And not just Harvard. Nat Stern, a law professor at Florida State University, was quoted in the St. Petersburg Times saying the case was simple -- "a fairly ordinary matter" -- and that Bush would lose since the SCOFLA was just doing its job.
Constitutional law professor Martin Redish of Northwestern University said, "I'd be flabbergasted if the Supreme Court actually accepted the Bush argument."
In an article for American Lawyer Media, Vikram David Amar, constitutional law professor at Hastings College, referred to the "creative -- and dare I say extraordinary" -- argument of the Bush lawyers that the SCOFLA had changed the law by "interpreting" seven days to mean "19 days."
A unanimous U.S Supreme Court didn't find the argument all that "creative." It noted rather blandly that "a legislative wish to take advantage of the 'safe harbor' (by enforcing a seven-day deadline) would counsel against any construction of the Election Code that Congress might deem to be a change in the law."
Blowhard liberal law professors can never stick to just being wrong. They are compelled by some invisible force to be both wrong and arrogant. Law professorships finally allow women a chance to say vicious things without being hit.
Law professor Lis Wiehl of the University of Washington adopted the unusually insane Alan Dershowitz theory of the Supreme Court taking the case to express its deep and profound respect for the SCOFLA. Professor Wiehl said: "And I think that's why the Supreme Court decided to take this, is not because they thought there was something wrong with the decision, but that they're going to uphold the (Florida) Supreme Court decision."
Professor Wiehl was absolutely indignant with fellow panelist Joe DiGenova on "Rivera Live" for questioning the great and inscrutable wisdom of the SCOFLA. "When he -- when he talked about the Florida court's actions being questionable, I'm -- I'm so tired of that."
The tired professor Wiehl exasperatedly continued: "If you look at the Florida Supreme Court opinion, what you'll see is that they took two conflicting statutes and they did what courts all over the country do every day. They interpreted two statutes, and they chose to go with the statute that was the more recent statute and the one that is more particularized. That is just common, everyday, judicial interpretation."