payback
Well, isn't this convenient.
U.S. Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts provided legal advice to Gov. Jeb Bush in the weeks following the November 2000 election as part of the effort to make sure the governor's brother won the disputed presidential vote.Story from Miami Herald (registration required), or Common Dreams.
Roberts, at the time a private attorney in Washington, D.C., came to Tallahassee to advise the state's Republican administration as it was trying to prevent a Democratic end-run that the GOP feared might give the election to Al Gore, sources told The Herald.
The maneuver, which the Democrats never attempted, might have kept the state from sending its list of official "electors" -- the Electoral College members who actually cast the votes that count -- to Congress and the National Archives.
If the names were not forwarded to Washington in a timely fashion, Republicans feared, Gore might be declared the winner because Florida's 25 electoral votes wouldn't be counted -- and the Democrat had garnered more electoral votes than George W. Bush in the rest of the country.
Roberts, himself a noted constitutional lawyer, and an unnamed law professor spent between 30 and 40 minutes talking to Bush in the governor's conference room, sources told The Herald.
Roberts' perceived partisanship during the recount has been enough for some Democrats to suggest that his nomination should be rejected by the U.S. Senate.
. . .
U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler, a Boca Raton Democrat, seized on Roberts' participation in the 2000 recount and suggested it should be grounds for rejecting his nomination. Wexler suggested the nomination "threw salt on the wounds of the thousands of Floridians whose voting rights were disenfranchised during the 2000 election.
"Judge Roberts worked to ensure that George Bush would become president -- regardless of what the courts might decide," Wexler said, relying on news accounts that suggested Roberts gave the governor advice on how the state Legislature could name Bush the winner. "And now he is being rewarded for that partisan service by being appointed to the nation's highest court."
That election makes me wonder how it is that the USA is able to send election observers to any country. The US really needs an independent body, such as Elections Canada, to run elections.
ReplyDeleteI guess we all knew there had to be a reason for Bush's choice, and it wasn't Roberts' perceived niceness or good looks. W is nothing if not loyal. I look forward to hearing how the dissenters are "bitter" and part of the "angry left" or whatever else those damned talking points say.
ReplyDeleteI was in Japan during 2000, and...well, I wonder how many folks in the US realize just how that whole imbroglio looked To the rest of the world...
ReplyDeleteI think I can guess. I know we looked like complete imbeciles during Monicagate. But hey, we're Americans, so who cares what people think.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing about the US electoral process that seems absurd to my Canadian eyes is gerrymandering. It is simply incredible that a party can assume power and then redraw electoral districts to its own benefit. Here in Canada, the electoral districts do get redrawn from time to time, but it is done by the nonpartisan Elections Canada and only to represent changes in population distribution, not for political advantage.
ReplyDeleteI find the whole gerrymandering process bizarre too.
ReplyDeleteDidn't the Democrats bring the Texas legislature to a halt for a couple of weeks because of re-districting?
Actually, the whole election process in the U.S. is a little bizarre to me.
ReplyDeleteAs Rob alluded to, Canada has an arms-length department called Elections Canada that handles all federal level elections.
And despite using old-fashioned paper ballots, we know within an hour after the polls closed who won. No hanging chads, touch-screens fiascos, or anything like that.
While I'm at it, I also wonder about the idea of electing District Attorneys, Judges, and Sheriffs. It seems like a politicization of the court system.
And then there's the fact that the Republican and Democrat parties are involved in the whole chain. Here, there are no political parties involved in municipal level elections, and even the provincial and federal levels of the political parties are fairly distinct entities. They share the same logo, but often little else.
Canada isn't immune from gerrymandering (in fact, it's sometimes blamed by Conservatives for losing elections). However, it at least seems far less blatant then what happens in the U.S.
ReplyDeleteThe big flaw in Canada's election system, is, well, Ontario. Because Ontario has about a third of Canada's population, and half of Ontario's population lives in Toronto's shadow, it's completely dominates the election. You must win Ontario to win the federal government. Quebec used to be a sort of counterweight, but since they now generally vote only Bloc it's as though Quebec has been taken out of the system.
Conservatives complain that the system is unfair (but that's a recent phenomenom, since they haven't won the federal level in a decade), but of course if they won Ontario and could hold it they wouldn't change the system either. Politicians are politicians, after all, no matter where you live.
Kyle, I wouldn't say that it is unfair, elections are about 1 person 1 vote, it is fair that Ontario gets more votes and therefore more representation. I find it interesting in Alberta when you look at the number of people in rural ridings compared to the numbers in urban ridings and you quickly see that Edmonton and Calgary are getting the shaft. I wonder why...
ReplyDeleteAnyway the biggest problem with our system is the fact that it is first past the post... this leads to smaller parties being shut out.
If the west wants more of a say we need to increase our population... if there are any cute Alberta ladies around that want to work at this let me know :) (Preference given to liberals or NDP'ers of course)
That was me btw :)
ReplyDeletePeter
That was me btw :)
ReplyDeletePeter
I knew it was you! Funny I can ID certain anonymous commenters.
I think "first past the post" - which we in the US call "winner take all" - is undemocratic. Proportional representation seems a much better system to me.
Kyle, I wouldn't say that it is unfair, elections are about 1 person 1 vote, it is fair that Ontario gets more votes and therefore more representation.
ReplyDeleteThat's true, up to a point, but it is also important for smaller states or provinces to have their say. The Founding Fathers in the US saw the necessity of that, so they created the Senate as a counter to the Congress, in which each state has equal representation. Even the UN recognizes the importance of equal representation of member states. Some, like the US and Russia are more equal than others in that they are permanent members of the Security Council, but in the General Assembly, every state gets one vote, regardless of population.
It's amazing how much it ticks me off to see the manipulation of the Republicans and I'm not an American. Grrrr.
ReplyDeleteOn the subject the US system being better because it has an equal elected Senate, keep in mind that might only sound better. It's been written in other articles about how the US system means that the least populous states end up with ridiculous amounts of money from the Federal government.
It's amazing how much it ticks me off to see the manipulation of the Republicans and I'm not an American. Grrrr.
ReplyDeleteWell Jason, I thank you for your sympathetic grrrr. We need that anger.
Welcome to wmtc! Your comment on the London police shooting was a great introduction. What brings you to these parts? (I'm always curious how people find blogs.)