Political Legacy & Family

So do I get an award or what?

nighttimer said:

Like five Republican Supreme Court judges overturning the will of the majority of American voters isn't a power grab, plain and simple?

Click to expand...

No. We are a nation of laws, not a nation of mob rule. And it is the Supreme Court's obligation to interpret our laws. (Notice that I did NOT say it's their job -- or the job of any other court in the land, for that matter -- to legislate from the bench.)

Suppose the majority of American voters decided it It was now perfectly acceptable to kill children under the age of 2, because they're not really people. (There are "scientist" out there who have made that kind of arguement.)

It would be up to the Court to rule that our laws apply to children under the age of 2.

Or, suppose the majority of American voters decide that thin people are not to be trusted. (Cause let's say we believe that the majority of Americans are overweight.) Thin people will no longer be allowed to vote, hold office, or own property. It would be the court's obligation to rule that thin people have rights, too.

Problem is, people have come to believe that we live in a country where the majority rules -- and that's not actually the case. Or it's not supposed to be. Because what you end up then is the majority taking things away from the minority. That's why we're a nation of LAW, not a nation of majority (mob) rule.

Susan G.

Re: The Supreme Court and the 2000 Election

There is little doubt that by numbers alone Al Gore won Florida. There is even less doubt that for some..events (at least one the result of pure foolishness)...this would have been obvious and unassailable. And there were some nasty shenanigans going on vis-a-vis the electoral rolls, for what certainly looks like the goal of weeding out Democratic voters. That the state official in charge of officiating the election results was a campaign official in one candidate's campaign was, at the very least, a conflict of interest she did nothing to mitigate.

However...the argument before SCOTUS was not over who won the election per se but about the process in determining the results when the tally was so very close. In this matter, the Gore attorneys made a critical error. When confronted with an inadequate process that threatened to delay the final results by a significant amount, they offered no alternative.

Mind you, it looked mighty suspicious when the vote was along party lines. But that goes both ways.

DavidZahir said:

Re: The Supreme Court and the 2000 Election

There is little doubt that by numbers alone Al Gore won Florida. .

Click to expand...

Obviously the supreme Court and the Election Commission (or whatever their official name is) would take issue with that. Besides, had Gore taken his home state of Tennessee, it would have been moot.

By any chance did you see the investigation done by "The Daily Show" right after that?