Q: Isn't anyone on the US Supreme Court a rational follower of the rule of law?

A: Yes. Read the four dissents. Excerpts below:

Justice John Paul Stevens (Republican appointed by Ford):
"Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law."

Justice David Souter (Republican appointed by Bush):
"Before this Court stayed the effort to [manually recount the ballots] the courts of Florida were ready to do their best to get that job done. There is no justification for denying the State the opportunity to try to count all the disputed ballots now."

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Democrat appointed by Clinton):
"Chief Justice Rehnquist would "disrupt" Florida's "republican regime." [In other words, democracy in Florida is imperiled.] The court should not let its "untested prophecy" that counting votes is "impractical" "decide the presidency of the United States."

Justice Steven Breyer (Democrat appointed by Clinton):
"There is no justification for the majority's remedy . . ." We "risk a self-inflicted wound -- a wound that may harm not just the court, but the nation."

TO REACH YOUR SENATORS:
GO TO http://www.senate.gov
OR CALL 202-224-3121.