No other future Supreme Court or any court is allowed to use Bush v Gore as precedent. Bush is truly an illegitimate President. http://tinyurl.com/2ps3e3<quoted text>The Constitution has jurisdiction over the USSC, its rulings must comply with the intent and meaning that the Copnstitution was written in, it did not in the Ark ruling as I have shown you.
George W. Bush's January 20, 2001 inauguration was unconstitutional. This isn't because Bush lost the popular vote. Nor is it because he lost Florida and thus the electoral vote. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision to hear the Florida recount lawsuit, Bush v. Gore, violated the U.S. Constitution. It's a states' rights issue. Elections fall under state law; the highest court that may resolve a legal challenge about an election is a state supreme court. The U.S. Supreme Court--a federal body--didn't have jurisdiction in the case.
Has Bush v. Gore Become the Case That Must Not Be Named?
August 15, 2006 / http://tinyurl.com/qbx2s
At a law school Supreme Court conference that I attended last fall, there was a panel on “The Rehnquist Court.” No one mentioned Bush v. Gore, the most historic case of William Rehnquist’s time as chief justice, and during the Q. and A. no one asked about it. When I asked a prominent law professor about this strange omission, he told me he had been invited to participate in another Rehnquist retrospective, and was told in advance that Bush v. Gore would not be discussed.
The ruling that stopped the Florida recount and handed the presidency to George W. Bush is disappearing down the legal world’s version of the memory hole, the slot where, in George Orwell’s “1984,” government workers disposed of politically inconvenient records. The Supreme Court has not cited it once since it was decided, and when Justice Antonin Scalia, who loves to hold forth on court precedents, was asked about it at a forum earlier this year, he snapped,“Come on, get over it.”
There is a legal argument for pushing Bush v. Gore aside. The majority opinion announced that the ruling was “limited to the present circumstances” and could not be cited as precedent. But many legal scholars insisted at the time that this assertion was itself dictum — the part of a legal opinion that is nonbinding — and illegitimate, because under the doctrine of stare decisis, courts cannot make rulings whose reasoning applies only to a single case.