Mike Kenny, Alston & Bird, Atlanta. (Courtesy photo) U.S. Supreme Court Should Avoid Another 'Bush v. Gore'
At the polls, President Donald Trump needs to win over tens of millions of voters. In the Supreme Court, he just needs five.
October 08, 2020 at 02:21 PM
6 minute read
In the 2000 presidential election, neither candidate—Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore—conceived of and pursued a pre-election strategy to have the U.S. Supreme Court decide the outcome of the election. Yet that is what happened in the 5-4 decision in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000). That decision was widely condemned and criticized as highly partisan and based on exceedingly weak and inconsistent legal reasoning. It is the type of decision that is vulnerable to the attack that a bare partisan majority first figured out the result it desired and then reasoned backwards to justify it.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1'I'm Staying Everything': Texas Bankruptcy Judge Halts Talc Trials Against J&J
- 2What We Know About the Kentucky Judge Killed in His Chambers
- 3Ex-Prosecutor and Judge Fatally Shot During Attempted Arrest on Federal Corruption Charges
- 4Judge Blasts Authors' Lawyers in Key AI Suit, Says Case Doomed Without Upgraded Team
- 5Federal Judge Won't Stop Title IX Investigation Into Former GMU Law Professor
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholders Christina M. Carroll and A. Michael Pratt have entered appearances for the Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities, Wendy Spicher in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The case, filed Aug. 13 in Texas Northern District Court by Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders; Ashcroft Sutton Reyes; and Locke Lord on behalf of TMX Finance Corporate Services, seeks to challenge the secretary’s ongoing attempt to regulate commercial lending activity outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The suit furthers contends that the secretary issued an investigative subpoena to TMX for potential violations of the Pennsylvania Loan Interest and Protection Law and the Consumer Discount Company Act despite TMX's business activities not being governed by such. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge David C. Godbey, is 3:24-cv-02054, TMX Finance Corporate Services Inc v. Spicher.
Who Got The Work
Joseph J. Mueller and Rachel Bier of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have entered appearances for Omachron Alpha, Omachron Intellectual Property and SharkNinja Operating in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 16 in Massachusetts District Court by Kirkland & Ellis, asserts three patents in connection with SharkNinja's sale of the 'Vertex' and 'Stratos' cordless vacuum cleaners. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs, is 1:24-cv-12373, Dyson, Inc. et al v. SharkNinja, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Shloime Fellig of Latham & Watkins has entered an appearance for Ardelyx the company's CEO and CFO in a pending securities class action related to Xphozah, a drug which treats kidney disease and end-stage renal disease. The complaint, filed Aug. 16 in Massachusetts District Court by Pomerantz LLP, contends that the defendants failed to disclose that the company would not be seeking the drug’s acceptance into the Transitional Drug Add-on Payment Adjustment, a bundled payment system regulated by the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin, is 1:24-cv-12119, Yarborough v. Ardelyx, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Alexander P. Ott, Megan Corrigan and Karen Gover of McDermott Will & Emery have entered appearances for Analog Devices, a Massachusetts-based manufacturer of semiconductor processing equipment, in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, which asserts two patents, was filed July 9 in Massachusetts District Court by Arrowood LLP and the Devlin Law Firm on behalf of Ocean Semiconductors. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Patti B. Saris, is 1:24-cv-11759, Ocean Semiconductors LLC v. Analog Devices Inc.
Who Got The Work
Forrest M. 'Teo' Seger of Clark Hill has entered an appearance for Equifax Information Services in a pending lawsuit for claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The case was filed Aug. 13 in Texas Western District Court by Halvorsen Klote on behalf of Quinton Humphrey. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Fred Biery, is 5:24-cv-00892, Humphrey v. LVNV Funding, LLC et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
