By JOHN HANNA Associated Press Writer
LAWRENCE, Kan. (AP) – U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said Thursday he would prefer not to face another election-related lawsuit, but defended the high court’s decision to get involved in the contentious dispute over the 2000 presidential vote in Florida.
“What are you supposed to do when somebody brings a lawsuit?” Thomas asked University of Kansas law students. “You hear people say the Supreme Court jumped into the last election. I find it very ironic that the very people saying judges are interfering are bringing lawsuits.”
“What do you think? Donald Duck is going to decide it?”
When asked about the prospect of more litigation over the 2004 vote, Thomas said, “I would prefer not to have to decide it, but that joins a long list of things,” adding: “It’s my job.”
People who say judges are interfering are really trying to say that judges are making illegitimate decisions and stepping beyond their authority. This is a critique that Thomas & his ilk make quite often when talking about decisions they don’t like. But apparently “it’s their job” when it comes to making a decision, like Bush v. Gore, that they like to make.
Too bad folks like Thomas and the Bush administration have politicized this critique to such an extent. It is now basically useless to say that a judge overstepped his (usually) or her authority — that just means you don’t like the decision. Used to be you could use it to say that the judge’s decision was not supported by the law.
algorithmically similar posts:» voting for kerry, 2004-09-13 (score:29)
» Old News: Did Nader Cost Gore the Election?, 2004-07-07 (score:29)
» political grandstanding: SO annoying, 2006-11-25 (score:28)
» DRM litigation bait, 2008-04-30 (score:26)