According to Nelson Lund, former law clerk to Justice O'Connor and associate counsel to George H. W. Bush, a dissenter might argue that the Florida Supreme Court on remand in "Harris I" was discussing the "protest provisions of the Florida Election Code, whereas the issues in "Bush v. Gore" arose under the contest provisions." In retort to himself, Lund writes that the Florida court's decision in the contest case did not mention any alternative possible deadlines. Peter Berkowitz writes, "Perhaps it would have been more generous for the Court to have asked the Florida court on remand whether 'outside deadline' referred to contest-period as well as protest-period recounts." Abner Greene points to evidence that "the Florida Supreme Court thought all manual recounts – whether protest or contest – must be completed no later than December 12." Nevertheless, Greene concludes "lack of clarity about the Florida Supreme Court's views on the safe-harbor provision should have resulted in a remand to that court for clarification," in addition to the remand of December 4. The Court in "Bush v. Gore" did remand the case instead of dismissing it, but the remand did not include another request for clarification. Louise Weinberg argues that even giving the U.S. Supreme Court the benefit of the doubt that it acted appropriately in intervening in Florida state law, its actions should be deemed unconstitutional because its intervention was not coupled with any kind of remedy aimed at determining the actual outcome of the election.