Bush- Gore II?

In legal issues/law/courts, politics, shameful, stupidity, U.S History on March 17, 2009 by Editor Z

After the division sown at in 2000 by Bush V Gore, not to mention the economic peril we find ourselves in as well as the foreign policy challenges, does embattled Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) really think America has an appetite for a second such drawn out battle at the Federal level over a U.S Senate seat? Sometimes the trick Norm is knowing when to stop.


Top Republicans are encouraging Coleman to be as litigious as possible and take his fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if he loses this round, believing that an elongated court fight is worth it if they can continue to deny Democrats the 59th Senate seat that Franken would represent.

And in pushing a possible Supreme Court conclusion, Republicans are raising case history that makes Democrats shudder: Bush v. Gore.

Coleman’s team says the different methods Minnesota counties use for counting absentee ballots violated the Constitution’s equal protection clause — echoing the same 2000 Florida recount case that effectively handed the presidency to George W. Bush. By making a constitutional case, Republicans are already looking ahead to federal court.

“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,” said Texas Sen. John Cornyn, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. “I’m not making any predictions, but I wouldn’t be surprised” if it ended up in federal court.

So the same individuals who decry the judiciary as being ‘activists’ when they rule in favor of racial or ethnic minority rights, gay rights, or allowing a woman to make her own health care decisions flock to that very same judiciary to help install an ally to an election he didn’t win? After this it will be hard to not crack up laughing when a conservative labels a given court ruling as “Judaical activism”.

Sour grapes anyone?
UPDATE (3/22/09)- Coleman’s lawyer says “I’m done” but old Norm might not give up so easily.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: