I realize the Democrats may never get over this, but this
seemingly objective source points toward
the Court's action in deciding Bush v. Gore - and thus resolving the 2002 election - may have been far more legitimate and properly judicial than is commonly thought.
The gist of the document...
If Bush v. Gore was indeed a principled, not a political, decision, that is very significant. It means, for one thing, that the Court's legitimacy in our system enjoys a far stronger basis - for the claim that the Justices, in Bush v. Gore, were acting more like electors than jurists may be entirely inaccurate. White indicates that, instead, the Justices may simply have been adhering to the same principled beliefs in Bush v. Gore that they generally apply, and thus not exceeding their proper constitutional role.
I find this interesting because some leftist political commentators such as Ted Rall still refuse to accept Bush's election. He's a dolt, but an irritating one.
