Salon: Florida All Over Again?

[kskiska]

Partisan infighting, a crucial election, dubious voting machines -- now it's California, and the Rehnquist gang may decide this one, too.

(snip)

The conservatives on the Supreme Court "walked right into this," said Georgetown University law professor Mark Tushnet. By inserting themselves into the presidential election -- and by doing it using a doctrine they normally would not have embraced -- the justices opened themselves up to questions about their political motivations, he said.

And by slavishly following the Bush vs. Gore decision, the Ninth Circuit judges may have forced the Supreme Court justices into an awkward dance of explaining why Bush vs. Gore doesn't really mean what it says. "The Ninth Circuit is sometimes most controversial not when it flaunts Supreme Court authority but when it takes the Supreme Court's words and starts running with them in ways that five justices don't want them to go," said Hasting law professor Vikram Amar.

The Ninth Circuit judges seemed to do a bit of that Monday. They quoted frequently and at length from Bush vs. Gore, and they threw in other taunts at the Republicans as well. In a nod to other Florida 2000 controversies, they noted that the rushed nature of the California recall will make it difficult for voters serving in the military to have their ballots back in California in time to be counted. And in what appeared to be a fairly gratuitous reference to the war in Iraq, the judges noted the importance of modeling good democratic behavior for citizens of foreign lands at this "critical time" in history.

It all seemed like an intentional effort to pick a fight with the Supreme Court's conservatives. And on some level, at least, legal experts predicted that the Supreme Court will take the bait. Richard Epstein, a professor of law at the University of Chicago and a fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution, said he thinks it is likely that Supreme Court will reverse the Ninth Circuit decision almost immediately. While he is no fan of Bush vs. Gore, he said the Ninth Circuit's decision is even worse. "This is a case of judges taking a bad decision and extending it in a grotesque fashion," Epstein said.

more…
http://salon.com/news/feature/2003/09/16/court/index.html

[Sliverofhope]

1. Would this be a net positive,

in that the Supreme Court would uphold more democratic principles in order to strike down 9th circuit?

[joeybee12]

2. Great Coverage of this on NBC News tonight

They interviewed a "legal expert" who said the ruling should stand "If the Supreme Court meant what it said in Bush v Gore, and it looks like we're gonna find out if they really did mean it."

Whta a great slam--if those five twits rule AGAINST it, then they're saying they were just fooling! That ruling (the Supreme Court's in Bush v Gore) was such a crock of s**t!

[diplomats]

3. If they do overrule it

I hope the Dems make a huge issue out of it. And the whole case makes them revisit Bush v. Gore, something I'm sure they and the WH don't want. This could get verrryyy interesting.

[ozymandius]

14. Indeed!

This would be tantamount to the Supreme Court reversing its decision on Bush v. Gore should the high court rule against the 9th. With such a collossal mistake and all members responsible for the 2000 ruling still present on the high court's bench, the 9th Circuit may yet provide the catalyst for the Supreme Court's own political coup. If we were to extrapolate the meanings of such a reversal, it would lend further credibility to Bush's rhetorical status as an illegitimate president.

It cannot be with benevolent temperament that the 9th quoted the Bush v. Gore decision so frequently.

The question here comes down to the Supreme Court's credibility on this issue. I would love to hear what's going on in the chambers of the Supremos right now.

[PAMod]

4. If the SCOTUS overturns this decision, it will mobilize CA Democrats

like nothing ever has.

It will be obvious to everyone that they are putting politics above the rule of law.

Whichever way they go, its a win for us.

[diplomats]

5. Yes

I knew someday Bush v. Gore would come back to bite the GOP's ass. What goes around comes around. BTW, I think if the Supremes overturn it, Dems everywhere will be galvanized, not just in Calif.

[Gloria]

6. This is a case of judges taking a bad decision and extending it in a grote

Ha Ha! I call it sticking it to, 'em!!! The SC got political, why not these circuit judges? It's an eye for an eye, as far as I can see...

