It’s safe to say that Chief Justice John Roberts would rather keep the U.S. Supreme Court out of the legal battles that seem destined to define the 2024 presidential election. Unfortunately for Roberts, it will be all but impossible for the Court to avoid deciding whether state officials and courts possess the legal authority to remove Donald Trump from primary ballots after declaring him guilty of a crime for which he has never been charged. Because SCOTUS is likely to rule in favor of Trump, it will produce outrage on the left and countless comparisons to Bush v. Gore. Consequently, it’s a useful exercise to debunk the myths still purveyed by the Democrats about that fabled 2000 ruling.
Chief Justice Roberts and the rest of the Court should slap these people down hard and ignore the corporate media types who will yammer endlessly about Bush v. Gore.
It’s an article of faith on the left that George W. Bush was “selected” when the U.S. Supreme Court arbitrarily halted a ballot recount that would have proven Al Gore the winner of Florida’s 25 electoral votes and made him President-elect. This is fiction. Bush v. Gore was the last of numerous lawsuits, most filed by Gore after he lost the initial vote count and two subsequent recounts. When the election was certified by Florida’s Secretary of State, Gore filed another lawsuit contesting that and the Democrat-dominated Florida Supreme Court soon began meddling with the recounts. The U.S. Supreme Court voted unanimously to vacate their first ruling, 7-2 to reverse their second ruling, and 5-4 to stay the recount. (READ MORE from David Catron: The Scariest SCOTUS Case This Term)
The ongoing recount was deemed unconstitutional by 7 of 9 sitting justices — including “swing justices” Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O’Connor — and there was simply not enough time to devise and execute any constitutional recount process that had any chance of meeting Florida’s statutory certification deadline. Nonetheless, Bush v. Gore is still generating Democrat conspiracy theories 23 years later. As recently as two weeks ago longtime Democrat operative Max Burns published a column in The Hill titled, “Bush v. Gore destroyed us.” Burns posits a sinister plot orchestrated by current members of the Supreme Court and even manages to tie the ruling to the fictitious authoritarianism of the GOP and Trump.
Bush v. Gore ushered in an era that has culminated in the Republican Party’s abandonment of democracy in favor of Trump-styled strongman authoritarianism … Bush campaign attorneys John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett all enjoy lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court. Another Bush attorney, Garry Malphrus, received a plush appointment as an immigration judge. Matt Schlapp, who heads the annual CPAC conference, became Bush’s White House political director. Even Roger Stone, the notorious Trump enforcer, returned from political exile after his leading role disrupting the Florida recount in the first place.
If such conspiracy theories are difficult to take seriously, they are not harmless. By tying John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett to Bush v. Gore, Burns is joining the corporate media and the Democrats in questioning the Court’s legitimacy. Likewise, the New York Times has made much of this point: “The Supreme Court, battered by ethics scandals, a dip in public confidence, and questions about its legitimacy may soon have to confront a case as consequential and bruising as Bush v. Gore, the 2000 decision that handed the presidency to George W. Bush.” Never mind that the “ethics scandals” are largely manufactured by the corporate media and Democrats like Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI).
Unfortunately, Chief Justice Roberts is far too sensitive concerning the public perception of the Court. Both he and the Court itself would be far better off if he adopted the position taken by the late Justice Antonin Scalia during a CNN interview when Piers Morgan asked which ruling during his time on the Court had been the most contentious. Scalia answered, “Well, I guess the one that created the most waves of disagreement was Bush v. Gore. OK. That comes up all the time and my usual response is, ‘Get over it.’” Sadly, John Roberts is no Antonin Scalia. Consequently, he listens to criticism that he should ignore. He would be better off to follow the advice of Judge James Ho, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
I’d say that it’s the God-given right of every red-blooded American to yell at refs, and I’d say the exact same thing about criticizing judges. Maybe this is just the former litigator in me, but if I’m feeling charitable, I might view criticism of judges as just another form of passionate, aggressive advocacy. There’s even a term for it, and it happens to be another sports analogy. It’s called “working the refs.” On the other hand, under a less charitable view, one might view certain critics as nothing more than playground bullies — people who can’t just rely on text or truth and instead have to resort to yelling and screaming to get their way.
In other words, as Judge Ho puts it, “ignore the booing of the crowd.” This is exactly how the Chief Justice should respond to people like Sen. Whitehouse and other Democrats who will attack the Court no matter how it rules on the actions of the Colorado Supreme Court and Maine’s ridiculous Secretary of State, Shenna Bellows. These people are political activists with no real interest in the Constitution unless its language can be twisted to meet their short-term political goals. Chief Justice Roberts and the rest of the Court should slap these people down hard and ignore the corporate media types who will yammer endlessly about Bush v. Gore. This isn’t Obamacare. The republic won’t survive if SCOTUS blows this call.
READ MORE from David Catron:
Colorado’s Christmas Gift to Trump