Obviously more eloquently put than my version. :)
The assumption that I'm blindly knocking pure constitutional law, rather than
what really happened in that case, always makes me chuckle.
Larry
Winsor Crosby wrote:
> On Dec 12, 2003, at 5:58 AM, Timpe, Jim wrote:
>
> > Quite novel way of looking at the constitutionally stipulated method by
> > which the president is elected.
>
> That is a stretch no matter what your politics unless you can point to
> a clause in the constitution that stipulates the US Supreme Court
> participation in elections. Actually it was unprecedented, which is why
> it is still controversial. The court could have as easily thrown out
> all the results from the counties with rigged voting and thrown the
> election other way. And the same people in the news who are complaining
> about the court's recent decisions as "liberal legislating from the
> bench" were quite happy to be given the government by the same court.
> Irony or just dishonest politics?
>
> Winsor
> Long Beach, California
> USA
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|