Nat Hentoff on the Supreme Court and Bush v Gore:

January 9, 2001 5:03 PM

Nat Hentoff on the Supreme Court and Bush v Gore: "Far from stealing the election for Bush, the majority of the Supreme Court shamed the politicians of both parties who, for so long, have failed to secure everyone's meaningful right to vote."
posted by aaron (10 comments total)

Summation: "The biased, partisan Supreme Court verdict will change things for the better".What a complete load of shit!
posted by Mr. skullhead at 5:10 PM on January 9, 2001

Summation of skullhead comment: "My guy isn't in the White house. Wahhh."
posted by ericost at 5:53 PM on January 9, 2001

Summation of ericost comment: "My guy is. So there."

Summation of my comment: "My guy isn't. I hope you're happy, Ralph Nader."
posted by rcade at 5:57 PM on January 9, 2001

Bush is NOT my guy.
posted by ericost at 6:07 PM on January 9, 2001

Summation of all of rcade's posts in recent months:

"I want to kill Ralph Nader! I want to kill Ralph Nader! I want to kill Ralph Nader! I want to kill Ralph Nader! I want to kill Ralph Nader! I want to kill Ralph Nader! I want to kill Ralph Nader! I want to kill Ralph Nader! I want to kill Ralph Nader! I want to kill Ralph Nader! I want to kill Ralph Nader! I want to kill Ralph Nader! I want to kill Ralph Nader! I want to kill Ralph Nader! I want to kill Ralph Nader! I want to kill Ralph Nader! I want to kill Ralph Nader! I want to kill Ralph Nader! I want to kill Ralph Nader! I want to kill Ralph Nader! I want to kill Ralph Nader! I want to kill Ralph Nader! I want to kill Ralph Nader! I want to kill Ralph Nader! I want to kill Ralph Nader! I want to kill Ralph Nader! I want to kill Ralph Nader! I want to kill Ralph Nader! I want to kill Ralph Nader! ..." ;-j
posted by lagado at 6:52 PM on January 9, 2001

hahaha. If only that anger was directed at who it should be: Gore.

Skullhead, I agree with you. It seems like a hell of a lot of conjecture: Gush v. Bore affirms voter’s rights, lawsuits based on this ruling will do the same, the Court will continue to rule in favor of voter’s rights.

I don’t really see how this is the case since the majority wrote: “The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College.”

Right there, they have a history of denying votes in any case where the state legislature hasn't specifically wrote law giving the right to choose electors to the people. State legislatures have to pass a law signing away their right to choose electors before democratic presidential elections are constitutionally valid.

All the ruling did was reaffirm that popular votes have no meaning in court.

(Jeezuz, does yahoo own findlaw.com? Totally the same look.)
posted by capt.crackpipe at 7:29 PM on January 9, 2001

That's a little more subtle than I was, Lagado, but essentially correct. I'd like to buy Ralph a Chevy Corvair with Firestone tires.
posted by rcade at 9:40 PM on January 9, 2001

Yeah, rcade, why all this rancor against Nader? There's always going to be someone to the left of the Democratic Leadership Council and if the DLC continues to pick candidates for the Democratic Party, people will continue to vote for Nader or whoever steps up to the plate with positions similar to his in 2004.
posted by leo at 9:57 PM on January 9, 2001

Yeah, rcade, why all this rancor against Nader?

He doesn't believe enough in the Green Party to join it, and this shows in the level to which he ignored down-ballot candidates in the party as he campaigned. It also shows in his campaign strategy in October and November. He ruined the Green's chances to get matching funds by targeting swing states where his chances to get votes were the lowest.

Nader isn't building a third party; he's building a cult of personality. The extent to which he brought non-voters to the polls is admirable, but most of his support came from liberal Democrats straying off the reservation. They'll be back in 2004 even if a DLC-to-the-core candidate like Joe Lieberman runs, because four years of conservative Republican government tends to serve as a wake-up call to people who think both parties are identical.
posted by rcade at 8:58 AM on January 10, 2001

They'll be back in 2004 even if a DLC-to-the-core candidate like Joe Lieberman runs, because four years of conservative Republican government tends to serve as a wake-up call to people who think both parties are identical.

If you're depending on the Republicans to make the next DLC-chosen candidate look good to people who'd support Nader, I think you're building yourself up to a big disappointment.

As far as Nader's "cult of personality" is concerned, he'll probably be forgotten by 2004 when someone else steps into the breech. By allowing the DLC to choose the Democratic candidate, you virtually guarantee this. Nader is just the flavor of the day.
posted by leo at 10:32 AM on January 10, 2001