![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chipotleFrom The New Republic:
Regardless of whether or not you agree with Bush v. Gore this is an important--and disturbing--article. Author Jeffrey Rosen argues persuasively that it wasn't the "one-of-a-kind case" that the justices portrayed it as when it was decided. It's already been invoked in elections by both Republicans and Democrats alike, and both the Bush and Kerry campaigns have made preparations for legal battles over it already this time.
(You can use "dailykos" as both username and password for the TNR's annoying registration system if you don't have an account.)
Every contested election in the country is now vulnerable to being resolved by [the United States Supreme Court]. And the fact that they attempted in Bush v. Gore to deny the obvious implications of their intrusion into the political process only makes their intervention more reckless. Did they really believe they could create a right to political equality without defining it, in an age when society disagrees so vigorously about what equality requires? Did they imagine for a moment that Democrats and Republicans would meekly tug their forelocks rather than use electoral litigation as a partisan tool? And did they think that courts could presume to recast themselves as election supervisors without calling their own impartiality into question?
Regardless of whether or not you agree with Bush v. Gore this is an important--and disturbing--article. Author Jeffrey Rosen argues persuasively that it wasn't the "one-of-a-kind case" that the justices portrayed it as when it was decided. It's already been invoked in elections by both Republicans and Democrats alike, and both the Bush and Kerry campaigns have made preparations for legal battles over it already this time.
(You can use "dailykos" as both username and password for the TNR's annoying registration system if you don't have an account.)
