Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: jlallen who wrote (8236)	9/16/2003 12:35:41 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) of 793793

From a strictly legal standpoint, I agree with Erwin Chemerinsky's take on Gore v. Bush. In a nutshell, the case was not justiciable because it involved a political question. The SC should have exercised self-restraint and not heard the case at all. See "Bush v. Gore Was Not Justiciable." 76 Notre Dame Law Review 1093 (2001). Chemerinsky inhabits a different political planet than the one I live on, so in my view his thoughts concerning SC self-restraint are colored by his politics. I nevertheless agree with when I put on a lawyer's hat and think exclusively in legal terms. But if I did so, Gore would have been President, not a good thing as far as I'm concerned. From a political standpoint, I agree with....me. Thank God the SC took the case and made W President, though I cannot reconcile the decision to hear the case with established legal authorities as I appreciate them. Law and politics make strange bedfellows. To suggest that there is a clear line of demarcation between the two is a waste of time. The Ninth Circuit made that clear when it failed to refuse to hear the recall case.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next