Louise
At 10:15 AM 9/16/03, you wrote:
John Eastman says, "This reeks of raw partisan politics. No court should
participate in it."
One might ask John Eastman what he thinks "Bush v. Gore" was all about?
It is interesting to listen to conservatives complain as they are being
hoisted by their own petard. I suppose the big difference here is most
of us are not terribly invested in whether California has a recall
election now, or March, or never.
It is also not at all clear why this is "raw partisan politics." A
delay may keep Gray Davis in office a few more months (score one for the
Democrats) but will bleed the resources of Bustamante (score one for the
Austrian weightlifting team); a delay may reveal the weaknesses of
Arnold's lack of any political experience or knowledge (score one for
McClintock). The prognosis for the national economy is not great as the
Bush programs push more jobs offshore and more Americans out of work;
this will only make California's economy worse and hurt Davis more
(score one for the recall movement).
Given all this, I am not sure who wins or loses in a delay, and
therefore I can't figure out what the "raw politics" is all about. It
is not, after all, as though the Court were declaring that there cannot
be a recount of all the votes in a highly contested election with
clearly flawed voting machines. That might be seen as reeking of
"partisan politics" especially if the people making the decision were
allies of one side of the process and had been appointed by the father
of one of the candidates involved. But here the supports and opponents
of recall are hardly in that situation.
Meanwhile, the rest of us can sit back and enjoy the side-show.
====
Paul Finkelman
Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Tulsa College of Law
3120 East 4th Place
Tulsa, OK 74104-3189
918-631-3706 (office)
918-631-2194 (fax)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
