Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (35504)	7/31/2002 1:39:05 PM
From: Bill	Respond to of 281500

The USSC overturned the Fla SC which overturned Fla District Court election results. 7-2 and 5-4. But my point was that electoral votes decide the election, notwithstanding the fact that many democrats like to talk about the popular vote these days. If popular vote were the deciding factor, campaigns would be run much differently, and all the votes in every state would be counted. Fini.

To: JohnM who wrote (35504)	7/31/2002 4:43:53 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

This incarnation of the Supremes, in a series of 5-4 votes, has been a rabid states rights activist court. Not saying this well, but I'm in a hurry. But they reversed themselves on the proverbial dime in the Bush vs. Gore case, arguing against the actions of a state Supreme Court. Not hardly. Most of the ardent critics of the Bush v. Gore decision have argued that the decision violates the majority’s oft-stated jurisprudential commitments. The conservatives have stated a preference for relying on explicit textual statements and well settled precedent and a solicitude for state power. However, the majority has NEVER stated that state action, including state court action, is not subject to federal court review for compliance with the US Constitution. In point of fact, the conservative majority often votes to reverse state court actions on grounds which it finds offensive to the US Constitution. The conservative majority has struck down state action in many “takings” cases under the Fifth Amendment. And shortly prior to Bush v. Gore, the same majority had reversed the NJ Supreme Court in the Boy Scout case on First Amendment grounds. The similarity with the Boy Scout decision is exact. The USSC struck down a state court interpretation of state law on the grounds that it offended the US Constitution. It is also untrue that the majority was consistently hostile to using the equal protection clause to strike down state actions. The equal protection clause has been used by this majority in voting rights cases and in placing limits on affirmative action. The conservative majority may interpret this clause differently than their more liberal counterparts but it still serves as a constraint on state action and it is not inconsistently applied in Bush v. Gore. And while the Court owed great deference to the interpretation of the FLSC’s view of FL law, that deference does not extend to those cases where federal law requires the USSC to ensure that state courts have reached a reasonable interpretation of that law. The implication of this charge has been that the majority was driven by a self interested political motive. That motive has been alleged to be that a conservative President would appoint like minded justices to the Court. It is impossible for any of us to know what exactly was in the minds of the majority, but the failure of most critics to actively engage the reasoning in the decision might lead a cynic to conclude this was the premise the critics proceeded from rather than a conclusion they reached. One wonders if these critics have considered how easy it might be for those cynics to point to potent partisan interests of the accusers. Many critics of the decision were staunch supporters of the previous Democrat administration. Just my .02.