October 28, 2004

A Look Back at Bush vs. Gore

Vanity Fair Supreme Court Bush vs. Gore Article

Posted by DeLong at October 28, 2004 08:31 AM | TrackBack

Terry Gross has posted her interview with David Margolick (author of the Vanity Fair articles on the Supremes and Bush v Gore) at http://freshair.npr.org/day_fa.jhtml?display=day&todayDate=10/27/2004

Posted by: David at October 28, 2004 08:52 AM

I read the Vanity Fair piece when Digby linked to it a few weeks back. It's pretty damned devastating.

One recent commentator (can't remember who) said the Supreme Court's staying out of it this time, come hell or high water. I hope he's right. The gist of his argument was that the public backlash from their decision in Bush v. Gore caught them completely by surprise in 2000, but this time they realize that deciding the election again could ruin the Court's reputation, not just for a few years, but for a long time to come.

May it be so.

Posted by: RT at October 28, 2004 09:07 AM

The thing that really bothers me about this article is the disgusting way the republican judges acted. The legal system is not perfect, but in the usual case, clever drafting conceals the result-oriented thuggery of Scalia and Thomas. Not this time. And the discussion of the process offered by the clerks simply confirms what everyone knows, that this was a purely political decision.

There are two touchstones for this view. First, no one believes that this would have been the outcome if Gore had been ahead. Second, there is the inane "equal protection" argument. On this analysis, no election qualifies. Poor districts have worse machines than wealthy districts. Counting standards vary across the country, as the hanging chad cases showed. Some districts have enough polling places, enough poll workers and election officials, and others don't. Some districts have incompetent ballot designers, and some do not. Some have paper trails, others do not. The Supreme Court will eventually have to deal with this.

And last for this comment, is the pathetic attempt of the republican judges to limit the precedential effect of the decision. The staggering intellectual dishonesty of this move simply is beyond imagining. This was the first of the many things about our new age of republicanism that made me shrill, and by the stars, it still does.

Posted by: masaccio at October 28, 2004 04:39 PM

And then there's the poll of the real swing voters ....

Posted by: lightning at October 28, 2004 07:47 PM