A somewhat ranting question

[Sanford Levinson]

 a) Assume that George Bush is "re-elected" in the Electoral College
(having lost to John Kerry in the popular vote) because of one or
another judicial decision, by a Republican-dominated Court, in a split
vote, deciding a highly contested issue his way.  B) Assume further that
the House remains Republican only because of the Tom DeLay gerrymander
that, one can surmise, five justices of the US Supreme Court believe is
probably unconstitutional.  (I see no other explanation for returning
the case to the original district court, given that it would have been
altogether easy to say that it was covered by Veith and the five votes
that held that it was either nonjusticiable (4) or that no judicially
manageable standards had yet been discovered to apply to the situation
(Kennedy).)  (We can assume, for sake of the question, that the Court
ultimately does rule the DeLay gerrymander unconstitutional, sometime in
2006.) c) Assume further that the Senate is 50-50, with Dick Cheney,
returned to the Presidency of the Senate because of "a" above.  So the
question, which is entirely serious, is why should any Democrat, under
these circumstances, view the United States as having a legitimate
government?  If you wish you can reverse the polarities and assume a
similar Kerry "election," and the Democrats taking the House only
because of a Democratic gerrymander (though I'm not aware that any of
the current gerrymanders even begin to compare with  DeLay's rape of
representative government in Texas).

If any of you you think this question does not relate to "constitutional
law," please let me know why.

sandy