Replies

The USSC decision in Bush v. Gore was actually a bad ruling.

I was here and I disagree as it was the Florida Supreme Court (FSC), 7 Democrat Appointees, that was delaying a certification already signed by the FL Secretary of State and validated by the Florida House. The FSC kept extending the scope and since Gore was having no luck in his selected 'D' counties, they were discussing a hand recount of all Florida Counties.

The USSC waited until the final day allowed by the US Constitution for the state's Electors to meet, vote and transmit to DC. This is first Monday after the second Wednesday of December and in 2000, that was 18 December and that was when the USSC ruled 7-2 that the FSC was DONE!

So the USSC ruling was to stop an inferior court from delaying a certification of Electors, a normal action within the overall US Judicial System. This year of 2020, the Elector Voting day is 14 December and I just hope it is clean and concise!

I can see why you'd feel that way, but keep in mind that it's not the job of the U.S. Supreme Court to deal with rogue legislatures or state courts unless a violation of Federal law is involved.

In elections for President and Congress, the biggest issue at stake involves the potential disenfranchisement of voters -- in violation of Federal laws like the Voting Rights Act and/or Civil Rights Act. The FSC could delay certification for as long as it wanted -- for a thousand years, even. But under the U.S. Constitution it's the responsibility of the state legislature, not a state court, to certify that state's electors.

Interestingly, this is exactly what happened a few years after the 2000 election when the Democratic Party in New Jersey violated the state's own election ballot deadline to replace a crooked U.S. Senator (Robert Torricelli) with a new candidate (Frank Lautenberg) who had a better chance of winning. The New Jersey GOP filed a lawsuit in Federal court over it, but the U.S. Supreme Court refused to take the case because they couldn't stretch their brains to come up with a scenario where this blatant violation of New Jersey law was somehow a matter for the Federal courts.

In effect, the U.S. Supreme Court -- and I believe it was Justice Scalia who wrote the explanation for why they didn't take the case -- said: "If the state legislature lets a political campaign openly violate a state election law like this, then that's a problem for the voters of that state to deal with."