Bush vs. Gore is the litmus test (NY Daily News OpEd)

[AlGore-08.com]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/330083p-282082c.html

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.

It should interest both sides of the Senate, and conservatives and liberals everywhere. In a pure sense, conservatives more, for they have promoted judicial self-restraint and states' rights forever.

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.

(more... )

Note: For those who may be unaware, during the 2000 Florida recount, John Roberts. Jr. gave legal advise to Jeb Bush. It's unknown what his role was, or legal advice he gave. The Dallas Morning News claimed that several (unnamed) Republicans who worked on the recount called Robert's advice "critical".

[bushisanidiot]

1. It would be easy for him to say it was the wrong decision

that way the repukes could claim he is non-partisan. then, obviously, he'd "change his mind" once he's on the bench and has the opportunity to help decide another presidential election.

the key question IS Roe v. wade.

he can't lie about that without inflaming AWOL Bush's base. he HAS to tell the truth.

Roe V. Wade must.. MUST be the litmus test!!!

[On the Road]

2. I Like This as a Wedge Issue

Everyone expects the abortion questions, and nominees have become very good at finessing the questions.

But Bush v. Gore? That's an incindiary issue. He doesn't even have to be asked what his ruling would be -- just what advice he gave to Jeb Bush.

[AlGore-08.com]

3. Exactly - - he has given legal advice in that very case, it's important

To know what advice he gave, and what he personally thought about the decision, because it is totally unprecedented in American history. Roe v. Wade was law before he was commenting on it - - he helped make Bush v. Gore a reality.

Additionally, it's a political "lose-lose" for the nominee. If he says he agrees with it 100%, he makes himself look partisan to liberals, he makes it look like his appointment could be a nice little payoff from Smirk and he puts his legal judgment into question (remember the ruling was so bogus that the Supreme Court wrote into it that it couldn't be used as a precedent for any other ruling). If he says he disagrees with it, even a little, he pisses of the conservatives and they will howl that his legal judgment is suspect.

It's a much better line of attack than even Roe v. Wade, because Roe v. Wade has commonly accepted "duck and cover" answers. Bush v. Gore does not.

[alkaline9]

4. He'll claim attorney client priveledge...

...He's no fool, and he knows how to get around questions like that.

[On the Road]

5. Yeah, You're Right

but there have to be ways that issue can be addressed.

[Uncle Joe]

8. If he does not answer, this will not reflect well on him either. n/t

[yurbud]

7. this is a great no win question. it is an indefensible decision

so if he defends it, he looks like a political hack. If he doesn't, he makes Bush look illegitimate.

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[yurbud]

6. great idea--nominate for greatest, send Q to dems on judicial committee

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog: