GOPers Cite Bush v. Gore For Possible Coleman Win

[babylonsister]

:wow: The guy lost. What is their problem?


http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/03/senate-gopers-cite-bush-v-gore-for-possible-coleman-win.php?ref=fp3

Senate GOPers Cite Bush v. Gore For Possible Coleman Win
By Eric Kleefeld - March 17, 2009, 10:07AM


Three words seem to be on the minds of Senate Republicans, looking for a way to get a Norm Coleman victory: "Bush v. Gore."

This all comes from the case made by the Coleman campaign that Minnesota's county officials committed a constitutional violation by varying in different ways from the state's official uniform standards of admitting or rejecting absentee ballots. Indeed, the Coleman legal team alleges that the counties violated the equal protection clause, and that the judges violated the due process clause by imposing strict standards for any additional ballots during the trial.

The Politico reports that NRSC chairman John Cornyn said: "The Supreme Court in 2000 said in Bush v. Gore that there is an equal protection element of making sure there is a uniform standard by which votes are counted or not counted, and I think that's a very serious concern in this instance." Other Senate Republicans, including Mitch McConnell, Jeff Sessions and Lindsey Graham, have also spoken approvingly of a Bush v. Gore approach.

This is actually different from the cited issue in Florida in 2000 -- which involved a lack of uniform standards to determine voter intent on disputed ballots -- because Minnesota law already solved that problem by sending challenged ballots to the state canvassing board for adjudication last December. And on top of that, this issue goes back to Election Day itself, not just the recount. On the other hand, though, it does provide an opening for more litigation.

Another fun thing about the Bush v. Gore ruling is that the majority opinion contains the following: "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities." In plain English, the five Supreme Court Justices declared that their ruling was not to be taken as a precedent for interpreting the law in the future. We may well find out just how binding that statement was.

[Fumesucker]

1. BZZZZT... WRONG..

The SCOTUS *specifically* said that Bush v Gore COULD NOT be used as precedent..

[county worker]

2. Didn't the supremes say this was a one time decision and was not to set precedent?

[Winterblues]

6. Yes they did even though the entire purpose of the Court is to establish precedent.

Bush* v Gore is the only case in the History of the Extreme Court that does not establish Precedent. The only way they could rule for Bush* and not disrupt every single voting precinct in America was to claim it was a one time decision only and could not be used for Legal Precedent. Every single state has a different method for voting and actually most precincts are different in some manner or another. If that case had established Precedent then every election in America could be contested and halted because of it.

[Fovea]

3. Time to change the Senate rules

51 votes for cloture.

[RoBear]

4. Right!!!

The rules were changed from 67 to 61.

Time to adjust them again...

[RoBear]

5. Right!!!

The rules were changed from 67 to 61.

Time to adjust them again...

[pscot]

7. Send in the Clowns?

I can't believe the Supremes would want to touch this one.
If they overturned what's likely to be a unanimous decision by the Minnnessota Supreme Court, there would be no way to finesse the overtly political nature of the verdict.
It would invite a re-examination of the constitutionally dubious Bush v Gore decision, in a vastly different, and potentially hostile, media environment. The blogs would simply explode.
It would also step on a constitutionally mandated Senate prerogative, and invite an embarrassing slap-down from the Senate.
What's in it for them?

McConnell and Cornyn are just blowing smoke.

[AndyTiedye]

8. Bush v. Gore = Twist the Law Any Way You Have To, But Rule for the Repiggies

And yes, they most likely WILL do it again.

[babylonsister]

9. Bingo. This is their transparency. nt