October 12, 2002
Supreme Court Overturns Bush vs Gore!Ted Rall in Yahoo creates a lucid argument that the Supreme Court decision not to hear the Republicans' case against the right of the New Jersey Democratic party to replace Torricelli on the ballot with Lautenberg is a fundamental contradiction of its ruling in Bush vs. Gore.
There is no federal election law. Elections are under the jurisdiction of the state. If there was a federal law, it would supercede that of the state, according to the constitution. But when there is no federal law governing any specific issue, the authority stays with the state. The Supreme Court acted properly when it did not take the New Jersey case because election law is under state jurisdiction. It acted improperly when it ruled on Bush vs. Gore, which was a state matter, under state jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has no authority in the case. The state supreme court's ruling was the final ruling. The U.S. Supreme Court overstepped its authority in Bush vs. Gore. On top of that the five partisan judges that pulled it off, twisted the law into knots to even create a case that could be verbalized, never mind that it did not make sense.
It is because the Supreme Court took Bush vs Gore, Rall argues, that the Bush administration is illegitimate.
Says Rall: "Recounts, hanging chads, choosing Bush over Gore--those details are mere footnotes to a brazenly extrajurisdictional judicial coup d'état."
-- By David Cogswell