At the least the Supremes were wise enough to clearly state that the decision didn't set a precedent. Why is that?
I don't know where you got the idea Bush v. Gore "can't be used as precedent". It IS being cited now. For example, it was cited 20 times in the case between Franken and Coleman.
The Court said:
“Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances,” the majority famously said, “for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.”
Early on, some took that to mean the case should not be cited, but today, it is being pretty heavily cited in election law. The Coleman v. Franken case is one instance but there are many others.
I think it is correct that any Supreme Court decision sets a precedent that can be used in the right circumstances, so long as it hasn't been overturned by a later decision, which Bush v. Gore hasn't. The Court can't just say, "You can't use this case as precedent" and have it stick; if the circumstances are similar, that case can always be cited. While the Court can include language that limits the VALUE as precedent, I don't see how they could exclude its use if the facts in a case warrant it.
At any rate, it IS precedent and even if the Court ATTEMPTED to limit the decision's applicability it is gaining strength as precedent and will continue to do so. Ultimately, I suspect it is a landmark decision in the field of election law.
As usual, you're wrong. Again. |
