Maybe you would havesided with the Gang of Five, but don't speak for me -- and you are wrong that I am not looking at this objectively. I think it was a crappy (with a capital C) majority opinion and an intellectually dishonest one at that (not as dishonest as the concurrence, but still abominable). I think the Gang of Five made several huge mistakes and exhibited a form of politically motivated federal judicial activism that is nothing short of mindblowing especially when measured against their usual rhetoric championing federal judicial restraint.
It seems to me that Justice Souter, a lifelong New Hampshire Republican appointed to SCOTUS by Bush Sr., is the judge who exercised the greatest objectivity and independence of thought here -- he agreed with you that there were EP issues that had to be addressed, but he also made the point (compelling I think) that Florida courts could resolve that issue without violating the Federal constitution (indeed, the Federal Courts interfering with that process was something he viewed as violating the Federal constitution) and that Congress was the ultimate decisionmaker appointed for resolving such matters under Title 3 of the US Code and under Article 2 of the Constitution (and that, accordingly, the Supreme Court should have remanded to Florida to let the state election process play out, and left it to Congress to resolve whether it was handled properly once Florida's internal election contest process was complete). Given the partisan make-up of the Congress, the outcome would likely have been the same -- Bush's election -- but at least they would be politically accountable for that decision, AND it would have been made knowing what the recounts showed.
Souter has been called a "liberal" by conservatives (which is pretty laughable), and I know that the radical right is very disappointed with him -- as they are any time a conservative judge actually applies his or her conservatism to respect prior precedent, to exercise restraint, and/or to decline to intervene in a case that does not present a substantial federal issue, when doing that hurts the right wing social agenda (as in respecting Roe v. Wade under the doctrine of stare decisis, or refusing to conjure up a federal issue where none exists in order to hand the election to the GOP candidate. But the fact is that Souter was right here, and was clearly NOT acting out of a political agenda. I suspect he votes with the "liberals" as often as he does because the Rehnquist right wing bloc is so far out of the range of fair or intellectually honest that he (Souter) has no choice. This is and has been an extraoridinarily conservative court -- Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas are downright reactionary, and will often obliterate through principle to achieve a right wing result any time it suits them. And that is what they called "strict constructionism" . . . BS, I say - and the public knows it.
I repeat for the last time -- the only "change in the rules" that has emerged from this horrific process is the notion that getting a manual recount in Florida would prove impossible, and unconstitutional to boot, even in a razor thin election where one of the candidates asked for it in a timely fashion in accordance with every pre-existing state law requirement. It was Bush's legal strategy to bring about this outcome, because the alternative was losing. And that is why Bush will never be viewed as having been elected legitimately by a large percentage of the public.
Hail to the Thief! |
