Skip to main content

View Diary: Stop saying Republican electoral-vote rigging is constitutional. It's not. Here's why. (193 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Bush v. Gore is NOT precedent (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Drdemocrat, Laurence Lewis
    "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."
    Direct from the majority opinion.
    •  That's for the core holding re: county-specific (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Anne Elk

      standards.  The part I'm citing is in the background section, citing well-established 1960s Warren Court decisions.  And I cite those background cases, too.

      There is 0% chance that the Supreme Court will hold that the Constitutional provision allowing states to decide how to appoint electors is completely immune to the rest of the constitution.  That's a fallacy, and it is not one that any Democrat should just accept at face value.  

      Bottom line, if the state says "the people can vote for President," then the voting methods have to comport with Equal Protection.  If you want to argue with the after-the-jump stuff, that these plans do not unconstitutionally dilute voting rights, then fine.  But before the jump is about as unambiguous as the law's going to get.

    •  Whether or not Bush v. Gore is precedent (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      isn't something that gets decided by the person doing the ruling.  That is one of the many reasons Bush v. Gore is a travesty of justice.  They attempt to place limiting language on something that can't be limited.  They are so brazen and prideful not only in their decision, but in their inability to grasp that future attorneys and judges would find loopholes in their logic.  

      Since there is no bright line ruling of what precedent is, 5 people can't just declare a ruling isn't precedent, but it is law.  

      Indeed, the question of whether Bush v. Gore is good law has become the focus – even the focal point – of a recent 6th circuit decision, Stewart v. Blackwell.5 In that case, the decision turned partly on whether or not to treat Bush v. Gore as a precedent. The majority, seeing Bush v. Gore as the last in a long line of equal protection case, saw the court’s decision in Bush as binding precedent. Even if the reasoning was murky in that case, the court concluded, it still was obliged to follow it.6 The dissent disagreed, citing both the limiting language and also the fact that the Court despite having

      The case is being cited.  Its being used as precedent. The Supreme Ct. should have known this was the inevitable result when they released the decision.  No limiting language could stop it.  

      The question will likely return to the Supreme Ct. at some point.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (127)
  • Community (60)
  • Media (32)
  • Elections (32)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (30)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Environment (28)
  • Law (28)
  • Civil Rights (26)
  • Culture (24)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Hillary Clinton (23)
  • Republicans (22)
  • Science (21)
  • Climate Change (21)
  • Economy (19)
  • Labor (19)
  • Josh Duggar (18)
  • Jeb Bush (18)
  • Marriage Equality (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site