# The Supreme Court could rule the election invalid
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-could-rule-the-election-invalid/473939
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [November 22, 2008, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-could-rule-the-election-invalid/473939 "2008-11-22T01:32:54Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)
#### Post date: [November 22, 2008, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-could-rule-the-election-invalid/473939/21 "2008-11-22T03:56:44Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#):
>
> If McCain, Obama, and this Calero are **all** ineligible, who does that leave – Barr?! 😛
Nader.
I for one welcome our new Maronite Lebanese overlords.
---
### Author:  [@WF\_Tomba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WF_Tomba)
#### Post date: [November 22, 2008, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-could-rule-the-election-invalid/473939/22 "2008-11-22T03:58:52Z")
I bet they decide Denofrio doesn’t have standing.
---
### Author:  [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)
#### Post date: [November 22, 2008, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-could-rule-the-election-invalid/473939/23 "2008-11-22T04:02:20Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#):
>
> No, it’s an overly honest one. We aren’t supposed to admit it.
You are wrong. Also, you are assuming that continuing the recount would have changed the result, which is not necessarily the case.
---
### Author:  [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)
#### Post date: [November 22, 2008, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-could-rule-the-election-invalid/473939/24 "2008-11-22T04:03:22Z")
Also, the Court wouldn’t be “ruling the election invalid.” They would be ruling that the winner of the election is not eligible to hold the office to which he was elected.
---
### Author:  [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)
#### Post date: [November 22, 2008, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-could-rule-the-election-invalid/473939/25 "2008-11-22T04:04:42Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#):
>
> You are wrong.
No, I’m right. It was a conservative court handing the election to the conservative candidate.
> [@Rand\_Rover](#):
>
> Also, you are assuming that continuing the recount would have changed the result, which is not necessarily the case.
That is the point of actually doing a recount - to find out the truth.
---
### Author:  [@Equipoise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Equipoise)
#### Post date: [November 22, 2008, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-could-rule-the-election-invalid/473939/26 "2008-11-22T04:06:04Z")
Rand Rover, I wonder if you’d say that if they had favored Gore.
> [@Little\_Nemo](#):
>
> As others pointed out, it’s unfair to assume the current court would automatically rule against Obama. If they take up this case, it’ll probably result in a 9-0 decision that Barack Obama is a natural-born citizen and is eligible to be President. That will put this issue to an end.
Has the Supreme Court ever ruled 9-0 on anything? I’d bet they’d rule in favor of Obama, but I’ll bet it wouldn’t be 9-0. Could they expedite a ruling or would the inauguration have to be postponed?
---
### Author:  [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)
#### Post date: [November 22, 2008, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-could-rule-the-election-invalid/473939/27 "2008-11-22T04:06:29Z")
> [@WF\_Tomba](#):
>
> I bet they decide Denofrio doesn’t have standing.
Some vague memories from Con Law are surfacing here. I think that, while it is true that a citizen does not normally have standing to challenge something the government does that causes an injury to that citizen only in the sense that it injures all citizens equally, there’s an exception where he is asserting that the government violated the constitution and no one would have standing if the traditonal rules were applied. I’ve stuck my foot in my mouth before on the SDMB with my vague recollections from law school, so I’m fully prepared to be totally wrong about the above.
---
### Author:  [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)
#### Post date: [November 22, 2008, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-could-rule-the-election-invalid/473939/28 "2008-11-22T04:09:02Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#):
>
> No, I’m right. It was a conservative court handing the election to the conservative candidate.
No, you are wrong. The Court ruled that a state cannot just continue recounting votes without any standards doing the recount or a reason to do so.
> [@](#):
>
> That is the point of actually doing a recount - to find out the truth.
They did do a recount. Bush still won. Gore wanted to keep recounting until he got a result he liked.
---
### Author:  [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)
#### Post date: [November 22, 2008, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-could-rule-the-election-invalid/473939/29 "2008-11-22T04:12:24Z")
> [@Equipoise](#):
>
> Has the Supreme Court ever ruled 9-0 on anything?
[_Brown v. Board of Education_](http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/brown-v-board/) was a unanimous decision. I’m sure there have been some others.
---
### Author:  [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)
#### Post date: [November 22, 2008, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-could-rule-the-election-invalid/473939/30 "2008-11-22T04:15:34Z")
Not gonna happen. It’s just more stupid posturing.
---
### Author:  [@Equipoise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Equipoise)
#### Post date: [November 22, 2008, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-could-rule-the-election-invalid/473939/31 "2008-11-22T04:20:57Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#):
>
> [_Brown v. Board of Education_](http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/brown-v-board/) was a unanimous decision. I’m sure there have been some others.
Thanks. That’s good to know.
---
### Author:  [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)
#### Post date: [November 22, 2008, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-could-rule-the-election-invalid/473939/32 "2008-11-22T04:31:22Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#):
>
> They did do a recount. Bush still won. Gore wanted to keep recounting until he got a result he liked.
They didn’t do a **full** recount, which I can’t believe you didn’t know.
---
### Author:  [@Jesus\_Harold\_Christ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jesus_Harold_Christ)
#### Post date: [November 22, 2008, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-could-rule-the-election-invalid/473939/33 "2008-11-22T04:39:58Z")
Historically, the majority of SC cases has been unanimous. The percentage has gone back up with Roberts. 70% of the cases in his first term were unanimous.
