Reply #64: I'm sure they will; however,

[Zephyrbird]

let's just see how far the Supreme Court is willing to whore itself to the Republican party. A revisit to Bush v. Gore is timely. Here is a link to the decision:

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

Now, be sure to read the concurrence by Rehnquist, especially this paragraph:

"In most cases, comity and respect for federalism compel us to defer to the decisions of state courts on issues of state law. That practice reflects our understanding that the decisions of state courts are definitive pronouncements of the will of the States as sovereigns. Cf. Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938). Of course, in ordinary cases, the distribution of powers among the branches of a State’s government raises no questions of federal constitutional law, subject to the requirement that the government be republican in character. See U.S. Const., Art. IV, §4. But there are a few exceptional cases in which the Constitution imposes a duty or confers a power on a particular branch of a State’s government. This is one of them. Article II, §1, cl. 2, provides that “ach State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,” electors for President and Vice President. (Emphasis added.) Thus, the text of the election law itself, and not just its interpretation by the courts of the States, takes on independent significance."

Now what that means is that Rehnquist basically limited the Supreme Court to questions regarding FEDERAL elections; since this is a STATE election, Rehnquist has--supposedly--tied the hands of the Supreme Court to hear challenges of state elections.

NOW. It would be pretty damn funny if the SCOTUS agrees to hear argument on the state election for governor, and Gregoire's attorneys cite the Bush v. Gore decision as grounds for dismissal of the suit, citing Rehnquist's stated limitations on SCOTUS' right to impose its will on a state regarding a strictly state election.

SNARF!