Law And Laughter

Polipundit is quite funny about objecting to Michael W. McConnell:

...he’s a solid conservative scholar, but he isn’t partisan enough. He’s argued that Bush v. Gore was a bad decision. That alone should disqualify him; the next time a case like that comes up, we need to be sure of a 5-4 majority.

For reasons I can't explain, I don't read Polipundit often enough to be sure that is a joke, but it has to be, right?  Right?

Comments

[Crank]

Agreed. And McConnell was horrified at the SCOFLA's behavior, anyway.

Of course, Mickey loves McConnell because he appeals to the crucial "people who have been published in Slate" demographic. Now, there's a group in need of Supreme Court representation!

[Geek, Esq.]

Wow, someone even more cravenly and cynically partisan than Hugh Hewitt.

[Geek, Esq.]

I'll be the first to say it, though: You can bet that were this a Democratic president, plenty of liberal bloggers would be screaming if the nominee thought Bush v. Gore was a good decision.

Bush v. Gore was defensible, but as a political act, not an exercise in legal reasoning.

[Cecil Turner]

Bush v. Gore was defensible, but as a political act, not an exercise in legal reasoning.

I think that's right (at least for the 5-4 part). But the alternative strikes me as absolutely unworkable, and I'd prefer SCOTUS decisions be based at least partly on their practical effect.

[SteveMG]

"The next time a case like that comes up"?

The next time? A case like THAT?

One hopes that the next time a case like THAT comes up we'll be long, long gone.

It's smart to cover all bases but some folks have too much time on their hands.

You crazy bloggers.

SMG

[Geek, Esq.]

I think that's right (at least for the 5-4 part). But the alternative strikes me as absolutely unworkable, and I'd prefer SCOTUS decisions be based at least partly on their practical effect.

I think this makes you one of us 'legal realists.'

But, the alternative to the resolution in Bush v. Gore was having Congress choose which electors from Florida to choose.

The Scalia/Thomas/Rehnquist opinion was much more credible than the O'Connor Kennedy concurrence.

The best take on this was published by Posner, imo.

And now, I'm done commenting on Bush v. Gore for another year.

[Cecil Turner]

I'm too ignorant to be otherwise . . . splitting fine legal issues isn't on.

But, the alternative to the resolution in Bush v. Gore was having Congress choose which electors from Florida to choose.

It seems to me the real alternative was to let the SCOFLA decide the case (who appeared determined to let the Dem counties keep counting until they came up with a result they liked). There was no chance of any realistic congressional path leading to a Gore win, so it'd be hard to see anyone getting excited if that was the only other possibility.

[millco88]

To answer the original question, sadly, no, that post wasn't a joke. This nominee has driven Polipundit over the edge. If you want to have a little fun, go back to Tuesday or Wednesday and start counting how many consecutive posts Poli started about the Miers' nomination. It makes TM's obsession with L'Affair de Plame seem positively pedestrian.

[Geek, Esq.]

It seems to me the real alternative was to let the SCOFLA decide the case (who appeared determined to let the Dem counties keep counting until they came up with a result they liked). There was no chance of any realistic congressional path leading to a Gore win, so it'd be hard to see anyone getting excited if that was the only other possibility.

What probably would have happened is one set of FL Supreme Court-approved electors and one set of Katherine Harris/Jeb Bush approved-electors being chosen. Then Congress would have to choose which to accept.

Now, that's probably how the founding fathers intended things--but they didn't anticipate the political atmosphere of Bush v. Gore or the nationalization of the presidential race.