Tuesday, January 16, 2001

I think that the U. S. Supreme Court ruling selecting Bush as President was a travesty, not only for the sloppiness of the writing of the judgments (which can be partially excused by the time factor), and the ridiculous way in which the separate sets of decisions make it impossible to figure out what the court said (which confusion may be intentional in order to blunt the fatuousness of the majority decision), but also because legal ideas created as anti-discrimination measures were used to thwart the democratic expression of minorities. This is a kind of 'in your face' judicial decision making that clearly shows distain for minority citizens, and has no place in a supreme court. It seems to me that Justice Ginsburg's 'attitude' expressed in omitting the word 'respectfully' from her dissent may reflect the fact that Scalia somehow misled her into thinking he'd have a less insulting ratio for the majority decision, but at the last minute used the discrimination argument. All this on top of the fact that much of the majority decision was based on shortness of time in part created by the Court by its injunction, the extremely questionable familial conflict of interest problems of Scalia and Thomas, and the ill-advised partisan election-night remarks of O'Connor. Whatever one may think of the legalities of the decision, the majority of the court acted in as judicially unprofessional a way as is conceivable. They went so over the top in their unprofessionalism that it is impossible to see it as other than intentional, partly to dissuade Gore from taking any other steps, knowing that they would do anything to keep him out, and partly as the sheer agression needed to seal the success of a coup d'etat.