  A stay would be "the only means of protecting the integrity of the federal election process," Republicans argued. But that's exactly the point: there is no "federal election process. " Elections, even for national office, are governed by state law and administered by state bureaucrats.
The highest arbiter of election disputes is each state's supreme court. The 2000 Florida dispute resulted in Republicans--historically the great champions of states' rights--obtaining the help of the federal court system to subvert the states' constitutionally-protected control of elections. An appeal of the Florida Supreme Court's decision, no matter how flawed that decision may have been, violated the Constitution. The fact that Renhquist et al. agreed to hear Bush v. Gore is what makes Bush's regime illegal. Had the court installed Gore rather than Bush, Gore would be the usurper. Recounts, hanging chads, choosing Bush over Gore--those details are mere footnotes to a brazenly extrajurisdictional judicial coup d't. A Republican-controlled U.S. Supreme Court broke the law on behalf of George W. Bush. Would they do it for Douglas Forrester? "The elites beat up on the Supreme Court very severely for Bush v. Gore," commented conservative George Mason University professor Dan Polsby.
"I'm sure they don't relish being beat up by those elites again. " On Oct. 7 the Supremes did what they ought to have done two years ago in the Florida case--they refused to hear the case, without comment. Election disputes, after all, are resolved by each state's supreme court. urlLink - Ted Rall, The Ironic Implication of the New Jersey Imbroglio 
