Short, succinct. I like that in a blog zeno. Rec'd.
I appreciate the fight Franken has waged. But I also think it's kind of misleading to say that Gore didn't fight hard; he didn't fight as dirty as Bush. Also, I do think the Minnesota courts are more impartial arbiters than SCOTUS then and even more-so now. That the Supreme Court would effectively decide the President is outrageous and unconstitutional anyway.
As I understand it, the Congress could have taken determination of the election away from the SCOTUS. There's no provision in the Constitution for the SCOTUS to effectively determine the outcome of a presidential election. The Congress is given such power, since Congress is comprised of elected representatives and the SCOTUS is not.
No Democrats in the Senate would sponsor such an initiative to taking back electoral power from the unelected judiciary. Does anyone believe that Al Gore could not have recruited at least one Democratic senator in that task if he had actually wanted to? Gore seemed, to me, to be more interested in appearing magnanimous and sacrificially patriotic than he was in representing the 500,000 voter majority of Americans who voted for him over Bush.
For Gore, his decision to roll-over in the face of a Republican coup was more about Gore internal emotional considerations than it was about the interests of the majority who had voted for him.
no matter how you look at it, Gore could have fought harder. The democrats as whole capitulated too early.
But the DC Democrats think that's their job!
deep
He didn't even necessarily have to fight harder, so much as fight for a statewide recount in Florida instead of the recount in a couple counties. That's the basis for the equal-protection 'ruling'.
He needed to fight the right fight.
The whole thing in 2000 was a travesty from start to finish. The worst thing was Gore's capitulation speech about the rule of law and how it was important to respect the courts even if you disagreed with them and knew they were wrong. The next 8 years were ironic beyond belief when viewed from that point.
Short, succinct. I like that in a blog zeno. Rec'd.
April 20, 2009 1:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I appreciate the fight Franken has waged. But I also think it's kind of misleading to say that Gore didn't fight hard; he didn't fight as dirty as Bush. Also, I do think the Minnesota courts are more impartial arbiters than SCOTUS then and even more-so now. That the Supreme Court would effectively decide the President is outrageous and unconstitutional anyway.
April 20, 2009 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
As I understand it, the Congress could have taken determination of the election away from the SCOTUS. There's no provision in the Constitution for the SCOTUS to effectively determine the outcome of a presidential election. The Congress is given such power, since Congress is comprised of elected representatives and the SCOTUS is not.
No Democrats in the Senate would sponsor such an initiative to taking back electoral power from the unelected judiciary. Does anyone believe that Al Gore could not have recruited at least one Democratic senator in that task if he had actually wanted to? Gore seemed, to me, to be more interested in appearing magnanimous and sacrificially patriotic than he was in representing the 500,000 voter majority of Americans who voted for him over Bush.
For Gore, his decision to roll-over in the face of a Republican coup was more about Gore internal emotional considerations than it was about the interests of the majority who had voted for him.
April 20, 2009 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
no matter how you look at it, Gore could have fought harder. The democrats as whole capitulated too early.
April 20, 2009 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
But the DC Democrats think that's their job!
April 20, 2009 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
deep
April 20, 2009 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
He didn't even necessarily have to fight harder, so much as fight for a statewide recount in Florida instead of the recount in a couple counties. That's the basis for the equal-protection 'ruling'.
He needed to fight the right fight.
April 20, 2009 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
The whole thing in 2000 was a travesty from start to finish. The worst thing was Gore's capitulation speech about the rule of law and how it was important to respect the courts even if you disagreed with them and knew they were wrong. The next 8 years were ironic beyond belief when viewed from that point.
April 20, 2009 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
So true and so sad.
April 20, 2009 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink