The recent U. S. Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore has
called into question
many important issues and will have far-reaching
consequences
for the history of the United States and the world.
People have a right to question and understand how this decision
has violated
the principles of equal justice and democracy that
members of the court claim to hold dear.
Were the considerations
of impartial justice cast aside for partisan political advantage?
Some have argued that Justice Antonin Scalia should have recused
himself for two reasons.
First, he has stated that he hopes to
be appointed chief justice if Bush is elected
and that he might
resign to make more money if Gore is elected.
Second, one of his
sons works for the same law firm as that of the lawyer Theodore
Olson,
who argued the case for the plaintiff.
Some have also argued
that Justice Clarence Thomas should have recused himself,
because
his wife was working at the time on the Bush transition.
Did these
justices place their personal political advantage over impartial
justice?
Conservative members of the U. S. Supreme Court have prided
themselves
on upholding the principles of federalism and have
argued many times that
the federal courts should restrain themselves
from interfering in state and local activities
unless clearly
delegated constitutional powers authorize them
to do so in order
to protect human rights.
Yet in this case five members have reached
out to interfere with an election
that was supposed to be decided
by a state according to its laws.
It is hard to imagine that they
would have done so
if it were Gore or a Democratic who was appealing
to them.
Did the conservative members of the U. S. Supreme Court
cast aside
their most sacred principles in order to intervene
in a political election?
In granting a stay to stop the counting of under-votes in Florida
on Saturday December 9
five members of the court claimed that
George W. Bush would suffer irreparable harm
if the stay was not
ordered.
Since Florida had already certified Bush electors, the
only possible harm he could suffer
would be if the counting of
the under-votes found that
he had in fact received less votes
than Albert Gore.
Yet the stronger argument that Gore and the
voters were much more likely to suffer
irreparable harm if the
count was stopped, was ignored.
Was this decision not based on
partisan political advantage
rather than objective justice and
respect for democratic principles?
Seven members of this conservative court found that the method
of counting the
under-vote ballots had constitutional problems
because of discrepancies in the standards
of determining the intent
of the voter from county to county.
Yet this was still in process
of being determined by the judge supervising the process
and was
in fact pre-judged by these seven members of the court.
The U.
S. Supreme Court had warned the Florida Supreme Court
that it
must follow the will of the Florida legislature, and the Florida
Supreme Court
did its best to do that by following the only standard
the legislature had made,
namely the clear intent of the voter.
Ironically, if the Florida Supreme Court had suggested any
other standard
it probably would have been rebuked for doing
that by the U. S. Supreme Court.
Does this not show that U. S.
Supreme Court was applying a Catch-22
order that in effect blocked
Florida from counting these votes
no matter how fair or just its
process was?
Yet the much more important issue of equal protection of the
law
was completely ignored by the court majority.
The Florida
Supreme Court wisely ruled that the under-vote in all counties
should be counted, not just in those counties that the Gore plaintiffs
had requested.
This shows that the Florida Supreme Court was not
being partisan and was interpreting
Florida law in a manner that
was fair to all.
The most important equal protection issue here
is that voters in precincts
with faulty voting machines were discriminated
against,
because more of their votes were not counted than in
wealthier precincts
with more modern machines that threw out far
fewer votes.
Thus the very purpose of counting the under-vote
was to provide at least less unequal protection.
For the U. S.
Supreme Court to ignore this far more serious concern
and focus
on the myopic standards for counting the ballots is like complaining
about the speck in your neighbor's eye while ignoring the log
in your own eye.
Was this not based on partisan political advantage
rather than a concern to protect the rights of all under the law?
Perhaps the most ironic hypocrisy in this case is the way the
U. S. Supreme Court
interfered to stop the vote counting that
probably would have been completed
by the "safe harbor"
date of December 12 and then with only two hours remaining
before
that date was to expire told the Florida Supreme Court that
they
must respect that date as an absolute deadline for the contest.
By blocking the Florida vote did they not in fact create a safe
harbor
only for the election of the George W. Bush while allowing
thousands of voters' rights to be drowned in a sea of confusion?
The justices of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President
and confirmed by the U. S. Senate, all of whom are elected by
the people.
By over-ruling the votes of the people in order to
appoint a Republican President
is not the conservative majority
of justices subverting the democratic process?
If the U. S. Supreme
Court does not respect the votes of the people,
why should the
people respect the votes of the U. S. Supreme Court?
This has been published in the book PEACE OR BUST.
For ordering information, please click here.