One More Round For Bush v. Gore

[cthrumatrix]

One More Round For Bush v. Gore

By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 16, 2003; Page A01


Just last February, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a dissenter in the historic 2000 election case that handed victory to President Bush, told a law school audience in San Diego that Bush v. Gore was a "one of a kind case," adding: "I doubt it will ever be cited as precedent by the court on anything."

But yesterday, a three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit essentially declared that the legal fallout of the 2000 case is not so easily contained.

In a 66-page unsigned opinion, the panel, made up of Judges Harry Pregerson, Sidney Thomas and Richard Paez, cited Bush v. Gore repeatedly to support the view that California's Oct. 7 gubernatorial recall election would be unconstitutional if the state, as planned, used outmoded punch-card ballot machines like those that contributed to the deadlock in Florida in 2000. The punch-card technology would deny millions of Californians their constitutional right to have their ballots counted fairly, the court ruled.

"In this case, Plaintiffs' Equal Protection Clause claim mirrors the one recently analyzed by the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore," the 9th Circuit observed.

If the panel ruling is not reversed by a larger 9th Circuit body, the Supreme Court justices, for whom the stress and strain -- both personal and institutional -- of 2000 are still a fresh memory, will face a choice. They can stay out of the California case and risk permitting what they may view as a debatable interpretation of Bush v. Gore to stand, or they can plunge in and assume the risk that they will once again be criticized for partisanship no matter what they decide."

snip

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16011-2003Sep15.html

[kodi]

1. it's not partisanship now on trial, but the court's legitimacy itself.

the SCOTUS knew this would happen eventually when a lower court examined the dec 12, 2000 reasoning, regardless of the SCOTUS declaring their ruling not to be taken as precident, but they still went ahead anyway with its politically motivated decision. now they will be hoist by their own petard..... which is french for a fart.

and only the dread scott and plessey v ferguson decisions smelled as bad.

[Meldread]

2. *laugh*

Oohhhh please step in. It'd be the ultimate irony. Perhaps this is karma?

[Booberdawg]

3. It may be the ultimate irony

but I still can't help but fear Scalia won't again agree to hear this case, and that those fuckers won't again pull some *one-time* decision outta their ass.

But, now that I've had the night to think about it, this is not a presidential election but an isolated state election, and perhaps the USSC won't be as willing to squander their reputations this time as they did in Bush v Gore. So maybe I'm being too cynical in this case. (Which I am to a great degree anyway when it comes to Republicans and THIS current administration)

It will sure be interesting to see how this unfolds over the next week.

[Lexingtonian]

4. definitely a judicial act of war

This one really is a sharp stick being aimed in the eye of the USSC Five. The 9th's running battle with the USSC is turning into a spectator sport. They're going to keep on throwing jurisprudential rocks at each other for a while to come.

But I love the political jam-up (I do smell a setup concocted over drinks in a quiet bar in SF). The USSC Five have to decide to either fully screw the whole recall effort (by March the hysteria driving it will have broken down) by doing nothing or stalling, or taking the gulp from the poisoned chalice by intervening.

The choice is going to be O'Connor's- she handles non-routine appeals from the 9th. Boy, there was probably a lot of snickering going in private chambers in the 9th today. The tar baby of Bush vs Gore heaved straight into Sandra Day O'Connor's lap... there are some real evildoers among the 9th's lawyers and judges, and I like it!

Ah well, these are the games these nicely robed old folks play with each other. The winning side gets to write the verdict of political history on the other side, that's the prize they play for. And it's not a nice game at all....

[Gman]

6. Very eloquent

and right on. The SCOTUS is in a no-win situation. If O'Connor and the court turns down the request, there is likely no time to appeal to the full court before Oct 7. And, the court will not have a special hearing before then like they did for CFR as there simply is not enough time.

If O'Connor and the court overturns the decision and allows the Oct 7 recall election, not only will they energize the Democratic base, they will resurrect the memory of Bush v Gore nationally. Even independents can look at Bush v Gore and say that once was a possible fluke. Twice is confirmation that a revolution has occurred.

[Booberdawg]

7. Love your analogy Lexingtonian

it's so ... delightfully wicked. :evilgrin:

[dbt]

5. O'Connor has earned this one

She was an accessory to rape in the Bush v. Gore decision. Now she gets the chance to do it again.

Let her agonize. Let her sweat. Let her go months without a good night's sleep. Let her worry night and day about her "legacy." She's worked for this moment!

She had the chance to do the right thing in December of 2000 and she drank the Kool-Aid.

Aintcha kinda thirsty again, Ma'am?

:hurts:
dbt

[Booberdawg]

8. Actually I'm kinda glad she got this one

as opposed to Scalia or Thomas :scared: