Roberts: Bush v. Gore is the litmus test

[pat_k]

Note: This has also been posted on the Justice, Courts & The Law (link) and DU Activist Headquarters (link) threads. Posting here at the request of shelley806.

----------------------------
Bush vs. Gore is the litmus test
Sidney Zion
NY Daily News

Don't bother John Roberts about Roe vs. Wade. Make him tell us what he thinks about Bush vs. Gore.

That's the key question, and the answer will advise the Senate and the country as to his bona fides, advertised as a jurist who will read the Constitution as written and never legislate from the bench...

And what decision in our history was more contemptuous of both than Bush vs. Gore? That 5-to-4 ruling, which ran against everything the Rehnquist Five stood for, put George W. Bush in the White House. It was nothing less than a judicial coup d'état, and it embarrassed principled conservatives as it outraged liberals...

"A bolt out of the blue," said Prof. Cass Sunstein of the University of Chicago Law School, a supporter of the Rehnquist Court. "There is no precedent for it . . . a real embarrassment, the worst moment for the court . . ."

See also this TableTalk post.

Call to Action

Fax Zion's Article to Schumer (Fax in DC: 202-228-3027; Fax in NY: 212-486-7693)... and others on the Committee if you can.

Patrick J. Leahy (VT) Ranking Dem
DC Phone: [phone]
DC Fax: [phone]
Burlington Phone: [phone]
Burlington Fax: Not Available?

Edward M. Kennedy (MA)
DC Phone: [phone]
DC Fax: [phone]
Boston Phone: Voice: 617-565-3170
Boston FAX: Not Currently Available

Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (DE)
DC Phone: [phone]
DC Fax: [phone]
Wilmington Phone: [phone]
Wilmington FAX: [phone]

Herbert Kohl (WI)
DC Phone: [phone]
DC Fax: [phone]
Milwaukee Phone: [phone]
Milwaukee FAX: Not Currently Available

Dianne Feinstein (CA)
DC Phone: [phone]
DC Fax: [phone]
SF Phone: [phone]
SF Fax: [phone]

Russell D. Feingold (WI)
DC Phone: [phone]
DC Fax: [phone]
Milwaukee Phone: [phone]
Milwaukee FAX: Not Currently Available

Charles E. Schumer (NY)
DC Phone: [phone]
DC Fax: [phone]
NYC Phone: [phone]
NYC Fax: [phone]

Richard J. Durbin (IL)
DC Phone: [phone]
DC Fax: [phone]
Chicago Phone: [phone]
Chicago FAX: [phone]

And While you are at it:

Harry Reid

DC Fax: [phone]
Las Vegas Phone: [phone]
Las Vegas Fax: [phone]

[UT troll]

1. What about the dissenters?

Did their opinion not go against the views of the dissenting 4? There's no point on focusing on this case when both sides did the same thing.

[ieoeja]

8. Actually, no, it did not go against their views.

The ruling in Bush v Gore went against Conservative ideologies of strict constructionism and States Rights.

Strict constructionism means the letter of the law overrides intent, spirit and just plain commonsense. In Bush v Gore the dissenting opinion not only agreed with the letter of the law/constitution, it also agreed with intent, spirit and commonsense. Which made the dissenting opinion both Conservative and Liberal.

Conservatives define States Rights as meaning the State has the right to any power not delegated to the federal government, even when using this power to undermine Civil Rights. Liberals believe that Civil Rights override States Rights**. In Bush v Gore the State was acting in accord with Civil Rights. As a result the USSC ruling went against both the Conservative concept of States Rights and the Liberal concept of Civil Rights. Again, the dissenting opinion was both Conservative and Liberal.


**The last four words of the 10th Amendment read, "or to the people". You will never hear a Conservative quote the full 10th Amendment for that reason.

[kenny blankenship]

11. Somewhat confused there

In Bush v. Gore the majority held that there was a 14th Amendment right (that is an individual right to equal protection and/or due process) that was being violated by the State of Florida (and by implication also being violated by practically every other state in every other election ever held), namely the right to have the same standard for determining the status of one's disputed vote no matter which county of the state you lived in. The process of inspecting flawed ballots and determing the presence of a vote was subject to county by county laws in FLorida--as it was practically everywhere else in the country. This was a practice unchallenged in 30+ years of civil rights legislation and litigation. The Constitution says that states are in charge of the time place and manner of elections not the Federal Government; however the Constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 had been affirmed by previous courts, which gave the Federal Government a sanctioned role in ensuring that elections managed by states were free of racial bias (or any other bias against a group that might plausibly appeal a state law under the 14th Amendment--a group with a provable history of being discriminated against in law).

