JERSEY'S FLORIDIAN IMPLICATIONS

Ted Rall has an interesting take on the implications of the Supremes not taking the Torch/Forrester/Laughtenburg case on the GOP's appeal. Namely, the SCOTUS did what they should have done almost two years ago:

Florida, the court has now clearly signaled, was not the beginning of a transfer of electoral administration from states to the federal government. It was an exceptional ruling for a unique circumstance. At the same time, the New Jersey case reaffirms that its ruling in Bush v. Gore was a deviation from constitutional law. This reinforces Bush's illegitimacy, essentially admitting that, as far as the law is concerned, Al Gore is the President of the United States. Bending the rules may have seemed expedient during the confusion of December 2000, but the reputation of the Supreme Court--and the strength of the Constitution it is sworn to uphold and interpret--have been irreparably damaged. We'll be living with the fallout for years to come.

Over at Hanks' hapless MWO-watch blog, his spin on the Nino's decision not to hear the case was that it shattered the left's talking points after Florida. On the contrary, I think it strongly reinforces them.

UPDATE! . . . my use of the phrase "the Nino" reminds me of Chris Farley on SNL, saying that El Nino was spanish for "... the nino!"