Federal Judge Cites 'Bush v. Gore' in Denying ACLU Request

[Tab]

Note: The key here (from reading the article) is that the Supreme Court ruling was supposed to be a "one-off" ruling, but now it's being applied broadly in this decision

Four years ago, the conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court tried to make its Bush v. Gore ruling a one-ride-only ticket. But now the high court's hugely controversial decision handing the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush has returned to haunt Florida election law.

Ruling in Friedman v. Snipes on Nov. 10, U.S. District Judge Alan Gold invoked the Supreme Court decision in denying a request by the ACLU of Florida for Miami-Dade and Broward counties to count domestic absentee ballots postmarked by Election Day but received after the 7 p.m. deadline.

The Friedman decision shows that the justices' wish to make their hastily crafted opinion just as quickly vanish has not come to pass. It's the latest in a line of cases around the country that are deepening the application of Bush v. Gore's equal-protection analysis to election law and other legal areas.

Given the disparate rules and procedures within states and even within counties, this type of 14th Amendment analysis could pose a growing challenge for elections officials in Florida and nationally.
http://biz.yahoo.com/law/041124/49e81af202f25617607b0a5f3094ddcb_1.html

[signmike]

1. So two wrongs make a right

[zbdent]

2. You idiot! Don't you realize that rules are for lefties/liberals/

Democrats?

[daleo]

3. It will be cited as precedent when useful for Republicans

Otherwise it will be a "one ride ticket". The bus is going straight over the cliff.

[fugue]

4. OK, *now* can we have street protests?

[juliagoolia]

5. I remember the Bush V Gore case had a provision in it

saying that it was a ONE TIME ONLY RULING and should not be used as a precedent!

Someone find that... busy working...here.

[w4rma]

7. "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, as the problem

"Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, as the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."
http://www.geocities.com/dearkandb/supremeqanda.html

[karlrschneider]

8. Well, I suppose they could change their minds...like "activist" jurists

would do, hunh?...
:grr:

[juliagoolia]

6. Well it needs to be pushed up to the USC so they can send it back down ?

[Ernesto]

10. Is time not an issue here?

Are we witnessing a stalling tactic?

[0rganism]

9. The pertinent question being, can the SCOTUS limit its own decisions?

If ever a "conservative" babbles about judicial activism, remind them that Justice Scalia tried to re-write the entire body of common law.

[DireStrike]

11. What the hell? How do we get this guy off the bench?

I don't know anything about this sort of thing. When a judge does something blatantly wrong, how do you remove them?

Would a large protest help?

[Straight Shooter]

12. With Scalia, a protest won't get his attention

Unless everybody is naked and writhing in a large pile of sighing, moaning flesh.

Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1317386,00.html

"Orgies are the way to ease social tensions, claims US judge"