The ghost of Bush v. Gore was palpably present during the Feb. 8 oral argument before the Supreme Court in the case to decide whether former president Donald Trump will remain on the Colorado primary ballot [“Supreme Court likely to keep Trump on ballot,” front page, Feb. 9].
Комментарии 0
...комментариев пока нет
The ghosts at the Supreme Court
If anyone is looking for a precedent to explain the apparent desire of the court not to remove Mr. Trump, the front-runner for the GOP nomination for president, from the ballot, then that precedent is Bush v. Gore.
The meaning of precedent in this instance, however, is not its usual meaning: a case that established law on a particular issue. Instead, it is a case that established the political consequences to the court of deciding the outcome of a presidential election.
When Bush v. Gore, in effect, gave the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush, the court was heavily criticized for doing so. The present court, already the subject of heavy criticism on other grounds, apparently did not want to suffer more for taking away Mr. Trump’s chance to face the electorate.
Ted Pulliam, Alexandria
The Supreme Court ignored a rather obvious explanation for why “president” was not specifically mentioned in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment [“Justices’ focus was not on question of ‘insurrection,’ and other takeaways,” news, Feb. 9].
Those who carefully drafted that amendment likely could not imagine that a sitting president would ever foment an uprising, rebellion or, yes, an insurrection against his own government. Why would he want to overthrow his own government? His vice president, senators, representatives and the other “officials” mentioned by title might want to try to do so, but not a sitting president.
Unless, of course, he had just lost an election and refused to accept the repeatedly verified results. Those who wrote the 14th Amendment likely could not foresee that ever happening in this country. They could not imagine a Donald Trump.
J.A. Steiner, Rockville
The Supreme Court, whose majority favors states’ rights, is now wondering about the implications of Colorado’s decision to remove former president Donald Trump from its ballot. On the other hand, in deciding Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the majority of the court was insensitive to the devastating effect that the repeal of Roe v. Wade would have on women, families, poor people and doctors.
This court is more political than fair.
Julie V. Potter, Chevy Chase