Bush v Gore May Come Back to Haunt the Voter Suppressionists

[Judi Lynn]

April 8, 2016
Bush v Gore May Come Back to Haunt the Voter Suppressionists

by Ronald L.M. Goldman

As we approach another Presidential election, it is well to revisit the impact of Bush v. Gore.

In December 2000, the U. S. Supreme Court did not merely decide another case: it anointed a president while the vote count was still underway. The ostensible legal argument was based on Equal Protection of the Law. It said two things that were and are extraordinary:

(1) The Supreme Court of Florida was not guaranteeing equal protection for its State’s voters because, it argued, different counties used different criteria to determine the intent of the voter, thus, astonishingly imposing the solution to stop the vote count in its tracks while the vote count “happened” to favor Bush, an unprecedented and stunning incursion into State governance of elections, and

(2) its opinion is “limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.”

More:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/08/bush-v-gore-may-come-back-to-haunt-the-voter-suppressionists/

[silvershadow]

1. Let us hope so, and hope someone uses it, and fast. I'm not sure our country can withstand

too much more of what has been delivered to us thus far by the PTB.

[snot]

2. Been wondering about this.

Logically, the "it is not legal precedent" would seem to make their decision unavailable as a basis for future decisions. But logically, if the rationale in Bush v. Gore was not fit a fit basis for future decisions, how can it have been right to rely on in Bush v. Gore?

And let's face it: what should the law be?

[Festivito]

3. Isn't it more convoluted than that. SCOTUS decided to allow counting.

They just sat on their decision for days until 10PM before the deadline, then relaying for the TV that Florida could count their six-million votes, if they completed it before the Florida set deadline that midnight.

SCOTUS seems to say that the courts can stop counting to the degree that the vote might not be counted. That their right to adjudicate trumps the right to count the vote.

Sounds to me like Marbury versus Madison expanded rather than a decision on equal protection.