"We'll now see if the Supreme Court meant what it said in Bush v Gore"

[joeybee12]

Great quote (not an exact quote) from NBS News last night about the recall in California being delayed. They noted that the court referred to Bush v Gore 13 times, and a legal analyst made the above quote. He was basically saying that the the ruling should stand if the Supreme Court "meant what it said." In other words, the Scalia Five might have just been dicking us around if they overturn this.

You reap what you sow!

[JHB]

1. But in the 2000 decision they specifically said...

...that it could not be considered precendent, that it only applied to that spacific case.

I guess we'll see which part it decided to be consistent on.

[joeybee12]

4. Precedent!

Thsi country's whole jurisprudence system is based on precedent! That's why the ruling in Bush v Gore was so incredibly fascist--they were thumbing their noses at the whole US system of justice!

[Brian Sweat]

6. I know that it says that, but it just doesn't work that way.

The purpose of the Supreme Court is to determine how the constitution should be applied. The decision in Bush vs Gore is supposed to be based on the constitution. If it is, then lower courts have to use it as a guide for similar cases. The only way to say that Bush vs Gore should not be used as a precedent is to say that the Supreme Court did not base its ruling on the constitution.

[Nevernose]

7. And THAT's how we know it was bullshit!

Westlaw even came up with a new notation, just for that specific case, meaning "cannot be used as a precedent." In every book of law ever published in the United States, it's the only case that "cannot be used as a precedent."

[StopThief]

2. To think that Bush v. Gore meant that it is unconstitutional. . . .

for a state to not have exactly the same voting contraptions in all sites is ludicrous.

However, since the court has shown itself to be wary of any political controversy since then, the judges from the 9th might just have pulled off a brilliant move.

[Capn Sunshine]

5. The issue is NOT "excatly the same contraptions"

The issue is a conclusively proven disenfranchisement that would occur if we had to bring back the previously decommissioned punchcard systems. They were abandoned becuase the margin of error would have been in the 40,000 range, and because they still exist in predominately poor neighborhoods. But its the margin of error that was unacceptable.

[Homer12]

3. One scarry thing that could come out of this...

... to make all voting constituationl (if the supreme court even takes this case) all machines have to be the same...ala electronic voting machines in every district across the USA.

It's pretty scary if you think about it.


Or the 9th has secured the means by which Bushco or a Democratic Corporate Whore will always win.