What if the election goes to the Supreme Court Again?

[AntiCoup2K4]

I hope to God this thing is settled November 2, but in the event that it's not, it's likely to go the distance again.

Kennedy and O'Connor have dissented from the Felonious Florida Five a few times in recent decisions. What if they flipped on this one as well, resulting in a 6-3 court decision in Kerry's favor.

Could you live with a pResident Kerry, instead of an elected one? And would the Freepublicans, in their typical hypocrite fashion, claim it wasn't legitimate?

Just theorizing, but you gotta admit the irony would be incredible.

[proud patriot]

1. then it will be a violation of the Constitution again

:hi:

[truthpusher]

2. I would stock up on canned goods.

[tedoll78]

3. There was a claim made a while ago..

that had the liberal justices been given another 24 hours, they could've convinced Justice Kennedy.

I wonder about that claim. It was in a book, but I can't recall the title. And the theory could make sense, given that Kennedy is a bit more liberal than most Republicans. Hell, he wrote the sodomy decision last year!

It is intriguing, but my gut tells me that we're screwed if a Supreme Court case determines the victor.

[OrwellwasRight]

16. Supreme Court would not behave any differently

While Kennedy and O'Connor are known as the swing voters on the court, that does not mean they are not Conservative and Republican at heart. They are both. They do, however, relish the idea of holding the controlling vote. It allows them to put their own imprint on US law in a way that Scalia's reactionary rants sometimes just can't do (because his extreme positions do not always attract a majority of the votes).

But the fact that these two love the spotlight does not mean that we, as Dems, should have any faith that they will save us from the illegal, fraudulent tactics of the NeoCons.

Case in point: The Pennsylvania redistricting case (Vieth v. Jubelier): The Supreme Court let stand new lines for US Congressional distrcts that were written solely for partisan advantage. The lines split cities and counties, paid no attention to historical Congressional district lines, and had a single purpose: to maximize Republican representation in Congress. I was lucky enough to watch the oral arguments. The Republican side did not even try to deny the political purpose of the new lines. Instead, they simply emphasized how difficult it would be for the Court to determine how much political motivation was too much. The tactic worked. The Court, finding it too difficult to set a standard, let the new districts pass Constitutional muster.

They will likely do the same here. If there is an argument that "black box" voting machines contained flawed algorithms that miscounted Democratic votes, the Court, lacking a way to test that theory (because there is no paper trail and no way to recount), will let it stand. An accusation of systematic voter intimidation against blacks, Hispanics, or other minorities? Again, no way to determine how much impact that had on the result, so the Court will let the Bush victory stand.

And, because an honest, open, legitimate politics are values at the heart of the people who support the Democratic party, any fraud that occurs is not likely to come from us.

In sum, because of the Court's fear of not being able to enforce tough decisions (this fear goes back to Marbury v. Madison), it will throw the election to the purported winner (Bush).

And don't count on the Court to use its cowardice to benefit Kerry. Consider this statistic from Harper's Magazine: the chance that a Republican has won the Presidency has without winning the popular vote is 1 in 6, but a Democratic candidate has NEVER become president without winning the popular vote.

Unfortunately, if the election gets to the courts again, it is because the fraud already happened, and my cynicism tells me that by then it will be too late.

The only thing that we can count on is a HUGE Dem turnout and a massive rejection of the politics of fear. Such a decisive victory cannot be denied, and I do not think the American people will let it be denied. If you can do anything to help this turnout--do it!! Give five more dollars. Make one more hour of GOTV phone calls. Go on one more bus trip to a swing state. Talk to your Republican friend about the election one more time.

If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality. - Bishop Desmond Tutu

[movonne]

4. Well to the repubs, I say, they are giving us back what they stoled

in the last election..

[UB4Me]

5. The SCOTUS won't take this one

They (excluding Nino and Long Dong)wouldn't touch this bomb for nuttin'. All want to retire with at least a scrap of honor.
Another sham judgement sets them up for the inevitable "Nuremberg" prosecutions.

The true irony would be if Kerry wins the electoral and Bush the popular vote. I'd love to see their arguements.
Pure comedy.

[Rebellious Republican]

6. First, it probably will, second, I would keep those Kerry/Edwards

bumper stickers and yard signs up until its for sure. Third, yes I could live it, I have had to live with Bush for four years, its their turn. No, the freeps would never claim it was legit, unless the decision went in favor of Shrub.
I DON'T CARE HOW KERRY GETS IN, JUST AS LONG AS BUSH IS OUT!

[Gman]

7. Right now, there's no other way for the election to go

as long as its as close as it seems. Both sides have lawyer teams in place right now to contest anything and probably everything. (Notice that the cries of Democratic voter fraud that we've been hearing for the last few weeks are no doubt intended to set the stage). And, of course, as some blog stated, all roads from the courts lead to the US Supreme Court and we already know how they will rule. The ONLY thing that will keep this from happening is that the margin of victory for Kerry be so big as to make the basis of the lawsuits be such that the outcome of the election would not be affected even if the courts were to rule for Bush. In other words, if the election is so close that the court challenges would make a difference in the election, Bush will ultimately get the decision from the SCOTUS.

Be ready for it and expect it. In a close election it WILL happen, again. We need to decide what we're going to do about another stolen election and preferably NOT discuss it publicly here on DU. Now is the time for the people to get ready with a response. We cannot be caught off guard like we were in 2000.

