Bush V. Gore-Eeew

Waiting for Mr. C outside his school, I'm parked under a tree, listening to Terry Gross interview Jeffrey Toobin. Toobin is chatting about his new book, The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court. The fact that this New Yorker correspondent apparently does nothing but write works out very well for us, his readers. He is a delight to read, and I look forward to listening to him.

Unfortunately, Terry is talking to him about the 2000 election and the Supreme Court case that decided it, Bush V. Gore. I try to keep some kind of mental distance from my personal feelings about George Bush, because I like to stay sane. But Toobin reminds me of a few things I've managed to forget, and some I didn't know. About how the Court has narrowed the breadth of the equal protection clause over the years, making its application to Bush an amazing sleight of hand. About how offended Justice Ruth Ginsburg, who has spent years as scholar of of the equal protection clause, was by this chicanery. About the possibly the most infamous sentence in Bush V. Gore: this decision will only apply to this case.

Toobin's insights into Justice David Souter are also gripping, but at this point I'm so totally pissed I almost forget why I'm in the parking lot. Happily, Mr. C brings me back to the domestic world I normally inhabit, one of trumpet rehearsals and homework and what on earth are we going to have for dinner.

But I am not totally ever at home in one world and the interview reverbrates throughout the day. I still have the ardent hope that the Bush V. Gore decision will join Plessy V. Ferguson in the Supreme Court Hall of Shame-lamented, despised, and ultimately redeemed by Justices who are able to rise above their own political persuasions and make decisions for all of us, not just the shockingly protected George W. Bush.