Why are so many so upset with the Miers nomination?

[Nelson Lund]

If the standing issue is what makes the Court's decision indefensible, 
then I suppose all nine Justices indefensibly overlooked it. But before 
we settle on that conclusion, can you explain why Professor Tribe's 
arguments with respect to third-party standing are indefensible? See 
eroG v. hsuB and its Disguises: Freeing Bush v. Gore from its Hall of 
Mirrors, 115 Harv. L. Rev. 170, 229-31 (2001). I understand that not 
everyone agrees with Professor Tribe, but I had not previously seen his 
arguments on this issue treated as though they are indefensible.

Nelson Lund


Michael Zimmer wrote:

>If someone with standing had brought the case, perhaps. I generally support
>the expansion of voting rights and so I would support the decision if it
>provides more than the one ticket for that particular ride.  As greater
>focus has been given to voting irregularities, it will be interesting if
>Bush v. Gore comes to be an important development in equal protection vis a
>vis voting rights.
>
>Michael J. Zimmer
>Professor of Law
>Seton Hall Law School
>One Newark Center
>Newark, NJ 07102
>973.642.8833
>973.642.8194 fax
>
>
>                                                                           
>             Nelson Lund                                                   
>             <nlund at gmu.edu>                                               
>             Sent by:                                                   To 
>             conlawprof-bounce         unlisted-recipients:; (no To-header 
>             s at lists.ucla.edu          on input)                           
>                                                                        cc 
>                                       CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu           
>             10/14/05 11:55 AM                                     Subject 
>                                       Re: Why are so many so upset with   
>                                       the Miers nomination?               
>                                                                           
>                                                                           
>                                                                           
>                                                                           
>                                                                           
>                                                                           
>
>
>
>
>Michael Zimmer wrote:
>      . . . Bush v. Gore is perhaps most defensible, if at all, by the
>      argument that only the Supreme Court had the respect and integrity to
>      decide such a fundamental question of who is to be the President. . .
>      .
>
>What makes the Court's legal argument in Bush v. Gore indefensible?
>
>Nelson Lund_______________________________________________
>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
>private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
>posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
>wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
>
>  
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20051014/f182291c/attachment.html