Which is what happened Monday as the Florida Supreme Court agreed to charge into the eye of the electoral hurricane wreaking havoc on the political world. Even the dueling former secretaries of state -- Warren Christopher for the D's, James Baker for the R's -- sat front row, silent as church mice.

At 2 p.m., the court began hearing arguments from attorneys representing Vice President Al Gore and his allies, who are pressing for a hand recount of ballots (and maybe even more litigation after that, and still more after that!), and those standing in for Gov. George W. Bush, who has anointed himself president and doesn't want to let anyone, especially voters, get in the way.

"It seems as though the court's concerns were really focused on the practical," said professor Terence Anderson of the University of Miami School of Law.

After being introduced with a great big "Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye," the seven Democrat-appointed, robe-clad justices spilled out onto the bench one by one. The chief justice settled first into his chair in the center, followed by the justice who sits to his immediate right, then the justice who sits to his immediate left, and so on, right, left, right, left -- a well-choreographed presentation. But despite this display of aplomb, they were all business, with little tolerance for the kind of blather both sides have been contributing to the national discourse.

"I would ... like for the lawyers to have an understanding that the court considered" the many filings and counterfilings the various barristers had dropped on them, Chief Justice Charles Wells said. "Since we have a limited amount of time, we would ask that we get right to the heart of the matter as you see it, because we are fully cognizant of the facts and the procedures that ... have now brought you here."

Despite that warning, Paul Hancock, who was representing Democratic Attorney General Bob Butterworth, ran up to the bench with a bucket of rhetoric. "The court has previously referred to the attorney general as 'the people's attorney,'" Hancock said. "I stand here on behalf of the attorney general in that capacity ... The right to vote is perhaps the most cherished right in our democracy. The real parties and interests in this lawsuit are not the presidential candidates nor the parties that support them --"

"Mr. Hancock, excuse me for interrupting," Wells said. "I would really like counsel on both sides to pay attention to a concern of mine." Wells then spelled out the reason, in his mind, everyone was there: to figure out if there is any real way this mess can be resolved.

The justices were interested in the law -- specifically in how they could possibly come to terms with conflicting statutes that allow for hand recounts but also mandate a deadline for certifying votes. And they did not seem all that impressed with the mostly brilliant, often egomaniacal attorneys before them. They just wanted answers.

"Tell me when Florida's electoral vote would be in jeopardy," Wells asked attorneys from both sides -- as if he were trying to devise a solution. Wells and other justices expressed serious concern that any protracted legal battle would deprive Florida of representation in the Electoral College, which meets on Dec. 18.

The justices seemed set on reconciling the matter -- if possible. Assuming that the hand recounts should be included in the Florida vote tally, how can that be reconciled with last Tuesday's 5 p.m. certification deadline? Would any proactive ruling infringe upon the separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches of the Florida state government? Since the court didn't necessarily have clear jurisdiction over the matter, would it be better for it to allow the vote tallies to be certified -- at which point Gore's team could officially "contest" the election?

Salon News A Salon-eye view of the day's news, with investigative reports, analysis and interviews with newsmakers.