Many Americans remember the SJC's taking up the Bush v. Gore case and making a decision that through the election to Bush as one of the darkest days of the Republic. It struck many Americans as a partisan vote where the Court stepped egregiously outside its bounds in deciding an election.
Everything we've seen since suggests that the SJC itself doesn't look upon that decision as it's best work. It was more or less made clear that the case was make no precedent-that it would never be applied to any other case for any other reason.
This view was underscored recently when Sandra Day O'Connor-who infamously at the time was quoted as crying 'this is terrible' when she heard that initially the election had been thrown to Gore-before Florida turned-wondered if perhaps they made the wrong choice after all. She wondered if maybe the Court should have refused to hear it at all, and most would agree with her in retrospect.
Today, however, Clarence Thomas broke new ground by using Bush v. Gore in his dissent from a 7-2 court ruling against Arizona's voter id law.
"Monday marked the first time ever that Bush v. Gore was cited by a Supreme Court justice in an opinion since the controversial 2000 decision that settled the presidential election."
"Justice Clarence Thomas cited the case in his dissent in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council, a case involving a voting law in Arizona. No other justice joined his dissent. Here's what Thomas wrote in his footnote:
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/supreme-court-cites-bush-v-gore-for-first?ref=fpb
It's fitting that this dishonourable decision should be used to buttress another dishonorable law; the intent of both were to disenfranchise Americans.
Sobering after we were just discussing Iran's desire to blot out the 2009 election which was also believed by many to have been stolen. We wish the Iranian people luck with their new moderate President-they and he will need it as the system still gives uneven power to the clerics.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/06/a-big-victory-for-moderates-in-iran.html
It's rather arresting that our 226 year old democracy just had our one 2009 so recently.
P.S. This was my first day at my new job I mentioned last week-a home improvement company out in Melville. It works out well in that it's not too far from my night job. However, the challenge will be how much time I get for posting during the week.
The hope is 3 posts a day during the week with considerably more on Saturday and Sundays, but we'll see.
Everything we've seen since suggests that the SJC itself doesn't look upon that decision as it's best work. It was more or less made clear that the case was make no precedent-that it would never be applied to any other case for any other reason.
This view was underscored recently when Sandra Day O'Connor-who infamously at the time was quoted as crying 'this is terrible' when she heard that initially the election had been thrown to Gore-before Florida turned-wondered if perhaps they made the wrong choice after all. She wondered if maybe the Court should have refused to hear it at all, and most would agree with her in retrospect.
Today, however, Clarence Thomas broke new ground by using Bush v. Gore in his dissent from a 7-2 court ruling against Arizona's voter id law.
"Monday marked the first time ever that Bush v. Gore was cited by a Supreme Court justice in an opinion since the controversial 2000 decision that settled the presidential election."
"Justice Clarence Thomas cited the case in his dissent in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council, a case involving a voting law in Arizona. No other justice joined his dissent. Here's what Thomas wrote in his footnote:
The NVRA’s “accept and use” requirement applies to all federal elections, even presidential elections... This Court has recognized, however, that “the state legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing [presidential] electors is plenary; it may, if it chooses, select the electors itself.” Bush v. Gore, 531 U. S. 98, 104 (2000)"The citation was caught by Pepperdine law professor Derek T. Muller and amplified in blog posts by court watchers Josh Blackman and Rick Hasen -- the latter two observed that no Supreme Court justice has ever cited Bush v. Gore since the case."
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/supreme-court-cites-bush-v-gore-for-first?ref=fpb
It's fitting that this dishonourable decision should be used to buttress another dishonorable law; the intent of both were to disenfranchise Americans.
Sobering after we were just discussing Iran's desire to blot out the 2009 election which was also believed by many to have been stolen. We wish the Iranian people luck with their new moderate President-they and he will need it as the system still gives uneven power to the clerics.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/06/a-big-victory-for-moderates-in-iran.html
It's rather arresting that our 226 year old democracy just had our one 2009 so recently.
P.S. This was my first day at my new job I mentioned last week-a home improvement company out in Melville. It works out well in that it's not too far from my night job. However, the challenge will be how much time I get for posting during the week.
The hope is 3 posts a day during the week with considerably more on Saturday and Sundays, but we'll see.
My dear Brother of truth, I appreciate you. You are on the job and that us what we need..the truth. Thank you Brother..sincerely.
ReplyDeleteeaglefeather43
That means so much to me Eagle! Thank you oh so much for your support!
Delete