Replies

“The issue is how to get out of the New York system and bring the case to the Supreme Court, which may or may not take it up,” Levin wrote on Thursday night. “That is why I look to Bush v Gore, where the S Ct decided to step in BECAUSE it was a presidential election.”

The problem is that the USSC was WRONG to grant a hearing to Bush v. Gore, and to top it off, it was wrongly decided.

The "presidential election" that people want the USSC to intervene in does not exist in the US Constitution.

If the Court had (correctly) used the non-justiceable political question doctrine and refused to hear the case, the normal Article II and Amendment XII processes would have taken place.

There was ZERO possibility, had that happened, that Al Gore could have become President (unless Republicans elected him). There was a small possibility that Joe Lieberman could have become VP (as one of three possible outcomes).

The Court overstepped, NOT in my opinion as partisans but as power hungry officials who achieved what was never intended - Federal control over the processes by which States appoint Electors.

THe WHOLE REASON there is an Electoral College, to this day, is to reserve appointment of an incoming administration to the States rather than to the National government.

The "presidential election" that people want the USSC to intervene in does not exist in the US Constitution.

This is so wrong as to defy belief. Did you actually read the constitution. Aritcle 3 Secion 2 "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution..." Violation of constitutional rights is a constitutional issue. In Bush v Gore the Constitutional issue was equal protection, e.g. equal treatment of each lawful vote.