Who's more responsible for the decay of democracy in America?

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

The party whose SCOTUS justices actually stole a presidential election in such a nakedly partisan way that David Souter didn't even want to bother serving along with those cretins anymore.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

The party whose SCOTUS justices actually stole a presidential election in such a nakedly partisan way that David Souter didn't even want to bother serving along with those cretins anymore.

In terms of quality, the worst Supreme Court decision ever was indeed Bush v. Gore (although that decision did not actually steal the election from Gore, it only stole from Gore his right to find out whether he actually won or lost).  But in terms of quantity, it's the liberal wing of the Supreme Court that has rendered far more activist decisions in the last 60 years. So I blame Supreme Court Justices of all ideological stripes, appointed by Presidents of both parties, for gradually destroying democracy in this country.

Nixon, Ford, Reagan, both the Bushes, and even Trump, all nominated justices that displeased the conservative base at one point or another. Earl Warren, who oversaw the greatest expansion of civil rights and liberty protections, was a Republican. Byron White, who dissented in Roe, was appointed by JFK.

Both the Rehnquist and Roberts Court have appeased liberals on occasion to the shock of conservatives, and frankly the only true ideologues on the Supreme Court are Thomas and Alito. But we have also seen cases such as the one (whose name escapes me) which saw Thomas concur with the liberals on police surveillance and Breyer (who often sides with prosecutors and law enforcement) dissenting.

Democratic presidents will predictably appoint liberal-leaning judges just as Republicans will appoint conservatives, but the Court as of late has erred on the side of caution and compromise in order to preserve its legitimacy. This, at least, is John Roberts' main concern. And while that may be a political strategy, it is not for any ideological cause.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

text

This is a very interesting post. I am curious to know your sources for Eisenhower regretting appointing Warren, White being more conservative than JFK wanted, and that there was only one litmus test for Thomas's seat.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

The party whose SCOTUS justices actually stole a presidential election in such a nakedly partisan way that David Souter didn't even want to bother serving along with those cretins anymore.

2000 was not stolen : https://www.cnn.com/2015/10/31/politics/bush-gore-2000-election-results-studies/index.html

Bush and Gore each could win depending on the method chosen. In fact you could argue if the court didnt make the decision either the Florida Legislature would have to appoint the electoral votes(which would be for Bush) or the election would be thrown to the house where Bush still wins

The FLSC ordered a statewide recount that can never be legitimately verified because SCOTUS chose to intervene, when Bush so conveniently happened to be ahead, and even went as far to block the case from ever being used as precedent. That is a steal. And this of course doesn't even bother to account for Buchanan votes that were meant for Gore. SCOTUS had no right to interfere whatsoever and the fact that Republicans are against federal election regulations unless it benefits them is very revealing. But that's to be expected at this point, and you just admitted that Republicans would never accept a non-Bush win in Florida.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

The party whose SCOTUS justices actually stole a presidential election in such a nakedly partisan way that David Souter didn't even want to bother serving along with those cretins anymore.

2000 was not stolen : https://www.cnn.com/2015/10/31/politics/bush-gore-2000-election-results-studies/index.html

Bush and Gore each could win depending on the method chosen. In fact you could argue if the court didnt make the decision either the Florida Legislature would have to appoint the electoral votes(which would be for Bush) or the election would be thrown to the house where Bush still wins

The FLSC ordered a statewide recount that can never be legitimately verified because SCOTUS chose to intervene, when Bush so conveniently happened to be ahead, and even went as far to block the case from ever being used as precedent. That is a steal. And this of course doesn't even bother to account for Buchanan votes that were meant for Gore. SCOTUS had no right to interfere whatsoever and the fact that Republicans are against federal election laws unless it benefits them is very revealing. But that's to be expected at this point, and you just admitted that Republicans would never accept a non-Bush win in Florida.

Look at that CNN article which shows different methods used in the recount would result in different winners in Florida. So what would you say the solution is to one type of recount method showing a Bush win and another a Gore win.

Keep in mind that the ruling to declare The Florida recount unconstitutional was 7-2, while it was the remedy that stopped any other recount from taking place a 5-4. So if a recount was done there would be yet another fight over the method as different methods produce different results which would drag out again forcing the Florida Legislature to appoint a set of electoral votes which then congress would vote on to see whether they should be accepted or thrown out.


Even if they were thrown out though, Bush wins as the House elects him so I dont see how you can say it was stolen. The only thing that maybe would have changed is the Senate would have elected Lieberman as VP instead of Cheney so you can argue the Vice Presidency was Stolen from Lieberman  but not that the Presidency was Stolen from Gore.


Lastly , those Buchanan votes even if they were meant to be cast for Gore were legally cast for Buchanan so while you can make an argument that those votes could be invalidated, I dont see a legal argument to be made that they should be counted for Gore.

Counting all the votes by who they were intended for - undervotes and overvotes, which I'll even blame Gore and his legal team for never requesting - would have clearly reflected the will of the voters best. But which method "should have" been used is moot because SCOTUS arbitrarily decided that there wasn't enough time to settle it.