Sorry for going for so long without blogging about hot judges, the Taliban, or my non-existent romantic life, but I have been completing a report on some of my findings this summer at work that I just submitted yesterday. I will be posting photos soon enough, and will also post a Veiled Chunk Dance Card Update, but just a quick post about something that was on my mind a few days ago that I wanted to quickly blog about before going for a short (a VERY short) run.
Because VC is regularly combing the archives of other law blogs in order to supplement his embarrassingly-incomplete knowledge of US law and politics, he often stumbles upon issues and debates that are no longer current, but nonetheless interesting. A few days ago, I [yeah that third person thing REALLY does not work for me] was, as usual, literally laughing out loud at A3G's blog, and came across her analysis of the October 2004 Vanity Fair article "The Path to Florida," which delves into the days and hours leading up to the historic Supreme Court decision that gave George Bush the 2000 election (ok, I actually don't like it when people say that, because that was the EFFECT of the decision, but that was not the decision itself -- the decision was to overturn the Florida Supreme Court's ruling that a recount should proceeded, on the grounds that the recount violated equal protection rights under the Constitution...stopping the recount had the effect of giving Bush the election, but it's not like the Supreme Court said: "We find in a ruling of 7-2 that Bush is Bomb."). [how's THAT for complex punctuation?]
Anyway, I'm not going to comment on the case or on the article, except to do my duty as a *balanced* liberal by saying that while the article is excellent (including the analysis of systematic disenfranchisement of Black voters), I can see certain choices that make the article well-crafted, but crafty. In any case, the exceedingly critical readers of VC's blog (conservative and liberal, alike) are more than capable of reading between the lines, and I think between those lines, the facts (and legal arguments) speak for themselves. I think, reading this article, you will also gain further insight into why Justice Stevens is, as you know from my previous post, my SCOTUS superhero.
Here is the text of the Vanity Fair article.
Here is the text of the Supreme Court decision -- including the Stevens dissent.
I promise to not make this blog so law dense, but I guess it reflects what's been on my mind, lately.
Let's all send our collective good vibes to Desi in his Bombay apartment search, and to Hawk Barbie in her continued efforts to conquer the world of IR and security studies.
VC
PS: Did I say "short run"? I meant: "lay in my bed and read Mahfouz". Long live the Chunk!