I think we should reconsider the Supreme Court deciding the election.

[rockymountaindem]

Yes, last time the SC sided with Bush for whatever reason. Lots of people here are saying things like "well, if this or that gets into the Supreme Court we'll lose". I beg to differ. We all know people who didn't realize how bad Bush would be. I'm one of them. At the time, I thought Gore would most definately have been better, and I was very disappointed that he didn't become President. On the other hand, I remember thinking "How bad could it be, really?"

Now we all know better. So I've been thinking that if the election does end up in the Supreme Court again, such as on a voter disenfranchisement issue, or Colorado's EC vote splitting initiative, we may win this time. I say this because Sandra Day O'Connor may have and a change of heart and realizes now that Bush is worse then we thought he would be. Perhaps this time we could win on a 5-4 decision if it came down to that. Does anyone else feel this way?

[BattyDem]

1. I've thought about that ...

and I think you may be right about O'Connor, but ...

I do NOT want this to go to the SC! Let's face it ... if Kerry is appointed by them he'll never have a chance. The RW and the media will give him hell! They're not going to roll over and play dead like the Dems did. Kerry will be finished before he even starts. :-(

[rockymountaindem]

2. Of course.

I want Kerry to kick all ass this Tuesday. But if the other side tries to do any funny business, they might not get the outcome they were hoping for, is all I'm saying.

[unblock]

3. it was ALWAYS an illegal usurping of congressional power

the constitution very clearly gives the states the power to choose their electors, and the house and senate to resolve disputes in the presidential and vice-presidential elections, respectively.

the supreme court arrogated for itself to the powers reserved for the chambers of congress.

in theory, the florida supreme court should have stuck to its guns and refused to reverse its rulings, but that's sort of thing is very difficult for any institution to do.

[tedoll78]

4. I think Kennedy would be more likely to flip.

I heard an author on NPR's "Fresh Air" who says that court clerks in 2000 remember O'Connor just wanting to "find any way to stop the recount" (I'm paraphrasing). Meanwhile, some clerks claim that Ginsburg and Stevens feel that Justice Kennedy could've been swayed if they had had more time.

I hope that Kerry's lawyers know this. They need to target Justice Kennedy during their arguments.

(side note: kinda scary that we're already discussing this..)

[fugue]

5. I think O'Connor would flip

During the 2000 election, I heard she wanted Bush to win because she wanted to retire but didn't want a Democrat choosing her successor.

And yet . . . she's still on the court. To me, this implies that she now doesn't want Bush picking her successor.

[punpirate]

6. You give the cons on the Supreme Court...

... too much credit for sensitivity. If it's close enough to go the SC, it will go to Bush.

BTW, the hanging chad in the 2000 vote wasn't Sandra Day O'Connor. It was Kennedy. I doubt she'd be inclined to buck the others now.

But, given the prospect for nationwide civil disobedience this time around, I don't think the Supreme Court is going to step in. If it goes to the court, my guess is that they'll send it down to a friendly appeals court rather than hear the case themselves. The only thing that may change that is if Scalia forces the issue, and then the other justices may rule in opposition to him out of spite.

It seems certain that Rove & Co. will press every legal route possible, and then try going directly to the SC. The court took a lot of heat for its truly warped legal reasoning in 2000, and my best guess is that they're a little gun-shy this time around.