Fallows usually comes across as a pretty sober guy, but he's on a tear that demonstrates how unhinged even the sober left can be when it fears that it doesn't control the Supreme Court:
Liberal democracies like ours depend on rules but also on norms -- on the assumption that you'll go so far, but no further, to advance your political ends. The norms imply some loyalty to the system as a whole that outweighs your immediate partisan interest. Not red states, nor blue states, but the United States of America. It was out of loyalty to the system that Al Gore stepped aside after Bush v. Gore. Norms have given the Supreme Court its unquestioned legitimacy. The Roberts majority is barreling ahead without regard for the norms, and it is taking the court's legitimacy with it.
First, now we are concerned about "norms"? This after 50 years of "the living constitution" which can mean whatever modern liberals want it to mean now? This after discovering that the framers of the 14th Amendment intended in 1866 to extend constitutional protection to the act of sodomy? Now we're concerned with norms?
Second, Fallows and many people seem to forget that Bush won the election. Bush won the first count; he won the recount; he would have won any recount the Democrats proposes. According to ABC:
George W. Bush still would have gotten more votes than Al Gore even if the U.S. Supreme Court hadn't halted the manual recount in Florida, according to a comprehensive analysis of uncounted ballots.
In fact, Bush's 537-vote margin of victory would have increased to 1,665 under the ballot-counting standards Gore's supporters had advocated, according to a review conducted by The Miami Herald, its parent company Knight Ridder, and USA Today.
The analysis, which looked at 64,248 uncounted ballots in all 67 of Florida's counties, has Republican Bush winning under most scenarios.
"This is very good news for Bush," ABCNEWS political analyst George Stephanopoulos said on Good Morning America. "In almost all the scenarios, Bush wins."
Stephanopoulos said that the study undercuts Democratic arguments that Republicans stole the election.
Well, it undercuts anyone without a memory problem.
Third, what's this about Gore stepping aside out of "loyalty to the system"? Is Fallows actually suggesting that Gore had a choice inasmuch as he lost not only the election but the court case he filed? Is Fallows really suggesting that Gore had the option of launching a rebellion?
If even someone normally as grounded as Fallows can engage in this kind of insinuation, the left is in far worse shape than it has ever been.