Worst Supreme Court Decision of the 21st Century?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

In terms of completely butchering any sort of constitutional law analysis, Obergefell v Hodges. In terms of one of the most dangerous 21st century cases, Hamdi v Rumsfeld.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I'm astonished Bush v. Gore is in the minority so far.

The Supreme Court should never be in the business of picking the President.

What exactly does “never be in the business of picking the President” mean? No judicial relief related to elections at all? Or something more specific?

A lot of people hate on Bush v Gore without really understanding what the case was about, and while I agree with Souter and Breyer on the remand issue, not remanding almost certainly didn’t change the final result.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I'm astonished Bush v. Gore is in the minority so far.

The Supreme Court should never be in the business of picking the President.

What exactly does “never be in the business of picking the President” mean? No judicial relief related to elections at all? Or something more specific?

A lot of people hate on Bush v Gore without really understanding what the case was about, and while I agree with Souter and Breyer on the remand issue, not remanding almost certainly didn’t change the final result.

Don't quote me on this, but I'm pretty sure Congress is supposed to decide disputed Presidential Elections, not the Supreme Court.

As in a tie in the electoral college? Sure (the House, specifically).

But when you’re talking about an issue related to the Equal Protection Clause, I don’t understand how you can say the Supreme Court has no business being involved. If you remove any judicial involvement from laws related to elections and election administration, you pretty much destroy enforceability of the Voting Rights Act.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I'm astonished Bush v. Gore is in the minority so far.

The Supreme Court should never be in the business of picking the President.

What exactly does “never be in the business of picking the President” mean? No judicial relief related to elections at all? Or something more specific?

A lot of people hate on Bush v Gore without really understanding what the case was about, and while I agree with Souter and Breyer on the remand issue, not remanding almost certainly didn’t change the final result.

Don't quote me on this, but I'm pretty sure Congress is supposed to decide disputed Presidential Elections, not the Supreme Court.

As in a tie in the electoral college? Sure (the House, specifically).

But when you’re talking about an issue related to the Equal Protection Clause, I don’t understand how you can say the Supreme Court has no business being involved. If you remove any judicial involvement from laws related to elections and election administration, you pretty much destroy enforceability of the Voting Rights Act.

Except you could argue there was no equal protection issue...except for the fact Gore didn't insist on a statewide recount. (If he had, he probably would've won Florida on that recount).

Sure, you could argue that, but the place to make such an argument is before the Court, not Congress. And keep in mind that 7/9 justices agreed that there was an Equal Protection Clause violation.

You still haven’t exactly laid out what your overall stance is. When, in your view, is it acceptable for courts to take up a case dealing with election results?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I'm astonished Bush v. Gore is in the minority so far.

The Supreme Court should never be in the business of picking the President.

What exactly does “never be in the business of picking the President” mean? No judicial relief related to elections at all? Or something more specific?

A lot of people hate on Bush v Gore without really understanding what the case was about, and while I agree with Souter and Breyer on the remand issue, not remanding almost certainly didn’t change the final result.

Don't quote me on this, but I'm pretty sure Congress is supposed to decide disputed Presidential Elections, not the Supreme Court.

As in a tie in the electoral college? Sure (the House, specifically).

But when you’re talking about an issue related to the Equal Protection Clause, I don’t understand how you can say the Supreme Court has no business being involved. If you remove any judicial involvement from laws related to elections and election administration, you pretty much destroy enforceability of the Voting Rights Act.

Except you could argue there was no equal protection issue...except for the fact Gore didn't insist on a statewide recount. (If he had, he probably would've won Florida on that recount).

Sure, you could argue that, but the place to make such an argument is before the Court, not Congress. And keep in mind that 7/9 justices agreed that there was an Equal Protection Clause violation.

You still haven’t exactly laid out what your overall stance is. When, in your view, is it acceptable for courts to take up a case dealing with election results?

When there is a clear and convincing case of voter fraud, which wasn't the case in Florida 2000.

So the Florida circuit court was wrong to have not summarily dismissed Gore’s initial lawsuit?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I'm astonished Bush v. Gore is in the minority so far.

The Supreme Court should never be in the business of picking the President.

What exactly does “never be in the business of picking the President” mean? No judicial relief related to elections at all? Or something more specific?

A lot of people hate on Bush v Gore without really understanding what the case was about, and while I agree with Souter and Breyer on the remand issue, not remanding almost certainly didn’t change the final result.

Don't quote me on this, but I'm pretty sure Congress is supposed to decide disputed Presidential Elections, not the Supreme Court.

As in a tie in the electoral college? Sure (the House, specifically).

But when you’re talking about an issue related to the Equal Protection Clause, I don’t understand how you can say the Supreme Court has no business being involved. If you remove any judicial involvement from laws related to elections and election administration, you pretty much destroy enforceability of the Voting Rights Act.

Except you could argue there was no equal protection issue...except for the fact Gore didn't insist on a statewide recount. (If he had, he probably would've won Florida on that recount).

Sure, you could argue that, but the place to make such an argument is before the Court, not Congress. And keep in mind that 7/9 justices agreed that there was an Equal Protection Clause violation.

You still haven’t exactly laid out what your overall stance is. When, in your view, is it acceptable for courts to take up a case dealing with election results?

When there is a clear and convincing case of voter fraud, which wasn't the case in Florida 2000.

So the Florida circuit court was wrong to have not summarily dismissed Gore’s initial lawsuit?

Yes, and no. Gore also made a huge mistake in not asking for a recount for the entire state, under what the court was willing to offer.

However, yes the court should have made it clear that Congress is the relevant party to go to in this circumstance, as no widespread voter fraud occurred.

Well, even if he’d have asked for a statewide recount, under your standard, it should’ve been denied.

At least you’re consistent in your views (unlike a lo5 of opponents to the case), although I’m not sure where you’ve gotten the idea that Congress is the relevant party (or actually has any significant power to do anything).