|
Explain this Please
Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
Chronology of events + analysis of how fucked up the DEMs arguments were (especially with the benefit of hindsight).
|
Since Posner is renowned for bending the law to where he thinks it should be, he is not the most convincing person to make this sort of argument. Read the Vanity Fair article and you will be reminded of what we all knew at the time -- the equal protection argument ultimately accepted by the 5 members of the Court who ended the recount was ridiculously weak on its face (so much so that Ted Olson didn't even get to it until page 43 or so his brief) but the Court was intent on ending the litigation and was willing to fashion new law for that limited purpose to do so. (Find me another Supreme Court decision which says that it's not to be considered as precedent in future cases.)
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
|
