'A dubious display of judicial politicking'

The Supreme Court of the United States, previously untainted by the partisanship and hypocrisy of the legislative and executive branches, has become a lamentable shadow of the impartial body that it was designed to be. In blatant acts of judicial activism, as evidenced by consecutive 5-4 splits, the majority of the Supreme Court compromised its legitimacy, simply to demonstrate their political allegiance to Texas Gov. George W. Bush. As the 5-4 splits on Saturday and on Tuesday night indicated, those decisions by the Supreme Court had nothing to do with justice, moral conviction or sound jurisprudence. They had everything to do with politics, partisanship and shameless hypocrisy. This was the ultimate political power-play for Dubya, executed by the super-conservative trio of Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and William Rehnquist. Scalia authored the majority's decision to run out the clock on Saturday, and then on Tuesday night, they ruled to end the recounts altogether -- because the clock had run out. Doesn't that indicate unfair predisposition to rule for the plaintiff, even before hearing the arguments? One expects the Supreme Court justices to interpret the laws with a high degree of consistency and reliability that demonstrates the fidelity of the court. But the sudden switch by Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist from the conservative mantra of states rights' to centralist advocacy is quite remarkable. This is absolutely a case wherein the state entity -- the Florida State Supreme Court -- and not the United States Supreme Court holds supreme jurisdiction over the matter. Why? Because for starters, the election itself is a decentralized process featuring 50 different elections in 50 separate states with varying procedures and voting apparatus in each county. Secondly, the election that took place in the State of Florida was conducted under the direction of Florida state election laws, which specify what constitutes a vote and when a recount or a manual recount is in order. Hence, it is the Florida State Supreme Court that reserves ultimate jurisdiction in interpreting all Florida state laws. At least that is what the Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist of old would say. But really, since when did that supremely conservative trio begin to support federal involvement in state affairs? Hasn't the fundamental rhetoric of the conservatives always been anchored on the protection of states' rights, even when the argument is nothing short of ridiculous? The thought of another liberal appointing new colleagues was probably just too unpleasant for the majority of the court, as their primary inclination to side with the conservative point of view surfaced. You see, the crucial point is not that those justices on the far right simply have conservative views. It is simply that they agree with the conservative position on all issues, as they demonstrated in their decision last Saturday. A consistent inclination to have conservative views would have resulted in deference to the authority of the Florida State Supreme Court. But because they simply agree with the conservative opinion on issues, they have sided with Bush on this one, with Scalia forthrightly admitting that Dubya would suffer "irreparable harm" if the recounts continued. With all due respect to the justice's opinion, the role of the court is not to prevent a candidate from losing, but to allow the process stipulated by the constitution to proceed and produce a winner. The idea that the Supreme Court is the only fair arbiter in the most charged of atmospheres is, and has always been, an illusion. The Supreme Court consists of humans with human shortcomings -- fallibilities that include exploiting the extraordinary opportunity to put the candidate they support in office. In this day and age of a two-party system atop a bi-axial construct of opinions, it was inevitable that a serious crisis that threatened the venerable stature of this system would succeed. Essentially the majority of the electorate voted for Al Gore in this election, as the popular vote tally indicates, but through a rather dubious display of judicial politicking, the Supreme Court has decided the presidency.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.