Question about Bush V Gore for the "evil" trial lawyers among us

[DaveSZ]

Let's say Kerry wins a close election and the Bushies want to do a recount.

Would Bush V Gore stop them from doing this, or do you think the hacks on the SC would reverse that ruling to help Bush?

Thanks.

:)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. Ruling was without certiorari...can't be used in subsequent cases

[HFishbine]

5. That's correct -- all you need to know.

The court knew that what it was doing was so bogus, that it insisted that Bush v. Gore was never to be used as precedent. It just exists in it's own little world.

[kaitykaity]

2. Do they even have a full court back yet?

I heard that Rehnquist was "supposed" to be back
Monday after a tracheotomy or some shit, but I haven't
heard anything else.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. Evil Former Trial Lawyer here...

One of the many peculiarities of Bush v. Gore (one of the most poorly-reasoned, disingenous pieces of crap ever produced by any court) was its explicit statement that its holding only applied to those particular facts -- in other words, it wasn't intended to serve as precedent for later cases. (Of course, this just adds to the argument that the Court never should have granted certiorari in the first place, because cert. is granted only where the case presents a substantial federal constitutional question that is likely to have broad application -- but don't get me started on how horribly this case sucks and how the Supremes whored themselves for Bush.) So the Court would have to get way down on their knees again to try to justify using Bush v. Gore as precendent for another batch of tripe.

[ClintonTyree]

4. They can make up.............

a totally new excuse this time. I wonder what it will be, you KNOW it's going to come if it's within reach of them stealing it, AGAIN!