Althouse: "We all remember Bush v. Gore."

March 19, 2009

"We all remember Bush v. Gore."

Coleman's quest.

16 comments:

former law student said...: Sore Loserman redux.

This prolonged contest shows the wisdom of Bush v. Gore (whatever). Imagine a January where Inauguration Day came and went; where Denny Hastert was President for an indefinite future. (Clinton having served two full terms, the case for holding him over was skimpy. House Speaker Hastert was next in line of succession.); 3/19/09, 8:46 AM
MadisonMan said...: I enjoy a good case of role reversal, to show all that politicians are hypocrites.

Maybe I'm not reading carefully -- IANAL -- but it seems like for Coleman's suit to go forward, the Justices have to interpret a past ruling to mean something it doesn't explicitly say. That is, a Republican is depending on an Activist Judge. Similarly, for Coleman's suit not to go forward, the justices have to be strict Constructionists, so that's what the Democrats are hoping for.

Please don't tell me I'm misreading things and that politicians aren't hypocrites after all.; 3/19/09, 8:49 AM
AllenS said...: Coleman needs to give it up. Franken won. As soon as the announcement came that there would be a recount, there was no way that Franken was going to lose. It's over.; 3/19/09, 8:55 AM
Peter V. Bella said...: Franken should be seated. He belongs in the Senate and will fit right in. We have a cartoon character for a president, fairy tale characters in the cabinet and administration, and dunces and fools running the legislature. Another clown and comedian will fit right in.

It appears that the only intelligence left in the government resides in the SCOTUS.; 3/19/09, 9:21 AM
john said...: It wouldn't have come to this had Colmean agreed to Franken's challenge to settle it with best out of three diaper wrestling.

After Ventura, Minnesota politics really went in the toilet.; 3/19/09, 10:09 AM
Simon said...: former law student said...
"Imagine a January where Inauguration Day came and went; where Denny Hastert was President for an indefinite future."

No way would Hastert have resigned from Congress to act as President for a brief period while the mess was sorted out. Larry Summers would have been acting President as the next in line after the Speaker and PPT (neither of whom would have resigned) and the SecState (who wasn't eligible).; 3/19/09, 10:43 AM
Cedarford said...: Good "what if?" by Simon.

And a reminder that the US has an exceptionally stupid and bad succession plan for both the Presidency, the House and by implication, the SCOTUS.

It's bad enough for the specter of an unfit Speaker (frequently of the opposition Party to the President) 3rd in peacetime, and Senators well into advanced old age and probable senility (Strom Thurmond, Robert Byrd) as PPT 4th in line (also frequently of the opposition Party).

But imagine an A Bomb or a major biowar attack or natural superflu that takes out key players in executive, the House, SCOTUS.

The House cannot exist if 1/3rd of members are lost until Special Elections can be held by the infinite wisdom of the Sacred Parchment to reconstite the House. But survivors, even if it is a small band away from DC led by a senior member like Maxine Waters or Barney Frank can have the small band of survivors vote them in as Speaker, and New President if DC is decimated.

They get the new Speaker to appoint up to 9 SCOTUS members while the nation is in extremis.

Who can duke it out with survivors Ron Paul and new Senate PPT Pat Leahy who happened to be in Brazil on a junket when the catastrophe hit and claim they should be President.

Or hopefully the military would step in and end such nonsense and take over, negate up to 9 new SCOTUS picks and say they are in charge until the emergency passes. And they are in a position to abdicate to a member of the Presidents own Party down in the Cabinet slots or a sitting governor that the Party leaders decision...; 3/19/09, 11:15 AM
Peter Hoh said...: It's a boring case. There are no good soundbites coming out of the trial. The appeals will continue, and the case will continue to bore us silly. No matter what the outcome, when it's over the people of Minnesota will no longer care. We need a sex scandal to keep our attention this long.; 3/19/09, 11:32 AM
AllenS said...: Peter, if they had a special election right now, who do you think would win?; 3/19/09, 11:35 AM
MadisonMan said...: There are no good soundbites coming out of the trial.

That's 'cause all the soundbites have long os and all the sentences end as a question, eh?; 3/19/09, 11:36 AM
Simon said...: The line of succession is just about the only thing over which myself, Cedarford and Sandy Levinson find ourselves roughly in agreement. The current line of succession is problematic; it would make far more sense to return to the executive officer only line of succession that we had in place between 1886 and 1947 (if I recall the dates correctly). As to the replenishment of the House after an attack, obviously options should be explored, and the sub-constitutional solutions should be preferred. One way to tackle the issue - which might well be Constitutional, although I've not really thought about it - would be to require elections to elect a safety or alternate Congressman in each district who would become Congressman in the event of predefined events (say an attack on Congress wiping out X% of the membership of the house).; 3/19/09, 11:50 AM
Simon said...: AllenS said...
"Coleman needs to give it up. Franken won."

We need to be perfectly candid about this: if the roles were reversed, and it was Franken trailing in the vote count, he and his lawyers would be fighting just as vigorously. Franken would not concede, he would exhaust all legal avenues (as he indicated his intent to do, IIRC, back when he was trailing in the vote count).

MadisonMan said...
"Maybe I'm not reading carefully -- IANAL -- but it seems like for Coleman's suit to go forward, the Justices have to interpret a past ruling to mean something it doesn't explicitly say. That is, a Republican is depending on an Activist Judge."

Not really. As Hasen notes, he's just relying on an expansive ruling of an earlier case. That's not necessarily judicial activism unless they strain the earlier case beyond its limits for the purpose of delivering a particular result. The hallmark of judicial activism is abuse of power, not simply its exercise.; 3/19/09, 11:56 AM
Joe said...: How about the race be considered a draw, a new election held and neither current candidate be allowed to run since they are odious.; 3/19/09, 5:03 PM
Eric said...: Hmmm. "Not odious". Now that's a qualification for Senate the framers should have included in the constitution.; 3/19/09, 5:17 PM
Unknown said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/19/09, 6:59 PM
Peter Hoh said...: AllenS: I don't know who would win a special election. My guess is that neither Franken or Coleman would get a decisive win. Neither candidate has been doing anything to attempt to sway public opinion.

Like Simon, I assume that Franken's lawyers would be making the same case that Coleman is making were their client in Coleman's shoes.; 3/19/09, 9:04 PM