How History Will View the Court

Newsweek ^ | 9/17/2001 | Stuart Taylor Jr

[Utah Girl]

Last January, a month after the supreme court handed down its hugely controversial decision in Bush v. Gore

[Arkinsaw]

The only mistake they made was not sending it back to the Florida Legislature. They were correct about the situation but were just a little off on the remedy. The final disposition belonged with the Florida Legislature.

[WomanofStandard]

I guess it's typical for a Newsweek writer to bury the fact that the American public still holds the Supreme Court in high esteem all the way at the end of the 5th paragraph of the article. That way the simpletons who just skim the first couple paragraphs to get their information can stay blissfully uninformed.

[Williams]

"He and many others have suggested that the court?s conservatives would have handed down a far different ruling if Bush had been the one demanding a manual recount, and Gore had been demanding that it be stopped."

And if I accept this logic, I am even more certain that the absurdly liberal members on the Court would have also reversed their positions if Bush had wanted a recount. Aren't all of these critics saying that in fact the conservatives were uncharacteristically liberal in their equal protection analysis -- meaning that the liberal justices were likewise doing a political backflip and being unusually pro states rights?

[TheDon]

...the supreme court handed down its...decision in Bush v. Gore—ending the month-old election stalemate and turning the White House over to George W. Bush

Gee, and here I thought the voters did that. I learn something new each day.

Harvard’s Alan Dershowitz: “The single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history.”

Of course he's critical, he lost! You can't blame him for trying to salvage his reputation. His arguments were pretty pathetic.

[Utah Girl]

Why?

[randog]

The attacks are framed in unusually unflattering terms. Here’s a sample. Yale Law School’s Bruce Ackerman: “A blatantly partisan act, without any legal basis whatsoever.” Harvard’s Alan Dershowitz: “The single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history.” American University’s Jamin Raskin: “Bandits in black robes.”

Who?, Flaming Liberal, and Who?

[Bonaparte]

" It was a matter of state law, and should be left to state courts, as is the tradition, they argue."

Of all the arguments given, this has got to be the most idiotic. Amazing that Taylor let this pass unremarked. The USSC has made innumerable rulings on the constitutionality of state laws for 200 years -- which is exactly what it's supposed to do. That's why it's called the "supreme" court.

[TheDon]

Harvard’s Alan Dershowitz: “The single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history.”

Can you say, Dred Scott?

[BilLies]

Alan Dershowitz: pronounced alan dirz-an-sitz?

[eddie willers]

Legally you are probably correct. The SCOFLA was a runaway, idiotic embarassment in which no one (Harris, Lewis, Sauls et al) agreed...but I think that since they were the (God help us) final say they had the right to do what they did and the Fla. legislature would have had to step forward and sent a new slate of electors.

The outcome was forordained, but the process was going to be bloody.
Unnecessarily so in SCOTUS's majority opinion.

As someone posted at the time, the SC rarely uses their muscle so that it carries weight when they do. They did the right thing, and history will bear them out.

[Alberta's Child]

It may be many things, but I'm not sure I would refer to Dred Scott as a "corrupt" decision. In fact, the case is still considered the law of the land in some circumstances. To this day you can't file suit in a Federal court unless you are a "person."

[Alberta's Child]

I thought the whole point of the SCOTUS decision was that the Florida court's decision represented a blatant attempt to violate the civil rights of large numbers of Florida voters.

If the SCOTUS had made a similar determination that the State of Florida had attempted to disenfranchise large numbers of minority voters, nobody who has been quoted regarding this case (especially Ackerman, Dershowitz, etc.) would think that the correct course of action was to return the case to the state.

[Dog Gone]

They didn't ask THIS conservative lawyer. The Florida Supreme Court made a mockery of election laws by rewriting them after the election. Where is the accompanying story on their outrageous abuse of judicial power?

I will concede that the Supreme Court did not make a beautifully-written decision. They had no time to do so.

Was it the correct decision legally? Absolutely.

Remember, even though liberals are already rewriting history, on the fundamental question the vote was 7-2.

[retiredtexan]

How History Will View the Court

As the media brainwashes the people.

[irish guard]

No offense, but other than the lefties in the media, no one I know is still talking about this crap!

[Always Right]

They didn't ask THIS conservative lawyer. The Florida Supreme Court made a mockery of election laws by rewriting them after the election. Where is the accompanying story on their outrageous abuse of judicial power?

Exactly, the Florida Supreme Court blantantly rewrote the election laws to favor a Gore victory and eliminate (because of time) any chance that Bush could appeal.

I will concede that the Supreme Court did not make a beautifully-written decision. They had no time to do so.

I agree. The Equal Protection arguement was the weakest. The real issue was the violation of federal electon law that prohibits changing the election rules after the fact.

Was it the correct decision legally? Absolutely.

Yep.

Remember, even though liberals are already rewriting history, on the fundamental question the vote was 7-2.

Somehow the media always misses that point. The Florida Supremes were way out of line in their ruling.

[Utah Girl]

No offense taken, but I think the cumulative effect is dangerous. The hardcore Democrats will continue to talk about this until the cows come home. I think they think that since the election was so close last time, that if they can convince 537 voters to change their mind, they'll win the 2004 election. And these kinds of articles will change someone's mind, unfortunately.

[knarf]

" ... The legal academy may still be blasting Bush v. Gore ... "

Is there any significance to the position of names in a 'v' clause?

I always understood the first name was the challenger, and if that's true, then it should read, Honest Voting v Gore.

Gore's attempt to steal the election was noticed (IMHO) here in FreeRepublic!

I remember that night well ... many of us were on Firetalk and when Florida was called for Gore, it was Freeper GRRRR who calmed us all down noting that it wasn't even 8 PM and there was no way Florida could be called for anyone because part of the state was in Central time zone.

Florida's official state site hadn't posted any returns, so it was clear ( to us anyway), that an attempt was being made to sway the left coast with the Florida announcement.

As I think I remember ... it was Freepers that started the protest going with calling the TV statuions and lambasting them for their audacity. There might even have been a couple of legal eagles 'making some powerful statements' (I don't know ... just guessing).

Again, I think it wasn't for some time that the GW team got going with countering this blatant attempt at forging a president.

[knarf]

O great !!!

"I remember that night well ... "

and

"As I think I remember ... "

Somebody pass me my meds ... I'm fading fast!