Hypothetical: Would the Supremes be so hated if they had selected Gore instead of Bush?

[timeforpeace]

Just from the other side, or would it have been cool with the country?

[Sanity Claws]

1. They shouldn't have selected anyone

That's the point. The Supremes do not have any role in deciding an election.
They selected Bush when they stopped the vote counting. Votes are supposed to be the way to decide an election.

[gateley]

3. Exactly. But if it had gone to the Supremes and they'd selected Gore, I'd sure

hate them a lot less.

[WinkyDink]

25. The SCOTUS INTERFERED with FLORIDA'S STATE LAW. I.e., THE SCOTUS BROKE THE LAW.

[gateley]

27. Sigh. Yes. I understand. Why are you yelling at me?? nt

[IndianaGreen]

11. I agree! They should have allowed the recount to proceed.

At the most, they should have ordered a statewide recount.

[NJmaverick]

2. The Supremes wouldn't have had to select Gore

all they had to do was nothing and let Florida get a proper recount.

[NoNothing]

9. Is that true?

I thought I'd heard that virtually all the subsequent media recounts still came out with a slight Bush majority. Media lying again?

[ThomThom]

16. not true, Gore asked for a partial recount, that would not have given

him enough but a complete recount showed him as the winner.

[NoNothing]

14. Hmmm...I checked Wikipedia

Apparently if SCOTUS had sided with Gore and granted the recount he requested, Bush still would have won. So, criticize the decision for being wrong on the law, but let's not rewrite history.

[Cha]

18. Oh guess what..wikipedia is Wrong.

http://archive.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=5111

[Warren Stupidity]

20. As the votes were not counted, how would wikipedia know?

[Cha]

17. Exactly! The nyt had Gore's victory when all

the votes were counted.. on page 10.

[JuniperLea]

4. They shouldn't have selected anyone...

And once they did, their boy Bush loaded them up with uber conservatives every chance he got.

So, no. Had they allowed the vote to be counted as they should have, and Gore had been seated as president as he was ELECTED to do, he wouldn't have loaded them up in that manner. Things would be way different. Way.

[Blue Owl]

5. exactly

Gore had the popular vote.

The hatred has been deflected to Katherine Harris and the corrupt Florida GOP for overriding the will of the people.

[DKRC]

7. "The hatred has been deflected to Katherine Harris

and the corrupt Florida GOP for overriding the will of the people."

O I think there's plenty of hate to go around.



If the count had been allowed to go forward, we'd have thousands of Americans still alive because there wouldn't have been an illegal war for oil.

[MUAD_DIB]

6. They should have abstained.

[Phx_Dem]

8. No for the obvious reason, and also because we wouldn't have Roberts or Alito

on the court. If Gore had appointed Renquist and O'Connor's replacements, I'm guessing we'd be liking the Supreme Court alot more.

[Ter]

40. Maybe, maybe not

Those SC replacements came in Bush's second term. You're assuming Gore would have gotten re-elected in 2004. 16 years of one party rule seems unlikely.

[hlthe2b]

10. well, our country would be in one hell of a lot better shape...

so the resentment of the selection might well be diminished....:shrug:

[Vincardog]

12. The Supremes should not have illegally interfered with the election PERIOD.

[Hippo_Tron]

13. The right wingers still claim that the Supreme Court is "liberal"

Maybe a little less since Roberts and Alito were appointed but up until then you couldn't find a right wingers who would admit that the Rheqnuist court is right of center. They are going to claim the court is liberal until there is a court that overturns Roe v Wade. Then they will probably claim the court is liberal until they get a court that overturns Brown v Board of Education and so on...

[TheKentuckian]

15. They wouldn't have. What they would have done is allowed

the democratic process to continue. They selected shrub by ending the count not by direct declaration.

[Warren Stupidity]

19. You seem to have misunderstood events in 2000.

The USSC refused to allow the votes to be counted under the odd theory that doing so would harm one George W Bush. The only way to 'hand the election to Gore' would have been for the USSC to allow the votes to be counted. Are you still confused?

[Jennicut]

21. They stopped the count. That would not have made Gore President.

It would have made the process fair.

