The hottest ticket in Washington today was for the Supremes - but Diana Ross was nowhere to be found.  Instead, seven men and two women, seven Republicans and two Democrats, are center stage at the U.S. Supreme Court.

It's truly an all-star game. Appearing for the good guys is Laurence Tribe - Harvard Law professor and author of the definitive treatise on constitutional law. Appearing for the Banana Republicans: Theodore Olson-Brilliant attorney, darling of the right, F.O.K.S. (Friend of Ken Starr). Olson argued before the Supreme Court that women should be excluded from the Virginia Military Institute (he lost) and that the University of Texas affirmative action regime was unconstitutional (he won).

Despite their impressive careers, neither man has ever argued a case like this. No one has. Of course, at its most basic, this is really a simple case of statutory construction. The Florida Supreme Court was asked to reconcile two conflicting state statues - one that sets a firm deadline of 5 p.m. one week after the election to report results; another that allows for manual recounts - which could easily take longer than a week. The Supreme Court of Florida did its job: It interpreted those two conflicting provisions, concluding (sensibly) that housekeeping provisions like deadlines are less important than the fundamental fairness of carefully counting all the votes.

Candidate Bush based his campaign on a call to "trust the people." The Post-election Bush proclaims "Trust the machines." Candidate Bush pledged to devolve power to state and local governments. Post Election Bush asks Washington to set aside the Florida Court's interpretation of Florida Law. Candidate Bush pledged unity and healing. Post- election Bush sends thugs to intimidate vote-counters. Candidate Bush spoke of honor and integrity. Post-election Bush slams honest citizens counting votes and honorable justices interpreting the law.

And the hypocrisy doesn't stop there. In documents filed in state court yesterday, Bush makes the following claims - all in a desperate effort to stop the vote-counting:

* Al Gore was not a candidate in the election (I'm not making this up. Bush claims that although Gore's name was on the ballot, his electors were the real candidates).

* Even though only 10,750 ballots from Miami-Dade are at issue, over two million ballots should be examined.

* If we're going to recount any votes, we should recount the whole state (this from the guy who rejected Gore's offer to do just that).

* Bush needs to call 95 witness to dispute Gore's contest of the reported results.

* The Gore has been too hesitant about filing legal claims.

These are frivolous claims from a frivolous man. It's simply impossible to take junior seriously. Whether it's his hostage-tape performances on television, his spurious and hypocritical legal claims, or his thuggish political tactics, Bush has pursued power in such a way as to prove himself unworthy of it.

I don't agree with those who say that the U.S. Supreme will resolve the entire election controversy in this case. For starters, the procedural context is wrong: the case came to the court during the "protest" phase - before the results were certified. So even if one side loses, they'll have ample opportunity to press their case during the post-certification "contest" phase.

What I'm looking for are signs of hypocrisy from the right-wing justices. Having been praised by Bush and criticized by Gore, Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia will be hard-pressed to be objective. Together with Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas have crusaded for greater deference to the rights of states vis-à-vis the federal government. Now they're being asked to adopt the very sort of judicial activism they claim to abhor.

So while this case is unlikely to determine the outcome of the election, it will go a long way toward defining Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas in the history of jurisprudence. If they are true to their principles, they'll uphold the right of the Florida Supreme Court to interpret Florida law without meddling from Washington. But if they go the other way, History will say they were little more than results-oriented partisans, embracing or eschewing whatever legal philosophy it takes to give their right-wing patrons the power they crave...Banana Republicans in black robes.
 

As the man says at each session of the Supremes: "God save this honorable court."