The veteran legal analyst at SCOTUSBlog, Lyle Denniston was on Q&A (C-SPAN) yesterday. He noted his distaste of the press coverage (all those 24hr klieg lights) of Bush v. Gore. Then, without prompting, he later notes that he is a rarity among progressives in agreeing with the opinion. There was a "crisis" and they had to deal with it. Tellingly, in that answer, he didn't defend the reasoning. Well, this allows me to have some iota of respect for the man (a good reporter) on the point. I had to shut it off though -- that matter simply still rankles. You know with the whole cheapening of democracy and all. It also is simple stupidity as a matter of constitutional law and reality.
We current have to live under a system wherein a minority in the Senate holds back the will of not only a majority of Congress, but surely in various respects, the majority of the population at large. We accept this system as an outgrowth, one with positives, of our constitutional system. This system includes respect for federalism, a key example being two senators from each state, senators that are treated with special respect vis-a-vis members of the House of Representatives partially for just that reason. There is another aspect of federalism. It is a largely local focus when it comes to presidential electors -- they vote per state delegation, and the Electoral College itself furthers federalism. This is partially why we are supposed to accept the (official) results of 2000, even though the winner of the popular vote has to promote good policy in the private sector.
This local focus, as is common, is selectively honored. Thus, when the Florida Supreme Court required a recount and special care respecting counting votes, people cried bloody murder. Well, certain people. Likewise, usually, such people tell us "progressives" that life is messy. The courts cannot deal with every wrong. So, yeah, sometimes local action is messy, but so it goes. Until such messiness might harm their chance of getting their minority vote getter into office. Then, of course, it is a "crisis." The fact blacks were clearly denied the vote was not a "crisis," apparently. After all, the Supreme Court didn't handle that problem. They surely knew about it -- Justice Ginsburg got in trouble with Scalia by even thinking about referencing the matter.
[Talking about ridiculous, consider the trope that the ruling was in fact 7-2. This is amazing, since Justice Breyer joined Stevens' dissenting opinion! Likewise, a professor who often writes (sympathetically) about abortion rights assumed Justice White supported the right of unmarried people to use contraceptives in a ruling decided shortly before Roe. He did not. He expressly said the matter was not in his opinion necessary to be decided at the end of his concurring opinion in Eisenstadt v. Baird.]
So, I cry b.s. One pet peeve of mine is where professionals who should know better promote something that I know is simply untrue. I find such people embarrassments, especially given they honestly do not respect their craft. This is patently unethical and underlines the alleged difference between a job and a profession -- the latter warrants more respect as well as more responsibility. I can accept ideological differences up to a point, but shoddy reasoning drives me nuts. I mean you too "Douglas W. Kmiec[,] Chair and professor of constitutional law at Pepperdine University ...also the former constitutional legal counsel to Presidents Reagan and George H. W. Bush."
So sorry Doug, not only does your column promote ignorance by implying the current practice matches historical norms, but comments like "the whine of innuendo" works better when the facts are not against you. Ideological firings like these have been rare in current years, and yes, there is clear evidence of executive skulduggery. Boilerplate about executive discretion over firing amounts to trolling not much higher than found on message boards. As a commentator in NYT noted yesterday (h/t Today's Papers in Slate, Monday edition), you deserve a "F."
I slip too, but I am but an educated civilian, not a supposed expert in the field being discussed.