In this, let's say unexpected, application of the 14th Amendment, the Rehnquist court either declined or neglected to state WHAT group was supposed to be suffering from invidious discrimination due to the existence of differing standards for resolving disputed votes. They couldn't say for the simple reason that there's no way to tell what kind of person cast the ballot under inspection. But this was the figleaf used to stop the recount and (ironically) to deny everyone in Florida with an as yet uncounted or uninspected ballot their chance to have their vote recorded.

The confusion is that the Rehnquist court issued an injunction based on a specious, broad-brushed application of the 14th Amendment, running roughshod over the "state's right" to run their own state elections in the name of Federal protection of individual rights. It was the Federal bench that decided to invoke the 14th Amendment and expand federally protected civil rights--in a very politicized way of course. It reverses the prefered balance, that the Rehnquist court was always known for, of tending to give more weight to arguments grounded in state's rights over the expansive Federalization of issues, via the 14th Amendment (or other clauses used to expand the scope of Federal Law). You are very correct that the SCOTUS was abandoning it's preference for strict construction and state's rights; but the state wasn't lined up on the other side innovating on behalf of civil rights of individuals. It was merely following ancient Anglo-Saxon traditions of locally supervised elections which --in a rare twist for Anglo-Saxon traditions-- weren't really discriminating against anyone.

[pat_k]

2. Shameless promotion -- request to recommend

If you agree, please recommend for for greatest page

[melissinha]

3. Recommended

Cause this is, for me... the most important issue.... why did ANYONE THINK it was fair to ask a group of nine people to decide the OUTCOME of an election? WE WERE FUCKING ROBBED!!!!!! They KNEW it woudl be decided 5-4, and O'Connor didn't want some democrat to appoint her sucessor, so she casts aside JUSTICE and voted along party lines...

Frankly I am still livid over this.... and livid over the fact that it was ok for Blackwell to stonewall the investigations into OH's election fraud.

[MelissaB]

4. And I'm piling on!

Nine people decided the outcome of an election...shame on them, and shame on this asshole for being part of it.

[AntiCoup2K4]

5. What does Roberts think of the Coup? Didn't he help finance it?

I seem to remember reading several times in the last few days that he contributed $1000 to the Chimp after November 7,2000, which means he was willingly and directly financing the electoral fraud that took place in Florida.

[dajoki]

9. two links to his role in 2000 recount

read them and you'll know where he is comming from. he donated & advised http://www.pacifica.org/programs/dn/050720.html http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/21/politics/21florida.html

[Geek_Girl]

13. He was just probably trying

to ensure his future career as a Supreme court judge.

[Vincardog]

6. If unconstitutional unconscionable acts by the SCOTUS is not the issue What

is? Recommended

[mark11727]

7. Sooner or later, everything you do comes back to bite you in the ass...

Good night, Mister Roberts.

[Supersedeas]

10. Legislating from the Bench when Politically Coooooonnnnnvenient

[grumpy old fart]

12. Bush v. Gore is the perfect follow-up to any anti Roe "States Rights" B.S.

These stone agers (see McCain in Tweety last night) who always hide behind the "state rights" B.S. on the abortion issue should always be asked the followup question of Bush v. Gore, which decided an issue based on their "interpretation" of purely Florida law. Funny, this never seems to come up in the MSM.

[Senator]

14. kick

[shelley806]

15. This is SO important...kick......eom for now...

[shelley806]

16. Shamelessly kicking....Bush vs. Gore...NOT or BOTH Roe vs. Wade..

[Time for change]

17. I agree that the Bush v. Gore decision had no basis in law whatsoever

And I honestly believe that the 5 scumbuckets who voted for it should be tried for treason.

But I don't see what Roberts has to do with it.

[pat_k]

18. None Dare Call it Treason

Bugliosi's case against the Felonious Five -- a source of plenty of questions for Roberts.

None Dare Call it Treason
by VINCENT BUGLIOSI

Published in the February 5, 2001 issue of The Nation.

[shelley806]

19. Kick...let's revive this issue...eom

[shelley806]

20. Kick again..n/t

[Z_I_Peevey]

21. Hear, hear.

kickus kickus