see Bush v. Gore, 431 U.S. 98 (2000)

See Bush v. Gore, 431 U.S. 98 (2000).

anyone want to guess that citation will show up in a Clinton v. Obama court battle?

I think it's time that i subscribe to the Journal, because along with the other recent stories I've blogged about, today's WSJ op-ed by Washington super-lawyer and conservative ideologue Ted Olson is a really thought-provoking piece about how (inevitable?) litigation over the Democratic nomination process might proceed. [click here for the op-ed].

I'm pretty much on the exact opposite side of Olson on most political issues, but he makes some fantastic points in this article that really make you consider the lens through which you view Bush v. Gore: as political hatchet-job or sincere legal construction. Here's my favorite part of the piece:

These superdelegates, Byzantine hyper-egalitarian Democratic Party delegate selection formulas, and the fact that many delegates are selected at conventions or by caucuses rather than primaries, combine to offer the distinct possibility that by convention time the candidate leading in the popular vote in the primaries will be trailing in the delegate count.

How ironic. For over seven years the Democratic Party has fulminated against the Electoral College system that gave George W. Bush the presidency over popular-vote winner Al Gore in 2000. But they have designed a Rube Goldberg nominating process that could easily produce a result much like the Electoral College result in 2000: a winner of the delegate count, and thus the nominee, over the candidate favored by a majority of the party's primary voters.

[Clinton v. Obama: The Lawsuit]