., NW November 30, 2000Washington, DC 20001
Select a Job Title