I think you miss the point. The SC was missing up to this stage on the electoral issue because no cases of this nature were ever brought before them.
The fact is, everything you said is correct. However, unless someone complains ENOUGH, the SC agrees to hear their complaint, and a ruling can be made, then issues such as this will remain undetermined.
I think this is a very good ruling. Unfortunately for Gore, it's not good for him based on the time frames in place. However, it is a reasonable and well thought out ruling to base future electoral reforms upon.
Justice Stevens is correct, but only because he was stupid enough to state the obvious. Sometimes things are better left unsaid. EVERYONE knows courts are impartial. HOWEVER, they are only partial to a very minor degree. The 5-4 split on a few of these topics makes that clear. On the bigger issues of due process and equal protection, the vote was 7-2. And not along Rep/Dem lines, since Breyer joined the majority on that one.
There are only 2 Dem appointees on the court now. Stevens and Souter may as well be Dem appointees (who said Bush was a partial President when he appointed Souter???).
I think that if you want to point to partiality, you have to look to the Fl Supreme Court. That was the most blatantly partial act of decision making ever. The USSC is at least willing to admit that recounts should occur, but need to conform to consistent laws. The only partial thing about their decision is the time frame issue...something they, unfortunately, had no control over. |