[Hekate]

22. They should have ordered that every damn vote be counted, and not created a coup d'etat...

... for the ne'er do well son of one of their wealthy and powerful friends. I am disgusted with those 5, not the other 4.

The outcome of Bush vs. Gore was destructive of the core values of our democracy. It's disappointing to lose an election; it's devastating to lose your faith in your country's highest office-holders.

If instead of cutting the process short the SCOTUS had let the ballot counting play itself out for as long as it took, then I could have lived with the results, at least in the beginning. And yes, I think the rest of the country would have been "cool with it" -- at least in the beginning -- because at heart we believe in fair play.

Hekate

[Joe Chi Minh]

23. In dire straits, people are pragmatic and don't make nice moral judgements when the alternative

would have - did - seriously aggravate the failures of government.

From an ivory tower, one could complain that for the long term, even perhaps the medium term, it would set a bad precedent, and so on.

[WinkyDink]

24. Hello? GORE WON. They wouldn't have NEEDED to "select" him.

[blm]

26. They selected Bush by not letting all the votes be counted. If they LET all the votes be counted

then Gore would have prevailed.

There wouldn't have been any 'select' about it.

But then, that simple truth was NEVER the goal of your question, was it?

[Forkboy]

28. What do you think about it?

[timeforpeace]

29. Still considering it. How about you?

[Forkboy]

30. I bet you are.

I'll wait for your answer first.

[blm]

45. Hahah....doesn't have much to say on threads where some of us aren't fooled.

.

[blm]

44. Baloney - anyone who claims they are STILL considering it after all this time is FOS and

....and/or in total denial of the circumstances surrounding the push to put Bush in the WH in 2000.

[me b zola]

31. I'm trying to understand your post

Are you saying/implying that we would be just fine with corporate person hood and its influence on elections if the majority of the SCOTUS made other rulings that make us happy?

[timeforpeace]

32. No, just the Gore v Bush situation.

[me b zola]

34. I don't understand your reasoning

If Gore had been allowed to be seated ( he did win the election) Alito & Roberts would not be on the SCOTUS. Are you saying that judges nominated by Gore would have resulted in the same crappy decision that was handed down by the Roberts' court?

I'm trying to understand where you are coming from.

[timeforpeace]

35. Wondering if the Supremes would be so hated if Gore had been selected. What's your opinion?

[me b zola]

37. If Gore had been rightfully seated

~we would not have Roberts & Alito, tilting the court toward fascism. So no, I would not have such an unfavorable view of the court.

How about you? You never did answer my question.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

43. Bush v. Gore

http://tinyurl.com/ouzvs

Bush kept claiming that he was a victim of Gore using the courts to steal the election, while the plaintiff was Bush throughout the appeals process.

The SCOTUS did not state how they had jurisdiction of the case (a major omission), and said that the fix was in, uh, the decision was limited to the case at hand and could not be cited in any future case.

And then there is statement by Justice Scalia, when the Court initially stayed the Florida vote count:

The counting of votes that are of questionable legality does in my view threaten irreparable harm to petitioner Bush, and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election. (emphasis added)

What would the world look like under eight years of President Gore? Sadly, we'll never know...

[Balbus]

33. No.

[timeforpeace]

36. That's my guess as well.

[me b zola]

38. Why?

[timeforpeace]

39. Just a hunch.

[Forkboy]

41. You always seem very afraid to talk much.

Shy?

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

46. How else would one achieve 4969 posts while flying under the radar? nt

[Spazito]

47. LOL!

:thumbsup:

[salguine]

42. Or if they'd let Mary Wilson sing lead instead of Diana Ross.

[theothersnippywshrub]

48. They'd be dead. n/t

[BklnDem75]

49. Defending the SCOTUS decision?

Curious indeed.

[treestar]

50. No, and they might not have made the decisions they made

Which is why we have to have Democrats in the presidency if we can get them. Anyone who says there is no difference is not looking at this and condemning us to more Robertses and Alitos.

Anyone who is upset about the recent decision for "corporations" had better think of that. They'll get even more such decisions if they take the luxury of ultra-cynical negativity.