Comments on: Analysis: Bush v. Gore lives http://www.scotusblog.com/2006/04/analysis-bush-v-gore-lives/ The Supreme Court of the United States blog Mon, 23 Jan 2012 22:38:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Rich http://www.scotusblog.com/2006/04/analysis-bush-v-gore-lives/#comment-9436 Rich Mon, 24 Apr 2006 22:09:59 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/analysis-bush-v-gore-lives/#comment-9436 For a view of Bush v. Gore supportive of the Stewart majority's (and contra to Judge Gilman's dissent), see Richard B. Saphire and Paul Moke, "Litigating Bush v. Gore in the States: Dual Voting Systems and the Fourteenth Amendment," 51 Villanova L. Rev. 229 (2006). Paul Moke and I (Rich Saphire) are co-counsel, along with Dan Tokaji, Meredith Bell-Platt, and Laughlin Mc Donald) for the appellants in Stewart. For a view of Bush v. Gore supportive of the Stewart majority’s (and contra to Judge Gilman’s dissent), see Richard B. Saphire and Paul Moke, “Litigating Bush v. Gore in the States: Dual Voting Systems and the Fourteenth Amendment,” 51 Villanova L. Rev. 229 (2006). Paul Moke and I (Rich Saphire) are co-counsel, along with Dan Tokaji, Meredith Bell-Platt, and Laughlin Mc Donald) for the appellants in Stewart.

]]> By: Rick Hasen http://www.scotusblog.com/2006/04/analysis-bush-v-gore-lives/#comment-9435 Rick Hasen Mon, 24 Apr 2006 13:37:49 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/analysis-bush-v-gore-lives/#comment-9435 The post Lyle refers to at the end of his post is here: http://electionlawblog.org/archives/005460.html You can also download my FSU article here: http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/downloads/292/Hasen.pdf The post Lyle refers to at the end of his post is here:
http://electionlawblog.org/archives/005460.html

You can also download my FSU article here:
http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/downloads/292/Hasen.pdf

]]> By: Richard Samp http://www.scotusblog.com/2006/04/analysis-bush-v-gore-lives/#comment-9434 Richard Samp Mon, 24 Apr 2006 01:25:50 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/analysis-bush-v-gore-lives/#comment-9434 Those who found the actions of the Florida Supreme Court so disturbing objected primarily to post-election creation of rules that applied different recount standards in different portions of the state, and in a manner seemingly designed to favor one candidate. Regardless of how persuasive one finds the Bush v. Gore equal protection analysis, it is reasonable to conclude that it was this after-the-fact non-uniform rulemaking that led the court to reach the result it did. If so, one does not render Bush v. Gore "non-precedential" by refusing to apply it to pre-election challenges such as the one in Ohio. Those who found the actions of the Florida Supreme Court so disturbing objected primarily to post-election creation of rules that applied different recount standards in different portions of the state, and in a manner seemingly designed to favor one candidate. Regardless of how persuasive one finds the Bush v. Gore equal protection analysis, it is reasonable to conclude that it was this after-the-fact non-uniform rulemaking that led the court to reach the result it did. If so, one does not render Bush v. Gore “non-precedential” by refusing to apply it to pre-election challenges such as the one in Ohio.

]]>