Like everyone here, I am totally elated the Supreme Court vacated the GOP's recent win in the lower circuit court opinion that would have effected the Ohio election on the issue of Standing.
After taking a look at only minor portions of opinion, I am bewildered. The infamous case of Bush v. Gore allowed Bush to bring the action and to stop the Florida re-count and the Supreme Court totally refused to correctly apply the standing doctrine to throw the Bush petition out entirely.
My question: in vacating the Ohio circuit court--did the Court silently overrule Bush v. Gore? Or by vacating the circuit court opinion, did the Court refuse to exercise its own jurisdiction and thereby having to confront the Standing doctrine of Bush v. Gore in its entirety?
There have been an entire collection of law review articles and even entire books that have severely criticized the court in the Bush opinion on the basis of Standing.
Standing is one of the most fundamental questions of law that applies to all courts. First year law students are exposed to a myriad of doctrines which have been developed by the common law pertaining to questions of jurisdiction. To have jurisdiction of a case means the power to review. The power to review is fundamental since the case of Marbury v. Madison.
One of the most critical books which savaged the Bush v. Gore doctrine was written by Vincent Bugliosi, the famous former prosecutor in the Charles Manson murder case. In the years following his days as a prosecutor, Bugliosi has become a scholar and a recognized authority.
Bush v. Gore was a horrible decision because it allowed a private litigant (Bush) to ask a court to assume jurisdiction which raised the issue of whether a state procedure in effect diminished the equal protection rights of the voting public at large. Scholars have argued that this assumption of jurisdiction was contrary to a line of cases which have disallowed such appeals by private citizens to ask the courts to assume jurisdiction in private cases wherein a litigant complains state action effects the rights of the public large and not that of the litigant bringing the court challenge. Bugliosi traced the doctrine from its inception and concluded the court decision in Bush simply cannot be allowed by an overwhelming body of decisions which have disallowed such jurisdiction and stands as one of the most dishonest and absolute abuses of power by the Supreme Court in American history
Which brings me back to the Ohio decision. The GOP is really pissed today and has been critical of the court for vacating its challenge in the circuit court of the Ohio Secretary of State . They stated that the doctrine of Standing is a mere technicality.
Incredible as it is, the Repubs have basically taken the position that whether a court has power to hear a case is a mere "technicality." Well--this mere "technicality" put their buddy George Bush into the White House in 2000.
I ask this question to those who read Daily Kos who are much more literate on this doctrine than I. I fully admit that when I took my course in the federal courts in 1982, I probably wasn't among the best students at my law school and may be recalling the Standing doctrine incorrectly.
My question: in vacating the Ohio circuit of appeals and basing the decision on the lack of Standing by the GOP to raise the issue in the lower courts, did the court basically do so in order to avoid reaching the question of whether Bush v. Gore should be applied in the Ohio case, which could have forced the court to possibly expand its horrible decision in Bush v. Gore? Did even Chief Justice Roberts lack the stomach in having to confront and affirm Bush v. Gore in order to uphold the lower circuit court opinion?
Or has the court severely limit the Bush v. Gore standing doctrine or even silently overrule it?
Sorry for engaging in legalese.
In a nutshell--has the Supreme Court finally come to its senses and admit it screwed up in allowing Bush to appeal? Or did it basically chicken out and duck Bush v. Gore entirely?
Caveat: I have only had the time to only read excerpts of the opinion this morning and will be in meetings the rest of the afternoon stretching into the night. I was hoping better lawyers who have examined the opinion in its entirety can clarify the scope of the Supreme Court opinion vacating the Ohio circuit court. The Repubs are drowning in their sorrow today and are howling like a stuck pig (lipstick and all!) and probably deep down fear the Supreme Court has finally restored the Standing doctrine and made it harder for future private GOP litigants from stealing elections in the future.