The day democracy was defeated
Supreme Court
gets political
and calls a halt
to the recount
The U.S. Supreme Court
reversed the Florida high
court Saturday, ordering a
halt of the hand counting of
undervote ballots across the
state.
By Eric Alterman
MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR
Dec. 9 — So this is how it ends. Not with a bang or
a whimper, but with a 5-4 Supreme Court
decision to prevent a fair Florida count.
Post a Letter to the Editor on this BBS
It’s hard to
exaggerate just how
badly this decision
damages the
potential legitimacy
of a Bush
presidency.
AL GORE MAY be forgiven for wondering if the
prevailing majority on Supreme Court — one of whose
members were appointed by his opponent’s father — might
not be doing its own voting in this election. The court’s
shocking willingness to consider overturning a state election
law seems designed to facilitate the Bush team strategy of
running out the clock under all circumstances. For what could
possibly be the harm to the nation in allowing a manual recount
to proceed before the court heard arguments on Monday
morning?
WHO WILL ACCEPT THIS?
Should the U.S.
Supreme Court have
halted the recount in
Florida?
Yes.
No.
Vote to see results
Obviously, a fair and complete recount, as ordered by the
Supreme Court of Florida would harm nothing except the
perception that George Bush had won this election. It would
be a great deal more embarrassing, and politically, far more
costly, for the justices to set aside a count that demonstrated
that Gore had beaten Bush in Florida. Justice Antonin Scalia,
one of George W. Bush’s professed legal heroes admitted as
much, when, in a rare rebuke of his dissenting colleagues from
the bench, he wrote, “Count first, and rule upon legality
afterwards, is not a recipe for producing election results that
have the public acceptance democratic stability requires.”
How’s that for a first-class entry into the Hall of Fame of
Orwellian doublespeak? This from a set of right-wing justices
who profess a philosophical opposition to judicial activism.
Never in the past hundred years has any federal court asserted
itself into a state election law in this manner. And now, the
court’s strategem will smooth a path toward a Bush victory no
matter how it rules. If the court overturns the Florida Supreme
Court decision of Friday, well then, that’s the last chance the
fat lady gets to sing in this production. The original partisan
certification of Bush campaign co-chair, Florida Secretary of
State Katherine Harris will stand as law, making Bush our next
president.
Not giving up
Dec. 9 — Ron Klain and David Boies,
attorneys for Al Gore, intend to make
their arguments Monday before the
Supreme Court. But it may be too late.
BUSH WINS, DEMOCRACY LOSES
With the
intervention of the
court, Bush and
company may
succeed in
short-circuiting the
counting process
sufficiently to get
himself in the back
door of the Oval
Office.
The most infuriating aspect of the Supreme Court’s
political intervention is the fact that even if it decides not to
reverse the Florida court’s extremely tightly argued opinion, its
tactical endorsement of a stay of the recount may decide the
election anyway. With the Dec. 12 deadline looming for the
appointment of electors to the Electoral College, a recount will
become practically impossible no matter what the court rules.
The state legislature, working with the tacit assent if not the
actual instructions of the candidate’s own brother, Gov. Jeb
Bush, will meet next week and chose its own slate of
pro-Bush electors, claiming that the Dec. 12 deadline forces
its hands. Bush wins, democracy loses.
It’s hard to exaggerate just how badly this decision
damages the potential legitimacy of a Bush presidency. Using
the power of the federal judiciary to overturn state law is bad
enough for any conservative candidate who professes to value
local control over the encroachment of Washington. But what
would we say about another nation’s election process if it
rested on the political machinations of justices appointed by
the candidates father and his father’s running mate, coupled
with a state legislature overseen by his brother? Now imagine
that this same candidate lost the nationwide popular vote and
appeared, at the time of the court ruling, to be on his way to
losing the state vote as well. Calling such a country a “Banana
Republic” would be unfair to both bananas and republics.
Loaded for bear
Dec. 9 — An exultant James A. Baker
says Bush’s lawyers are ’ready to go’
Monday.
TARNISHED CREDENTIALS
To call this a
banana republic
does a disservice to
both bananas and
republics.
We would say, at the very least, that this is an illegitimate
leader whose democratic credentials to speak for his nation
are tarnished beyond repair. Let the pundits and wise men call
for an end to partisan recrimination and bygones being
bygones. The sad truth is that genuine democracy is most
easily lost when we pay tribute to its trappings as we disregard
its substance. George Bush lost the popular vote and looked
to be on his way to losing the Electoral College as well.
With the intervention of
the court, Bush and
company may succeed in
short-circuiting the counting
process sufficiently to get
himself in the back door of
the Oval Office. But his presidency will forever be tainted in
the eyes of those who believe democracy entails more than
just finding a way — any way — to keep the other guy’s
votes from mattering in the final count.
Eric Alterman is a columnist for The Nation and a regular
contributor to MSNBC. |
