Does Bush v. Gore allow losing TX Dems to sue DeLay for irreparable harm?

[Vinnie From Indy]

n/t

[John Q. Citizen]

1. No, unfortunatly n/t

[bahrbearian]

2. Lets hope so

First must have a conviction and not a plea barter.

[whistle]

3. That's up to the courts

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

4. Bush V Gore does not set precedent for anything

It can't be cited

[PurityOfEssence]

6. Which is the ugliest and most transparent thing about that edict

It was a tacit admission of ham-fisted thievery, and it should be shouted from the rooftops.

Just as Starr sealed his fate of never getting to sit on the court, Scalia and Thomas gave up any chance to be the Chief Justice; nobody would ever allow either to go through a confirmation hearing after the shameful partisan trampling of state's rights to throw an election.

[Toots]

5. Gore was not sued for irreparable harm.

Bush* received a stay of execution on counting the votes by saying he suffered irreparable harm. How he could have suffered any more than Gore is anyone's guess since the votes had not yet been counted or certified. The only one/s who actually were hurt and did suffer were the voters themselves. He filed charges on the vote being unconstitutional because all voter precincts were not counted in the same manner so were not equal. No state in the Union could meet that ruling and that is why the Extreme court said this case should not ever be used as precedent even though that is the entire purpose of the Supreme Court (to establish precedent) There has never been a case, not one until Bush* vs Gore that was not used for precedent. Never not one.

[Uncle Joe]

7. Bush was correct in one thing , if the votes had actually been counted,

he would have been harmed by losing the election and Al would be in the White House where he belongs. On the other hand, the nation would not have been harmed by Bush's corruption and incompetence.