Think about it: The Supreme Court is faced with a situation where the law is on one side (Gore) and the political and economic forces are on the other (Bush). Any decision they make can only serve to delegitimize themselves and the system they represent. So they have upheld their authority by temporarily abdicating it. As Nina Tottenberg put it (accurately, I think), the Supremes "are telling the politicians to settle it themselves," i.e., ignore the rule of law and decide it through naked exercise of power--while granting them phony legal cover. Gore will simply "run out of time" (so much like those capital cases for which all involved have such fondness).
Gore lost ever since he and the Clinton Justice Department refused to investigate systemic racist voter exclusion. But this would have brought on a Dem crisis. Although they are happy to take black votes, they cannot be seen as publicly defending black people's civil rights in any meaningful way, as this will make the Dems "unelectable," or so the current leadership thinks.
BTW, I admit that Gore would probably still have lost if he had challenged systemic race-based voter exclusions. But it would have been an honorable battle with long-term benefits for the country, and probably for the Democratic Party. It may have precipitated a crisis over an issue of justice, a crisis which this place so badly needs. It would have made Gore's so-far useless career and blinkered ambitions worthwhile, to a certain extent. But I guess it's a character thing...
----Original Message Follows---- From: "Lisa & Ian Murray" <seamus at accessone.com> Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com To: "Lbo-Talk at Lists. Panix. Com" <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Subject: Ambiguity as legal decision making Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 08:57:10 -0800
[this is priceless. if any of us had written this stuff as an answer to an exam question we would have flunked. no wonder they didn't sign it.]
December 4, 2000
Supreme Court Sets Aside Florida Supreme Court in Ballot Case By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S. Supreme Court set aside the Florida Supreme Court decision on Monday that had let hand-counted ballots narrow George W. Bush's lead over Al Gore in the state that will decide the presidency.
In an unsigned decision, the justices said there was uncertainty about the Florida court's grounds for issuing its ruling that allowed hand-recounted votes to be added to the total.
"This is sufficient reason for us to decline at this time to review the federal questions asserted to be present" by Bush's appeal, the justices said.
"After reviewing the opinion of the Florida Supreme Court, we find that there is considerable uncertainty as to the precise grounds for the decision," the court added.
Bush lawyer Fred H. Bartlit said he had not yet seen the ruling but was familiar with it. "Apparently what they said as near as we can make out is that they can't figure out what the Florida Supreme Court based its decision on, whether Constitutional grounds or Florida state laws." http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/04/politics/05CND-VOTE.html
_____________________________________________________________________________________ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com