Back to the subject:
The conclusion that emerges, in my view, is that several members of the Court—perhaps a majority—were determined to overturn any ruling of the Florida Supreme Court that was favorable to Vice President Gore, at least if that ruling significantly enhanced the Vice President’s chances of winning the election. They acted on the basis of strong intuitions—which, as I said, is by no means necessarily inappropriate in itself—but the intuitions were intuitions about the outcome, not about the law. The specific legal questions presented in the litigation were shifting, complex, and esoteric. It is hard to see how the Justices could have strong legal intuitions about any of those specific questions. To the extent those questions raised familiar broad issues—like federalism and the relationship between the courts and the political process—the majority’s reaction in this litigation contradicted their normal inclinations. During the litigation, the Justices in the majority appear to have accepted, at one time or another, four different arguments offered by Governor Bush’s lawyers, all of which were questionable—one of which, based on 3 USC § 5, [1] even the majority subsequently abandoned—but which had one common element: they required that the Florida Supreme Court be reversed. On the crucial remedial question that ensured Governor Bush’s election, the majority’s decision appears to be simply indefensible. And the majority opinion insisted that its rationale was to be applied, essentially, only in this case—basically conceding that the result, not the legal principle, dictated the outcome.
press-pubs.uchicago.edu
And your argument? Slavery is somehow related?!? LOL.
The partisan argument is for the empty headed... you are a perfect example. No substance, just passion without logic. Sports fans have better justifications for their prejudice.
Go Cheney yourself.
John |
