![]() ![]() Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum, and on behalf of Tom McNaught, Executive Director of the Kennedy Library Foundation, and all of my Library and Foundation colleagues, I thank you for joining us this evening, and acknowledge the generous underwriters of the Kennedy Library Forums: lead sponsor Bank of America, Raytheon, Boston Capital, the Lowell Institute, the Boston Foundation and our media partners, The Boston Globe and WBUR, whose general manager, Charlie Kravetz, is here with us tonight. Notorious: The RBG Podcast - Episode 1: In the Beginning. Notorious: The RBG Podcast - Episode 2: With Equality, A Glorious Asset: A Discussion of United States v. Notorious: The RBG Podcast - Episode 3: Underneath the Corporate Veil: A Discussion of Burwell v. Notorious: The RBG Podcast - Episode 4: Leading the Way to Equal Pay: A Discussion of Ledbetter v. Notorious: The RBG Podcast - Episode 5: Finding Religion in Unexpected Places: A Discussion of the Establishment Clause Notorious: The RBG Podcast - Episode 6: Let’s Get Personal: A Discussion of Daimler v. Notorious: The RBG Podcast - Episode 7: “The Ballot is Stronger than the Bullet”: A Discussion of Shelby County v. ![]() Notorious: The RBG Podcast - Episode 8: No Ordinary Piece of Cake: A Discussion of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. Notorious: The RBG Podcast - Episode 9: Strategic Gradualism: A Discussion of RBG’s Criminal Sentencing Jurisprudence Notorious: The RBG Podcast - Episode 11: Three Cheers for Beer: A Discussion of Craig v. Notorious: The RBG Podcast - Episode 12: Reproductive Freedom: A Discussion of Whole Woman’s Health v. Other MultiMedia by Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP Professor Rick Hasen, of the University of California, Irvine, joined by Patterson Belknap attorneys, Michelle Bufano and Alejandro Cruz, discuss this case and Justice Ginsburg’s unique take on federalism over the Equal Protection Clause. This is one of the rare occasions where Justice Ginsburg rejected an Equal Protection Clause argument in one of her opinions. Justices Ginsburg and Stevens (writing separately) argued that for reasons of federalism, the Florida Supreme Court's decision ought to be respected. Thus, with this decision, Bush became the first president since Benjamin Harris in 1888 to lose the popular vote but win the general election. Therefore, the scheme violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court found that even if the recount was fair in theory, it was unfair in practice because the factual record suggested that different standards were applied from ballot to ballot, precinct to precinct, and county to county. In a per curium opinion, the United States Supreme Court reversed the Florida Supreme Court, holding that the scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional. After Gore requested a recount of votes, the Florida Supreme Court held that the recount procedures were constitutional. After Gore won the popular vote, the election’s outcome was contingent upon Florida and its twenty-five electoral votes. This case concerned the 2000 presidential election between George W. Gore, which involved one of the closest presidential elections in United States history at that time. In Episode 10 of Notorious, we discussed the case of Bush v. Featuring Guest Speaker, Professor Rick Hasen of the University of California, Irvine. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |