SUPREME.CBS 09/28/04 11:54 PM-DLR   1:29
NOW they tell us.  This is Dave Ross on the CBS Radio Network.
According to an article in Vanity Fair written by David Margolick, the 5-4 Supreme Court decision that stopped the Florida recount in 2000 ... may have been less than impartial.
I know it sounds crazy, but Margolick told MSNBC he got the story straight from the court's own law clerks:
TAPE:  These are straight arrow Harvard Law review type people... and I think were so outraged by what happened that they felt like speaking out.
These clerks claimed that the five justices had made up their minds the moment they took the case, and then just shopped around for arguments to make it sound like ... they'd actually deliberated.
Now that's kind of a wacko theory - because we all know from our civics classes that Supreme Court decisions are such a mysterious and scholarly process that when an opinion is finally ready, about all that's missing is Moses and a little lightning.
Leading some to conclude that Margolick probably only talked to LIBERAL clerks who we must assume had been BEGGING Vanity fair to go public with this right before the election:
TAPE:  They didn't come to me I had to find them; I had to convince them to speak to me, they are not political partisans, really."
Hmm.  Well then, if this is true then what we have here is evidence that the Supreme Court back in 2000 tried to deliberately affect the outcome of an American election.   Leading one to ask, WHY ARE YOU TELLING US THIS NOW???
Thank God things have changed since then, and we are now living under the Rumsfeld theory of necessary electoral imperfection:
TAPE:  "Nothing's perfect in life.  So you have an election that's not quite perfect.  Is it better than not having an election?  You bet!"
Now this.   This is Dave Ross.  ~C:\works\files\SUPREME.CBS