Reply #16: Supreme Court would not behave any differently [View All]

[OrwellwasRight]

While Kennedy and O'Connor are known as the swing voters on the court, that does not mean they are not Conservative and Republican at heart. They are both. They do, however, relish the idea of holding the controlling vote. It allows them to put their own imprint on US law in a way that Scalia's reactionary rants sometimes just can't do (because his extreme positions do not always attract a majority of the votes).

But the fact that these two love the spotlight does not mean that we, as Dems, should have any faith that they will save us from the illegal, fraudulent tactics of the NeoCons.

Case in point: The Pennsylvania redistricting case (Vieth v. Jubelier): The Supreme Court let stand new lines for US Congressional distrcts that were written solely for partisan advantage. The lines split cities and counties, paid no attention to historical Congressional district lines, and had a single purpose: to maximize Republican representation in Congress. I was lucky enough to watch the oral arguments. The Republican side did not even try to deny the political purpose of the new lines. Instead, they simply emphasized how difficult it would be for the Court to determine how much political motivation was too much. The tactic worked. The Court, finding it too difficult to set a standard, let the new districts pass Constitutional muster.

They will likely do the same here. If there is an argument that "black box" voting machines contained flawed algorithms that miscounted Democratic votes, the Court, lacking a way to test that theory (because there is no paper trail and no way to recount), will let it stand. An accusation of systematic voter intimidation against blacks, Hispanics, or other minorities? Again, no way to determine how much impact that had on the result, so the Court will let the Bush victory stand.

And, because an honest, open, legitimate politics are values at the heart of the people who support the Democratic party, any fraud that occurs is not likely to come from us.

In sum, because of the Court's fear of not being able to enforce tough decisions (this fear goes back to Marbury v. Madison), it will throw the election to the purported winner (Bush).

And don't count on the Court to use its cowardice to benefit Kerry. Consider this statistic from Harper's Magazine: the chance that a Republican has won the Presidency has without winning the popular vote is 1 in 6, but a Democratic candidate has NEVER become president without winning the popular vote.

Unfortunately, if the election gets to the courts again, it is because the fraud already happened, and my cynicism tells me that by then it will be too late.

The only thing that we can count on is a HUGE Dem turnout and a massive rejection of the politics of fear. Such a decisive victory cannot be denied, and I do not think the American people will let it be denied. If you can do anything to help this turnout--do it!! Give five more dollars. Make one more hour of GOTV phone calls. Go on one more bus trip to a swing state. Talk to your Republican friend about the election one more time.

If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality. - Bishop Desmond Tutu