<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Moral Force of Majority Rule</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.oup.com/2007/07/law/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.oup.com/2007/07/law/</link>
	<description>Introducing brilliant authors to the blogosphere.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 22:43:07 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jeremy Pierce</title>
		<link>http://blog.oup.com/2007/07/law/comment-page-1/#comment-16020</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeremy Pierce</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jul 2007 00:42:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.oup.com/2007/07/law/#comment-16020</guid>
		<description>The issue with the 2000 election (aside from the recount) wasn&#039;t that Bush didn&#039;t get a majority of the votes. Bill Clinton never got a majority, and Ronald Reagan did only once. Neither party, therefore, should want to say that not getting the majority of the votes is sufficient for a cloud of illegitimacy.

The issue people were raising that&#039;s supposedly troublesome is that Bush didn&#039;t just not get a majority but that Gore had more votes than Bush. Thinking that makes his presidency illegitimate ignores the Constitution, but it&#039;s more of a cloud than merely not getting a majority.

As for filibusters, there is one consideration that goes back long before anything to do with Bush. A number of Democratic senators (probably the majority of them) believed that it would be wrong to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee. There has never been a filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee except in cases of real corruption, as with Abe Fortas&#039; nomination for Chief Justice. They didn&#039;t want that record to end on their watch, and it had nothing to do with the nuclear option or the political points Bush was scoring over the filibuster threat.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The issue with the 2000 election (aside from the recount) wasn&#8217;t that Bush didn&#8217;t get a majority of the votes. Bill Clinton never got a majority, and Ronald Reagan did only once. Neither party, therefore, should want to say that not getting the majority of the votes is sufficient for a cloud of illegitimacy.</p>
<p>The issue people were raising that&#8217;s supposedly troublesome is that Bush didn&#8217;t just not get a majority but that Gore had more votes than Bush. Thinking that makes his presidency illegitimate ignores the Constitution, but it&#8217;s more of a cloud than merely not getting a majority.</p>
<p>As for filibusters, there is one consideration that goes back long before anything to do with Bush. A number of Democratic senators (probably the majority of them) believed that it would be wrong to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee. There has never been a filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee except in cases of real corruption, as with Abe Fortas&#8217; nomination for Chief Justice. They didn&#8217;t want that record to end on their watch, and it had nothing to do with the nuclear option or the political points Bush was scoring over the filibuster threat.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