> **[Roberts' Court Produces More Unanimous Decisions](https://www.npr.org/2006/05/22/5421326/roberts-court-produces-more-unanimous-decisions)**
>
> Many decisions coming out of the Supreme Court this term have been unanimous. At first glance, that might make the court look unified under new Chief Justice John Roberts. The unity, however, appears to have been achieved by narrowing the scope of...
---
### Author:  [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)
#### Post date: [November 22, 2008, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-could-rule-the-election-invalid/473939/34 "2008-11-22T04:40:27Z")
> [@Captain\_Carrot](#):
>
> They didn’t do a **full** recount, which I can’t believe you didn’t know.
Well, let’s not hijack this thread, but since you have essentially called me an idiot, I feel I should respond. I’m not sure what you consider a “\*\*full \*\*recount,” but Florida definitely did a “recount” and not just a “partial recount” or something. From wikipedia:
After the first recount by the morning of Wednesday, November 8 Bush’s margin in Florida had dwindled to about 500 votes, narrow enough to trigger a mandatory recount in that state. In addition, Gore asked for hand recounts in four counties (Broward, Miami Dade, Palm Beach, and Volusia), as provided under Florida state law. This set into motion a series of recounts (portions by machine, and portions by hand), questions about portions of the Florida vote, and finally lawsuits.
> **[2000 United States presidential election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000)**
>
> Bill Clinton
> Democratic
> George W. Bush
> Republican
---
### Author:  [@1010011010](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/1010011010)
#### Post date: [November 22, 2008, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-could-rule-the-election-invalid/473939/35 "2008-11-22T05:22:10Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#):
>
> You are wrong. Also, you are assuming that continuing the recount would have changed the result, which is not necessarily the case.
There was no result. The margin of victory was less than the margin of error. That’s why they were doing a recount.. to determine the outcome of the election.
It was pretty cut and dried that Harris’ certification of inconclusive interim results was unlawful, as observed by the FLSC. This leaves us in a quandry… we have no valid result for the FL election, but because of the illegal delay we no longer have enough time to conduct a recount. _Bush v. Gore_ was about extending the deadline so the legally required recount could be conducted and the result of the election determined. The USSC was correct that there was no legal way under FL to extend the deadline. FL elections would not have produced a certifiable result and would award no electors, Gore would have had 266 electoral votes to Bush’s 246.
It was improper to overturn FLSC on the issue of the interim results being inconclusive and uncertifiable. In so doing they chose the president.
---
### Author:  [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)
#### Post date: [November 22, 2008, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-could-rule-the-election-invalid/473939/36 "2008-11-22T05:23:00Z")
> [@Equipoise](#):
>
> because his father was born in Kenya, having been born with split and competing loyalties, is not a ‘natural born citizen’ as required by Article 2, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution
Surely plenty of other presidents have had at least one non-native born parent. A quick skim through Wikipedia reveals BOTH Andrew Jackson’s parents were Irish.
---
### Author:  [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)
#### Post date: [November 22, 2008, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-could-rule-the-election-invalid/473939/37 "2008-11-22T05:24:02Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#):
>
> [_Brown v. Board of Education_](http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/brown-v-board/) was a unanimous decision. I’m sure there have been some others.
The percentage varies by court, but for Roberts’ first term as Chief Justice, for example, the majority were unanimous. About 1/4-1/2 of cases in any given term will be unanimous.
ETA: Oops, just saw that someone else addressed this. Oh well.
---
### Author:  [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)
#### Post date: [November 22, 2008, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-could-rule-the-election-invalid/473939/38 "2008-11-22T05:28:04Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#):
>
> Some vague memories from Con Law are surfacing here. I think that, while it is true that a citizen does not normally have standing to challenge something the government does that causes an injury to that citizen only in the sense that it injures all citizens equally, there’s an exception where he is asserting that the government violated the constitution and no one would have standing if the traditonal rules were applied. I’ve stuck my foot in my mouth before on the SDMB with my vague recollections from law school, so I’m fully prepared to be totally wrong about the above.
You are right to be humble about your knowledge, because this is indeed incorrect. There is nothing different about vindicating constitutional rights. You still must allege particularized injury.
And it is pretty much settled law–though I think unsettled at the Supreme Court level–that voters do not have standing to challenge candidate eligibility. (Take a look at the other threads on this for a bunch of citations).
---
### Author:  [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)
#### Post date: [November 22, 2008, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-could-rule-the-election-invalid/473939/39 "2008-11-22T05:47:15Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#):
>
> Nader.
>
> I for one welcome our new Maronite Lebanese overlords.
Including Klinger?!
---
### Author:  [@Hostile\_Dialect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hostile_Dialect)
#### Post date: [November 22, 2008, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-could-rule-the-election-invalid/473939/40 "2008-11-22T06:05:42Z")
> [@The Tao's Revenge](#):
>
> I’d personally see to it that as much of the government burned as I could light on fire. That happens and it’s viva revolution!
Seconded. Hey, the Supreme Court wants a civil war, they’ll get one.
> [@The Tao's Revenge](#):
>
> It doesn’t say whether they have to be naturalized or natural born American parents, and anyrate people here when the US was founded were grandfathered in so there kids would be safe.
…So, only Anglos would retain their citizenship?
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-could-rule-the-election-invalid/473939.md?page=1)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-could-rule-the-election-invalid/473939.md?page=3)