Media headlines, top stories, commentary and opinion are replete with the contentious deadlock in Florida over the presidential election. But now, as is too often the case, none of it really matters because selfish interests have gone to the courts. They simply cannot get their way any other way.

Indeed, that is why the courts have gained so much strength, thus undoing the balance of power and disenfranchising the sovereignty of the people, their elected executives and representatives in government. Moreover, the legal and political game has long been reduced to only two players: The Democratic Party and the Republican Party, and their lawyers.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court of Florida and of all the states are filled with political appointments by the governors. Other than Minnesota, all state governors are either Democrat or Republican. And, of course, the United State Supreme Court and the federal benches are filled by either a Democratic or Republican president and confirmed by a partisan Senate.

So, it came as no surprise when the Democratic Florida Supreme Court ruled (Republicans say legislated) in favor of Democrats in the presidential election ballot re-count fiasco. However, now that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the Republican's case, the stakes of the game have been raised to the highest level.

Considering America's judicial history, one thing is certain. The courts have not only become activists, the Supreme Court has a long record of landmark, legislative-like, decisions usurping power from the states and from the people. And this Court is overdue on making history.

Make no mistake. In effect, the Supreme Court will probably choose the 43rd President of the United States. Indeed, as long as people view the courts as "Black Robes on White Horses," they will continue to be reckless in what they wish for.

In the end, however, the justices of the Supreme Court might wish they had paid more attention to denied petitions asking them to prohibit the two-party system from controlling elections and government, which would have made all elections and government nonpartisan. And in doing so, it would have given the Court its best legacy for democracy, the republic and the Constitution.

Still, the Court will have another chance. A new petition is forthcoming...

Daniel B. Jeffs, founder
The Direct Democracy Center