The irony of quoting the SC decision and throwing it back at them---delicious!!

[neuvocat]

7. My...oh...my!

It seems the Supremes really blundered on this. That is what they get for being typical repukes: never thinking things through on the choices they've made.

Oh how delicious.

[sonias]

8. Brilliant play by the Ninth Circuit Court

It didn't take very long for the Bush v Gore case to get thrown back at the SCOTUS. Now they have to defend it all over again and it won't be pretty. Especially loved the Ninth Court throwing back the need to make allowances for the military vote and setting a good example for Iraq democracy. Ha Ha.

This is good for California because it does tie in with everything Clinton and Davis have been saying all along about power grabs since the impeachment. This really does have the effect of re-opening the 2000 election wound for the whole country. Not that is wasn't an open sore for all of us here, but at least now we replay it nationally. Let's keep those cheating liars front and center. Remember the guy in the WH really didn't win the election, and his party is the party making a mess of this country.

This is why I like Salon magazine. I like to see this kind of analysis which we don't see in the mainstream media. Thank you Salon.

Sonia

[AndyTiedye]

9. How the SCOTUS will rule

They will order the election to proceed, of course.
They'll apply the Gore v. Bush "no-precedent" rule retroactively to all the decisions they referred to in support of that decision,
declare that "States Rights" may only be applied in favor of the Republicans,
and accept their role as loyal members of the Party.

Why should Wrenchquist and Skallywag care what anybody thinks?

[Democat]

10. This is interesting timing right before the 2004 campaign

Hopefully this will remind every Democratic voter of how Bush got into the White House.

[Democat]

11. Great quote from Democrat Brad Sherman

Democratic Rep. Brad Sherman issued a statement Monday afternoon predicting the future machinations of White House strategist Karl Rove and conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. "If Karl Rove wants the election to take place on October 7, Scalia will redefine the doctrines announced in Bush v. Gore to read as he always wanted them to read: Voters have an equal protection right to have their votes counted accurately and the federal courts should intervene to enforce these rights when, and only when, court action is consistent with the needs of the Republican party."

[The Backlash Cometh]

12. Wonderful article.

It gave background information that changed my persepective entirely.

[starroute]

13. A fellow at the Hoover Institution is hardly an objective source

http://seas.stanford.edu/diso/articles/hoover2.html

Stanford’s Shame: The Hoover Institution
by John F. Manley

September 10, 1999

Hoover’s political role gained notoriety when the Institution boasted that it was Ronald Reagan’s favorite think tank, a well-documented claim that probably enhanced Hoover’s fundraising. Recently, the New York Times noted a "particularly heavy representation from the Hoover Institution" among George W. Bush’s advisors. Candidates come and go: the Republican cause continues.

When the contradiction between Hoover’s mission and the University’s has been exposed, Hoover’s defenders have resorted to a number of disingenuous arguments. Former Provost Condolezza Rice, who has resumed her connection with Hoover, admitted to the Daily last spring that the Hoover’s neoliberal, market-orientated approach could be called conservative, but said she would be loath to characterize the Institution. "I think you have to look at the individuals," she said.

This is standard Hoover fare. On the one hand, Hoover touts itself and raised millions of dollars as a leading conservative think tank. When challenged, defenders say not everyone at the Hoover agrees on everything: there are even some Democrats on the roster; and liberal views are sometimes heard.

Do not be fooled by this. Hoover’s own mission statement declares its commitment to the "private enterprise" system: "Ours is a system where the Federal Government should undertake no governmental, social or economic action, except where the local government, or the people, cannot undertake it for themselves..." The statement goes on to say this "Institution is not, and most not be, a mere library." Small wonder Hoover Director John Raisan claimed a large share of the credit for Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America, heralded the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress, admitted that only generally conservative scholars "fit well" at Hoover, and recently appointed Gingrich a Distinguished Visiting Fellow.