{"id":2820,"date":"2004-09-24T02:24:42","date_gmt":"2004-09-24T16:24:42","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/michaelhans.com\/eclecticism\/2004\/09\/24\/a-look-at-the-2000-election\/"},"modified":"2019-12-11T09:14:38","modified_gmt":"2019-12-11T17:14:38","slug":"a-look-at-the-2000-election","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/michaelhans.com\/eclecticism\/2004\/09\/24\/a-look-at-the-2000-election\/","title":{"rendered":"A look at the 2000 election"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>From Tom Goldstein on the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.goldsteinhowe.com\/blog\/archive\/2004_09_19_SCOTUSblog.cfm#109594732560787870\" title=\"Vanity Fair Investigative Piece\">SCOTUSBlog<\/a>:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\n  Many of you will have heard of and read the lengthy October 2004 Vanity Fair article by David Margolick et al.\u00a0on the 2000 election litigation, with a focus on never-before-reported details about what happened inside the Supreme Court. The piece has received a great deal of attention inside the Court because, as the article details, &#8220;&#91;a&#93; surprising number of &#91;law&#93; clerks &#91;from that term&#93; talked to Vanity Fair.&#8221; Tony Mauro did a <a href=\"http:\/\/www.law.com\/jsp\/dc\/PubArticleDC.jsp?id=1094073285468\" title=\"Lawyers give Kerry, Bush more cash; Scalia steams, and more\">short piece<\/a> on the article (subscription required), but given the new details the article contains, it has received surprisingly little press attention otherwise. Vanity Fair does not have a web-site, but we&#8217;re grateful to have received permission to post the piece itself, as it appears in the magazine. So here you are, in two pieces: <a href=\"http:\/\/www.goldsteinhowe.com\/blog\/files\/VFPart1.pdf\" title=\"The Path to Florida (Part 1) - 3.1Mb PDF\">Part 1<\/a> and <a href=\"http:\/\/www.goldsteinhowe.com\/blog\/files\/VFPart2.pdf\" title=\"The Path to Florida (Part 2) - 584k PDF\">Part 2<\/a>.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>I&#8217;ll be perusing this as soon as I can.<\/p>\n<p>(via <a href=\"http:\/\/politicalwire.com\/archives\/2004\/09\/23\/rematch.html\" title=\"Rematch?\">Political Wire<\/a>, via <a href=\"http:\/\/archive.scripting.com\/2004\/09\/23#When:6:34:42PM\" title=\"Taeggan Goddard\u2026\">Scripting News<\/a>)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Many of you will have heard of and read the lengthy October 2004 Vanity Fair article by David Margolick et al. on the 2000 election litigation, with a focus on never-before-reported details about what happened inside the Supreme Court. The piece has received a great deal of attention inside the Court because, as the article details, &#8216;[a] surprising number of [law] clerks [from that term] talked to Vanity Fair.&#8217;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[2042],"tags":[14],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/michaelhans.com\/eclecticism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2820"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/michaelhans.com\/eclecticism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/michaelhans.com\/eclecticism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/michaelhans.com\/eclecticism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/michaelhans.com\/eclecticism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2820"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/michaelhans.com\/eclecticism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2820\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/michaelhans.com\/eclecticism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2820"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/michaelhans.com\/eclecticism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2820"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/michaelhans.com\/eclecticism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2820"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}