hen, at 4:01 p.m. Friday, Craig Waters announced that the Florida supreme court — by a 4-to-3 margin — was ordering hand recounts of Florida ballots to continue, one could almost hear the cheer that erupted in the newsroom of the New York Times. And not surprisingly, before anyone got too far into the champagne to celebrate the revival of the last, best hope for the previously doomed Gore campaign, the top staff of that paper turned out an editorial for Saturday morning editions celebrating the triumph of judicial fiat cloaked in populist, if dangerously inaccurate, rhetoric about the "will of the people." A closer read, however, reveals that what the paper was really excited about was the triumph of the rule of lawyers.

Indeed, the Times — which normally buries its editorial enthusiasms under several inches of restrained, moderate, both-sides-of-the-question talk — simply cuts to the chase in this case, and admits what the ruling was all about. "A lightning bolt yesterday from a divided Florida supreme court gave Vice President Al Gore one last chance to come up with the votes that could make him president," the Times writes, admitting by default that the entire recounting process has simply been a Democratic party vote-fishing expedition, "but in acting boldly, the court also acted wisely." Furthermore, lest readers worry that this process has gone on long enough, considering that Gov. Bush has never lost the lead since November 7, the Times reminds us that "Americans … should not lose sight of the democratic principles upon which the republic rests. Paramount among them is the right to vote, and the right to have all votes counted as accurately as possible."

Well, not quite. The American republic was founded on many principles (including the right to bear arms, something that the Times is somewhat less eager to endorse), but the notion that the founders endorsed a one man, one vote system for electing the commander-in-chief is patently absurd. After all, that's why they created the electoral college, an institution which, if Hillary Clinton has her way, will be eliminated soon, allowing her to spend 2004 campaigning in the nation's coastal metropolises, sucking up enough votes to renew her lease on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

But beyond this, it's quite clear that behind all the paper's criticisms of the Bush campaign's "effort[s] to block the tabulation of votes" as "unwarranted and undemocratic," what the Times is really cheering on is the rule of attorneys, whose leaders in the American Trial Lawyers Association are thick as thieves with the Democratic party. While the paper helpfully adds that the standard used for evaluating ballots (a "clear indication of the will of the voter," which can mean just about anything depending on the person interpreting it) rests in Florida law, the editorial's authors ignore other, less convenient aspects of local election law, including the necessity of the results to be certified ten days after the voting stops. (One could only imagine the outrage had a Republican-appointed court ruled similarly for the Texas governor, were roles reversed).

In a profile of the vice president several days ago, Gore was described as holding onto a monomaniacal view that he really, really, really did win the presidency, and that he would be helping Tipper pick out an inaugural ball gown if it weren't for all those pesky rules that said he lost. Now, hoping to get by with a little help from his lawyer friends, he just might able to do just that.

And if this legal Hail Mary play works out, the editors of the Times will be able to breathe a huge sigh of relief.