An Interesting Pattern Has Emerged With Amy Coney Barrett

We’re about to have 3 Bush v. Gore alumni on the bench of the Supreme Court. How impartial is that?

I’ve noticed a strange thing lately. Some of the people who were involved in the legal proceedings of the hotly contested election in 2000, between George W. Bush and Al Gore, have gotten some really plum positions. As you may recall, two of them were engaged in the legal effort to stop the vote recount in Florida, just enough to let George “Dubya” Bush win the election. Two of them now sit on the Supreme Court: Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Amy Coney Barrett also worked on that legal team as reported by CNN on October 17th. I had known about this for a few weeks. I knew about Kavanaugh being on that team for months, and CNN has a video of him talking about the case before the Supreme Court in 2000. I had also known that John Roberts was on the same legal team as a result of the research I did on an article about Ted Cruz years ago. Cruz was also on that team, and I have heard that he is on the shortlist should Trump win another term and another seat opens up.

I have seen John Roberts vote in ways that seem contrary to the people that put him there. He seems to have a conscience but it's hard to tell. His public statements say that he’s doing what he can to preserve the integrity of the court. He knows why he’s on the bench, he helped to secure a Republican victory that has hobbled the nation for 2 decades. He must know that Kavanaugh started a trend and that Barrett will make the pattern all too clear.

What is that pattern? The pattern is one of partisanship on the Supreme Court. Donald Trump is hoping to secure a second term by nominating a second person who fought to stop the recount of votes in Florida. By his action, Trump has made it clear that he hopes a stacked court will rule in his favor should the present election be contested to the point that it reaches the Supreme Court. He will then have at least 6 justices ready to rule in his favor should that occur, 3 of them with their vote secured by their participation in Bush v. Gore.

I now see the GOP as the party of oligarchy. By stopping the recount in Florida, they acquired power by not counting all the votes. They like the Electoral College because they can count on the rural, sparsely populated states to overrule the most populous states. This worked in 2000 and 2016, and there is a real possibility that their plan will work again this year. The court could even rule against the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact should that come into play with 196 Electoral Votes.

Mitch McConnell is right that there is little that Democrats could do to stop them from seating Barrett on the court. And it’s true that Democrats made tactical errors in the past that made this farce possible. As I recall, it was Republicans in 2016 who said it would not be appropriate to fill an empty seat during an election year. Then they kept changing the story, changing the conditions and on and on and on. They all did a very good job of lining up excuses to push Barrett through.

If they do indeed complete the vote and confirm Barrett to the highest court in the land this week, I will note this event in history. I will share this event with my daughters when they are old enough to understand a bit about politics. I will advise them that Justice John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett all participated in the legal effort to stop the count of the votes in Florida in 2000 to win that election. I will advise them that Republicans prefer to win elections by not counting all the votes unless they’re GOP votes. I will also advise them that the GOP rewards their foot soldiers with seats on the courts.

That relationship between that election in 2000 and soon to be 3 judges on the highest court in the land, really, really smacks of partisanship. I doubt they are really all that impartial if their participation in one stolen election secured their seat on the Supreme Court.

If Chief Justice John Roberts is so concerned about the integrity of the courts, it is a wonder he did not speak out about Kavanaugh then, and Coney now. If he is so impartial, it is a wonder that he is still there now as a reward for the work he did 20 years ago. Would all three of them be so kind as to recuse themselves should the Supreme Court have to rule on the election?

Write on.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store