Bush v. Gore, Ticking Bomb

[dave502d]

On Dec. 12, 2000, the Supreme Court decided Bush v. Gore, ending the Florida fiasco and guaranteeing George W. Bush's election. Shortly thereafter the conservative National Review, which was pleased by the ruling's consequence but queasy about the reasoning that produced it, issued a warning, the prescience of which might become excruciatingly evident on Wednesday, Nov. 3. Noting that the court's "dubious argument" that standardless, selective hand counts in Florida violated the Constitution's guarantee of "equal protection of the laws," National Review said:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/102404C.shtml

[noiretextatique]

1. since the decision was exclusively for *

who is more likely to invoke it, if necessary?

[meti57b]

2. The case was really: The American People v. The Bush Campaign.

[ThoughtCriminal]

3. Yeah it's a loaded gun

But much of the article is a conservative attack on the FL Supreme Court.

The majority ruling in Bush v Gore, was pretty much "make up some stuff so Bush wins" rather than valid legal reasoning. They have to be dreading trying to keep the reasoning consistant with the next round of lawsuits, especially if ends up favoring Kerry.

Last night I mentioned in a thread that the candidates might find 2004 more complicated because there are likely to be contridictory lawsuits on bith sides - force recall here, stop recount there.

One of the lessons from 2000 for Democrats: Don't just go for recounts where we think there's an advantage. Always demand that all the votes be counted and stick to it.

[Soup Bean]

4. That article was wholly depressing.

Think of it...a President Dennis Hastert.