@philip_cardella @TonyStark @CivilityFan @axeshun
In a statewide recount, #Gore would have beaten #Dubya, but the #SCotUS put a stop to it on the (insane) grounds that continuing to question the result "would hurt Bush's legitimacy."
Funny that SCotUS never said the same about T****'s endless call for recounts hurting #Biden (how many #RWNJ's to this day think Biden "stole" the election?)
@MugsysRapSheet that's because Trump's recounts never made it to SCOTUS in a way that warranted its action.
In Bush v Gore the Court was involved because a lower court had demanded a recount. When it comes to Trump it was the opposite: lower courts rebuked him already, so there wasn't anything for the SCOTUS to do.
@philip_cardella@historians.social @TonyStark @CivilityFan @axeshun
@volkris @philip_cardella @TonyStark @CivilityFan @axeshun
The only reason the SCotUS injected themselves in Bush v Gore is b/c the Bush campaign asked them to.
Biden never did (or had to.) If just ONE state had refused to take up one of #TheOrangeMenace's whiny-ass calls for a recount, he would have sued and it would have gone to the SCotUS.
@MugsysRapSheet but Trump DID ask the SCOTUS to intervene and they rejected his invitation.
SCOTUS took up Bush v Gore because Bush made the case that a lower court screwed up, which needed correcting.
SCOTUS didn't take up Trump's cases because that campaign didn't make a solid case.
It had nothing to do with Biden, but about Trump's request being unpersuasive.
This shows that the Court is happy to ignore Trump's wants when they think he's blabbering nonsense.
@philip_cardella@historians.social @TonyStark @CivilityFan @axeshun
@volkris wrote
This shows that the Court is happy to ignore Trump’s wants when they think he’s blabbering nonsense.
In Bush v Gore, they specifically qualified the ruling as not setting precedence for the future, displaying a knowledge of how political it was. I don’t think that this court can be trusted to rule impartially. If its legitimacy is questioned, it will lose the faith of the American people and that’s not a future anyone can predict.
@MugsysRapSheet @philip_cardella @TonyStark @axeshun
Where did they specifically qualify the ruling as not setting precedent?
I really don't see how a person can read the ruling and find it so political.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/98/case.pdf
@MugsysRapSheet @philip_cardella@historians.social @TonyStark @axeshun
@volkris @CivilityFan @philip_cardella @TonyStark @axeshun
#SCotUS publicly stated that the Bush v Gore ruling was not to be used as a precedent as it was "specific to this one case."
@MugsysRapSheet when I search the opinion, the phrase "specific to this one case" turns up no hits.
It's not in there.
@CivilityFan @philip_cardella@historians.social @TonyStark @axeshun
@volkris
Apparently it was in the announcement:
announced that “[o]ur consideration is limited to the present circumstances,”
How can that be read any other way? Smh
You left off the rest of the sentence, " for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."
So their consideration here is not to speak generally and tackle all possible circumstances, but only the situation as they describe it.
That doesn't mean it's not precedent setting. Other similar situations would be expected to follow the same disposition.
By cutting the sentence in half and only looking at the first half, much less the following paragraph that lends further clarification, people are able to twist the meaning.
@MugsysRapSheet @philip_cardella@historians.social @TonyStark @axeshun
