Reply #11: Regarding the Equal Protection argument presented by Ted Olson

[Samantha]

in his Supreme Court argument, did you influence Olson in the judicial integrity of this argument prior to his making it?

Is it fair to say the negating of 51 million votes cast for Al Gore across this country was a judicially-defensible move because of the Equal Protection Clause? Olson in effect said that it was necessary to do so to protect the rights of voters who cast legally counted ballots in one state against a disadvantage which would be presented when recounted votes would be subsequently tallied. How can any sane person defend canceling the votes of 51 million American people across the country to protect the weight of the votes legally counted in one state against a potential counterleverage presented by a recount in that same state? How can that asinine assertion be either legally, morally or even logically championed?

Do you stand by that Supreme Court decision?