Bush v. Gore

The Trump appointee affirms Trump’s suspicions about late-counted ballots and lays out his desire to block state courts from expanding voting rights.
When the Supreme Court handed George W. Bush the White House, Jennifer Berdahl knew democracy was broken.
If enough legislators were to decide that a Trump presidency is too dangerous to be permitted, they may still have the power to exercise their collective consciences, and head it off.
And it deeply pains Al Gore's top aide to see it.
The nominating system for both parties is undeniably complicated and confusing. Our primary system is, by most measures, no way to nominate a major party candidate for president, but it is much less clear that the system is deliberately rigged in favor of one candidate or another.
It's simple: when more people vote, our democracy is more representative and reflective of who we are as a nation. It takes all of that to make that happen.
There are purists who would "cut off their nose to spite their face." They represent the mistaken idea if you can't find the person who agrees with everything you want you take actions possibly electing someone against everything you want.
Ask yourself what would Republicans have done if Gore supporters had compared such resistance to the American Revolution itself, and compared the Supreme Court to King George III. Ask yourself what would have been the reaction of the mainstream media to such statements.
Given the bizarre and bitter nature of American politics today and the relevance of a 226 year old document to the 21st century, a repeat of Bush v Gore in 2016 with a Cruz v Constitution petition is not entirely unimaginable.
Three boxes sit on any policymaker's desk: "In," "Out" And "Too Hard." Comprehensive immigration reform typifies the kind of issue that inhabits the "Too Hard" box, where it has sat for many years. As is common to the "Too Hard" box, the need for a fix is glaringly obvious.