I'd have bitched and moaned about it, but you still have to follow the decision. Otherwise, the opinions of the Court are meaningless because people will only follow the opinions with which they agree. Part of being in a democracy is following the rule of law, even when you disagree with the outcome of that process.
Now if you think that the rule of law doesn't exist, or that you don't want to follow it, then grab your gun and start your revolution. But you cannot selectively follow rulings of the Supreme Court without becoming a worse hypocrite than the Dems.
Bush v Gore was a tolerable and reasonable ruling. If courts issue intolerable and unreasonable ones they shouldn't have an expectation of those rulings being respected.
From your perspective and mine, it was a reasonable ruling. But from the perspective of the Dems, you're wrong. In which case, Democrats in the armed forces could and should refuse to follow all orders of President Bush and states controlled by Democrats should ignore all federal law. The fact is that the Supreme Court was appointed by Presidents, and its members were confirmed in accordance with Constitutional mandates. So as long as you wish to live in a democracy, you've got to follow even those rulings with which you disagree.
Exactly. But what if the authorities don't follow the rule of law?
There are those who seek to rule extra-legally. If they should succeed in doing so, their illegitmacy would not be any less if the Supreme Court approved.
What if the SOCUS on a 9-0 vote declared the Chief Justice to be president? How about the Chief Justice's brother? Or his best friend? Or a fellow, with whom he has entered into a bargain?
Now if you think that the rule of law doesn't exist, or that you don't want to follow it, then grab your gun and start your revolution.
That would be a mistake.
But you cannot selectively follow rulings of the Supreme Court . . .
That would be a wiser thing than armed rebellion.
From your perspective and mine, (Bush v Gore) was a reasonable ruling. But from the perspective of the Dems, you're wrong.
Most Dems don't like it but the vast majority accept it because it was legitmate. How do you think they would feel if their candidate won according to the law and the law was changed after the fact to give victory to their opponent? They would not accept it and would be right not to. And I would be on their side.
So as long as you wish to live in a democracy, you've got to follow even those rulings with which you disagree.
Is there a limit?