is making hay about a Vanity Fair article: Apparently, some anonymous but supposedly authentic former Supreme Court clerks commented on the Bush v. Gore deliberations. The piece (which Kos admits to not having read) "apparently suggests that Scalia, O'Connor and Kennedy were all determined to find a way to get Bush elected, damned be the law." He goes on, of course, to say: "It was a coup
. And in such an environment, the American public has a right to know how a group of unelected officials threw away jurisprudence in favor of partisan rationalization to thwart the will of the electorate."
It is disturbing how often this line of reasoning comes up. Mostly, you can find it on liberal blogs and websites, where liberals talk to one another rather than the outside world. There, it's taken as read that President Bush was "selected, not elected" through a Supreme Court "coup."
That begs the question, do liberals really think that a coup occurred, and what do they propose to do about it?
Actually, from reading their blogs and websites, it becomes clear that they're just using the word "coup" to show off and talk tough. Oh, if a mob happened to march up the street, waving the red banner and stringing up Republicans, they might join in. But they're not going to start a riot all by themselves.
And they can't go too far in their criticism, since liberals often find the courts quite useful. After all, when the Florida Supreme Court was rewriting the state's election law after the election, the rule of law was sacrosanct. Hail, Mighty Justice!
When things didn't go their way in the U.S. Supreme Court, of course, it was a coup
. But there's always tomorrow.
Now, if you would prefer to make up your own mind on this topic, here is the place to conduct your research: in FindLaw's Constitutional Law Center
, you'll find the full Supreme Court opinion, the transcripts of the oral argument, the briefs filed by both sides, etc. Scroll down to case 00-949, Bush v. Gore. For a "coup," it was surprisingly well documented.