Lawyer-Wearing-Yarmulka

In an otherwise unremarkable editorial today about Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, the NY Times really dropped the ball in the last two paragraphs.

Hovering over Monday’s decision was a case that was not mentioned: Bush v. Gore. In 2000, the Supreme Court took seriously the claims of one individual — George W. Bush — that his equal protection rights were being denied by a state election system, and the court had no hesitation about telling the state what to do.

On “60 Minutes” on Sunday, Justice Scalia yet again told the public to “get over” that ruling. There are many good reasons to remember Bush v. Gore, and Monday’s ruling was a reminder of one of them. Seven years after it invoked the Constitution to vindicate what it saw as Mr. Bush’s right to fair election procedures, we are still waiting for the court to extend this guarantee with equal vigilance to every American.

Slight problem- Bush v. Gore was not about GWB's equal protection rights. It was about Florida voters' equal protection rights. From the pur curiam opinion:

The recount process, in its features here described, is inconsistent with the minimum procedures necessary to protect the fundamental right of each voter in the special instance of a statewide recount under the authority of a single state judicial officer.

I don't really blame the editorial board for misunderstanding the case. I bet, seven years later, most lefties don't know anything about Bush v. Gore except for the result; that Bush became President. The case has become an empty vessel for those suffering from BDS to pour in all their rage. But it would be nice if the Times reread the case the next time they cite it in an editorial.