We are watching a woman attempting to park her Suburban in a space God left for a Toyota. The exhortations of the three screaming kids in the backseat do not seem to be helping, although I do not doubt their sincerity or good intentions. Inevitably, the spectacle of screaming combined with the prospect of impending embarrasment and disaster turns our thoughts to the Democratic Party.
Dems are exchanging high-fives over the latest plot twist in "Total Recall" - by applying the logic of Bush v. Gore to the California recall, the Dems really stuck it to Scalia and Company.
Well, done, chaps. Maybe it is the screaming kids that are muddling my thinking, so please explain it clearly and, I guess, loudly - isn't this a bit backwards? A major rally point for the Dems in 2004 was that Bush v. Gore was wrong, wrong, WRONG! But if Dems, via their friends in California, are now arguing that Bush v. Gore was reasoned jurisprudence, doesn't a bit of air come out of the balloon?
Just wondering. Meanwhile, Adam Nagourney tells us that at the national level, Dems have been counting the days until October 7, so they could resume their normal (limited) oxygen flow. Delaying the recall vote until March and combining it with the primary is a disaster. The California primary is part of a Super Tuesday of eleven states, including New York and Texas. The winner may very well be the Dem nominee, and who will know, because what would normally be his big TV night (Sorry, Carol), will be devoted to the last episode of "Total Recall".
I will commence thinking this is all a brilliant scheme IF the broader California panel overturns the three-judge panel that delayed the recall, and ridicules Bush v. Gore in the process. Double-play! And it may happen.
And, a Bold Prediction: the US Supreme Court will not take this case.
First, it will be reversed in California, and not reach them. If it is not reversed, the US SC would be the next stop. They will pass because (listen up, I am only saying this once, and I don't quite get it myself) Florida involved a State Supreme Court ripping up state laws governing a federal election; California involves a Federal Court ripping up state laws governing a state election. That is a HUGE difference, but I can't say why. Logically, you would think that the final Federal court should correct an error made by a lower-ranking Federal court, as in California, and (maybe) duck an issue created by a State Supreme Court, as in Florida.
I think the word "logically" is the problem there, because I stand by my Bold Prediction. And since I confounded ALL my lawyer friends by correctly predicting the timing and outcome of Bush v. Gore, you need to listen to me.
Comments