[EM] Electoral College

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 09:49 AM 5/16/2006, Michael Poole wrote:
>Rational arguments over the merits of any particular reform are a lot
>easier to analyze when divorced from political rants and other
>"religious" topics.  Would it be unreasonable for posters to do that
>rather than expecting readers to do it -- or, more likely, understand
>that readers might ignore the politically ranty post wholesale?

If Mr. Poole thinks that what I wrote was "political rant," I wonder 
what planet he is from. He is certainly free to ignore it, as is 
anyone. But what I wrote was little more than what is commonly 
believed among, for example, legal experts regarding the 2000 
election and the Supreme Court decision that interrupted the Florida 
state process, entirely contrary to precedent established by the same 
court and its announced principles.

This is not rant. It might be seen as political, but it is not 
polemic, nor is it exaggerated. The context was an assertion that the 
present Supreme Court would likely rule the Compact unconstitutional. 
It was not rant for me to note that this would be even more outside 
of precedent than that 2000 decision. Nor that if the Court were to 
go so far outside of precedent as that, they would be risking 
impeachment. I think that possibility, if it came to that, is real. 
But, in fact, I do not expect the court would do that. I am not 
railing against the Court. I think Mr. Poole must have some special 
sensitivity here....

Here is what he quoted before writing what I quoted above:

>Abd ul-Rahman Lomax writes:
>
> > At 10:13 PM 5/15/2006, Bob Richard wrote:
> > >I will go one step further than Steve Eppley does below, and predict
> > >that the Supreme Court would rule this particular compact
> > >unconsititutional in spite of the very learned arguments presented at
> > >www.every-vote-equal.com.  I think the current court would rule that,
> > >although interstate compacts can be used for many things, they cannot be
> > >used to alter the structure of government as established in the
> > >Constitution.  I'm not sure I believe this argument myself.
> >
> > Once upon a time, in a land far, far away, I would have thought that
> > the Court was above making blatant result-oriented decisions about
> > political process.
> >
> > But I learned, in late 2000, that it could. So I can't say that Mr.
> > Richard is wrong.
> >
> > However, it would be even more blatant, and "more blatant" could end
> > up getting some Justices impeached.

It is a simple fact that I thought the Supreme Court would not have 
ruled as it ruled in 2000. I've read a lot of court decisions, it 
used to be a hobby for me. That decision was astonishing, in more 
ways than one. What can we make of a decision that includes a 
statement that it is not to be considered a precedent? Why not?

*Because it was not based on anything like a sound analysis of the law.*

Now, suppose that enough states pass the Compact that it actually 
goes into effect, and someone sues to void it on Constitutional 
grounds. The Court, in spite of clear precedent, rules it 
unconstitutional. The states which so voted control a majority of 
electors, collectively. I'd not want to be placing bets on the 
political future of any party that supported such a reversal, or that 
tried to block it the Compact. We have never seen an impeachment, I 
think, of a Supreme Court justice. We might see it if that happened, 
with more than one. Is this rant? No, it is a prediction. It is *not* 
a recommendation, I am not calling for the impeachment of Supreme 
Court justices, not now, and probably not if this happened. I would 
deal with the situation in quite another way. It's all moot if the 
people organize outside of government.