[unblock]

13. it's NOT TRUE that all roads from the courts lead to the scotus

this is one of the more infuriating criminalities of the bush v. gore fiasco.

the constitution spells out how to resolve disputes regarding the electoral college, and it bypasses the supreme court. the founders specifically wanted ELECTED officials to face the wrath of voters if they decided elections unfairly. bush v. gore is a great example of EXACTLY why the supreme court does NOT have the power it arrogated for itself in that decision.

the fact of the matter is that the FLORIDA supreme court had the final decision, and the supreme court did not have the power to step in and overrule a state decision regarding the selection of electors.

the real fault goes to the florida supreme court for reversing itself immediately after the scotus decision in bush v. gore. they chickened out of defending their ultimate authority in that matter.

[Gman]

18. While what you say is technically true

the reality is that the SCOTUS facilitated the right wing overthrow of the United States government in 2000. That makes everything else null and void. We need to stop thinking of this in the context of what is right or wrong legally and constitutionally pre-2000. Those rules don't apply anymore. In fact, I've no doubt the GOP and the right wing are counting on us thinking in this pre-2000 environment. As long as we do, they will have sufficient "legal" cover to make any decisions handed down by the SCOTUS this year regarding the election appear legitimate. We are NOT dealing with the same US government we had for 224 years pre-2000. That doesn't exist anymore. I don't know why people continue to cling to that concept. To not accept that we are living under a revolutionary right wing government is nothing short of denial.

I could have handled a Bush "victory" via the courts in 2000 had it been legitimate. But, it was not by any stretch of the imagination. I suggest people pick up and read again Vincent Bugliosi's book on Bush v. Gore.

Sorry if this is a 2x4 upside the head, but it scares me and has scared me since 12/6/04. The government of the US was overthrown in 2000 and by definition, that makes the people that did it capable of literally anything. We need to get a clue. Right now, the only thing that can fix this is a couple of SCOTUS justices deciding they will no longer be complicit and support the RW revolution, a big Kerry win (unlikely), or a counter-revolution by the people. In the case of a counter-revolution, we need to decide how that will happen if we care enough about this country.

[OrwellwasRight]

19. The SC gets to choose its cases

While all roads do not lead to the Supreme Court, the SC can choose to hear any case over which it has jurisdiction. If a writ of certiorari comes from a state supreme court case and that court's decision relied in part on an interpretation of the US Constitution (such as the clause about the electoral college) or a federal law (such as the Voting Rights Act), the SC can choose to hear it. I have seen no indication that the SC would act differently this time around. With Scalia and Cheney being hunting buddies, what else would Scalia do than try to save his buddy's job?

If the SC were serious about its "Political Questions Doctrine," you are right, it would stay out and let the elected officials face the wrath of the voters. However, the doctrine is bankrupt. The court rules on political questions whenever it feels (e.g., Bush v. Gore) and it backs away only when it does not see any advantage in getting involved.

[friesianrider]

8. I'd say payback's a bitch...

But it'd still be unconstitutional for them to hear it. They should have never even heard the Florida case.

[Gman]

9. The Supreme Court ultimately decides what's constitutional

and what is not. The SCOTUS has all the cards in this one and we absolutely do not, legally. It all boils down to what are we going to do about it if it happens, and there's lots we can do.

[Kazak]

10. That would essentially allow them to choose their own predecessors.

...in a sense.

[AndyTiedye]

11. The Supreme Court Would Rule for Shrubbie Again

Let's not kid ourselves.

If it goes to the Supreme Court, we lose.

If it goes to the House, we lose.

We need a big fucking landslide for Kerry.

[unblock]

14. no, they'd avoid a decision; or else they'd rule for kerry

the axis of evil that is rehnquist, scalia, and thomas would of course vote for shrub.

but o'conner, and possibly kennedy, would vote for kerry this time. two controversial decisions for the same party would be far too damaging to the u.s. government, and those two are sorely disappointed in shrub. he's not worth the risk to the country, not worth the risk to their reputations, which would be restored if they threw it once for the republicans and once for the democrats.

[OrwellwasRight]

17. Well said.

[Deere_John]

12. They'd call it for Bush again

They've already eaten of the forbidden fruit once. Doing it the second time will be so much easier. Besides, the stakes are much higher this time for the Bush people. Whatever they might have done to "motivate" any of the Five in '00, they'll be willing to do ten times more in '04.

[tblue37]

15. I don't think so.

At least two, possibly three, Republicans wanted to retire during a Republican administration, which is why they gave it to Bush last time. But I think they are suffering from buyer's remorse. Notice that no SC justice has retired during this administration. If they wanted to make sure GWB got to pick their successors, they would have retired already and not risked letting a Dem do it.

Frankly, I think some of the justices who gave it to Bush last time will actually be pulling the lever for Kerry in the privacy of the voting booth this time, much less from the bench. I think Scalia and Thomas are the only sure GWB votes, and very possibly Renquist. O'Connor and Kennedy won't go that way again.

[Bozos for Bush]

20. then we would lose - let's not kid ourselves

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1154535

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1146495

Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas are all in the pockets of the CNP. If you do not know what the CNP is, please check out the two links above.

only BOZOS vote FOR BUSH