Bush v Gore is not Dred Scott!

[Kevin R]

In the archives John stated: "Democrats believe that George W. Bush would never have been elected if the Supreme Court had not made one of its most infamous decisions in history. Tell every mother of a son killed in Iraq that Dred Scott or Plessy did more harm."

John, you are kidding right? I'm assuming you are being provocative in order to ignite discussion. Or you know little about Dred and Plessy. To mention Bush v. Gore in the same context as those other two is ludicrous and unhistorical. And Bush v. Gore did not (as far as I know) result in any deaths.

The SC didn't give the election to Bush, the people of Florida did.

[jbuck919]

In the archives John stated: "Democrats believe that George W. Bush would never have been elected if the Supreme Court had not made one of its most infamous decisions in history. Tell every mother of a son killed in Iraq that Dred Scott or Plessy did more harm."

John, you are kidding right? I'm assuming you are being provocative in order to ignite discussion. Or you know little about Dred and Plessy. To mention Bush v. Gore in the same context as those other two is ludicrous and unhistorical. And Bush v. Gore did not (as far as I know) result in any deaths.

The SC didn't give the election to Bush, the people of Florida did.

I'm kidding in the sense that Florida uncertainty=>premature and partisan Supreme Court decision=>Bush gets elected=>nation goes to war in Iraq=>2000 soldiers dead=>mothers of killed soldiers care a bit more about this than the historical bad decisions of a century or more ago. I am aware of the greater historical harm done by those bad decisions.

The recount in Florida should have been allowed to proceed. In an election that close, a recount is or should be routine. There was no reason to assume that there had not been a substantial undercount that would have showed Gore was the victor. Then the Supreme Court could have stepped in to decide the validity of the recount. Then it might still have decided for Bush, but it would have done so on the basis of allowing the political process to play out rather than a peremptory decision that basically made things easier for itself.

[Kevin R]

In the archives John stated: "Democrats believe that George W. Bush would never have been elected if the Supreme Court had not made one of its most infamous decisions in history. Tell every mother of a son killed in Iraq that Dred Scott or Plessy did more harm."

John, you are kidding right? I'm assuming you are being provocative in order to ignite discussion. Or you know little about Dred and Plessy. To mention Bush v. Gore in the same context as those other two is ludicrous and unhistorical. And Bush v. Gore did not (as far as I know) result in any deaths.

The SC didn't give the election to Bush, the people of Florida did.

I'm kidding in the sense that Florida uncertainty=>premature and partisan Supreme Court decision=>Bush gets elected=>nation goes to war in Iraq=>2000 soldiers dead=>mothers of killed soldiers care a bit more about this than the historical bad decisions of a century or more ago. I am aware of the greater historical harm done by those bad decisions.

The recount in Florida should have been allowed to proceed. In an election that close, a recount is or should be routine. There was no reason to assume that there had not been a substantial undercount that would have showed Gore was the victor. Then the Supreme Court could have stepped in to decide the validity of the recount. Then it might still have decided for Bush, but it would have done so on the basis of allowing the political process to play out rather than a peremptory decision that basically made things easier for itself.

The SC needed to step in because the FL SC was out of control.