Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Former SCOTUS justice Sandra Day O'Connor now thinks that her vote to end the Florida recount in Bush v Gore might have been a mistake. Wow, ya think?   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, Florida Recount, Sinead O'Connor, U.S. Supreme Court, justice Sandra, mistakes, justices  
•       •       •

2419 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Apr 2013 at 11:57 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



159 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-30 02:08:45 AM  

Radioactive Ass: BMulligan: So in other words, then, no? I thought not. That's because, your disingenuous twaddle notwithstanding, there is literally no other such Supreme Court opinion.

That call was quite cromulent. By saying that this case should not be used as a precedent allowed for future cases with similar issues to be fast tracked to the USSC in the future like this one was should they occur. Otherwise some lower level judge might be able to cite it and derail the process according to his or her own political prejudices. By making it clearly beyond citation the USSC reserved the sole right (properly in my opinion) to settle disputes over federal elections and conflicting state or appellate level judgements.


Really. And that doesn't seem to you like a bit of the old "ultra vires"?
 
2013-04-30 02:11:59 AM  

EyeballKid: She and any other Supreme Court justices responsible for the verdicts in Bush v. Gore or Citizens United are fully deserving of a loud and hearty "f*ck you" from anybody who comes in contact with them.


Gore is even dumber than Bush and possibly Obama, so, um, fark him.
 
2013-04-30 02:59:31 AM  

BMulligan: Really. And that doesn't seem to you like a bit of the old "ultra vires"?


Beyond what powers? Federal elections transcend state laws as established at a minimum by the decisions regarding Poll Taxes. Either states are allowed to decide election laws regarding Federal (decidedly not state) positions without federal oversight or they are not. You don't get to pick and choose when they can and cannot apply at the state level for federal offices depending upon how you want the results to go. The USSC decision and exclusion from priori left it up to the USSC should they decide to take it up again in a future election and it helps to force a future USSC with an unknown makeup to look at it under a new lens instead of going back to the previous decision and relying upon that to decide under the cloak of no discussion on the record.
 
2013-04-30 07:01:12 AM  

cman: EyeballKid: She and any other Supreme Court justices responsible for the verdicts in Bush v. Gore or Citizens United are fully deserving of a loud and hearty "f*ck you" from anybody who comes in contact with them.

What about Kelo?


Kelo, distasteful as the repercussions are, was the right call to stay within historical jurisprudence. It seems stupid bad from a small lens, but the legislation to stop such actions has been (and should be) a state prerogative  Right now 27 states have laws specifically forbidding the use of eminent domain as it was done in Kelo, which is the right way to stop such.
 
2013-04-30 09:09:07 AM  
The St. Pete Times and the Miami Herald, both not exactly right-wing rags, conducted recounts that showed Bush winning.  I voted Gore (and then Nader), but it's time to turn the page.  Bush won, America lost, time to move on.
 
2013-04-30 10:08:12 AM  

BMulligan: Cataholic: BMulligan: Cataholic: Lochsteppe: pute kisses like a man: FTA:
Legal experts have noted that the Court has not cited the decision even once since it was made, which some interpret as a testament to its soundness.

to people really interpret that as soundness?

I'm a lawyer, and I like to go after cases that are cited like crazy. To me, the fact that a case is ubiquitously cited gives it more credit than some one hit wonder.  (so long as the citations are not negative)

Didn't the SC explicitly preface the whole thing with (paraphrasing) "Don't ever cite this for anything else, but..."?

Appellate courts do this all the time.  The vast majority of the rulings and opinions they make are designated as "not to be published."  Although you will see a lawyer trot one of those out from time to time in order to make a point, it's very bad form to try and use them as any sort of precedent.  The Supreme Court doesn't have the luxury of going the "not to be published" route because all of their opinions are published.  However, they sometimes get cases which haven't been thoroughly fleshed out through the traditional appellate process and as a result will try to narrowly tailor the decision.  They aren't saying "this is a bad decision," but rather, "this situation isn't a good case for us to be making new law....but we have to rule on it anyway."

Perhaps you could point to an example of another such Supreme Court opinion?

With a few spare hours and my Westlaw account...I probably could.  None of them would be worded as bluntly as this one, but the sentiment is there.  Sometimes it would manifest itself in a terse per curium opinion.  As the saying goes, "bad cases make bad law."

So in other words, then, no? I thought not. That's because, your disingenuous twaddle notwithstanding, there is literally no other such Supreme Court opinion.


Orin Kerr says it much better than I.

http://www.volokh.com/posts/1164087982.shtml
 
2013-04-30 12:39:33 PM  

El Pachuco: There is a near-zero chance that Gore would have used 9/11 as a pretext for the US invasion of Iraq.


Half or more of the Democratic Party was on board with invasion and for the very reasons of WMD and ties to terrorism. I don't see why Gore would have gone against the prevailing winds in this situation.
 
2013-04-30 01:35:58 PM  

jigger: El Pachuco: There is a near-zero chance that Gore would have used 9/11 as a pretext for the US invasion of Iraq.

Half or more of the Democratic Party was on board with invasion and for the very reasons of WMD and ties to terrorism. I don't see why Gore would have gone against the prevailing winds in this situation.


you keep telling yourself that.. and we'll keep unskewing the color of the sky, for you.
 
2013-04-30 05:41:21 PM  

nekom: It doesn't really make much difference, as far as I've seen no one has ever been able to even manufacture a Gore victory in Florida, even those with a mind set to do just that.  Under the system in place at the time, and yes the SCOTUS was part of that system, Bush won.  There really is no other way to spin that.  Now if you want to argue that the electoral college is stupid, I fully agree with that, but it IS what we have, for some reason.


I'm perfectly happy to admit that, when all was said and done, Bush really was the winner. That's fine.

Where I have a problem was with the naked partisanship that attempted (and, ultimately, succeeded at) circumventing having a proper recount. I think that this is especially the case with Katherine Harris' shenanigans. I don't think that it's plausible to look at her actions, dispassionately, without concluding that she was doing her level best to deliver a Bush win regardless of the counts.

It's merely a bitter irony of history that if they had just a  little more confidence in themselves and the democratic process, the result would have been what they wanted, anyway.
 
Displayed 9 of 159 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report