SO, WAS THE DECISION IN BUSH V GORE FOR W DICTA, AS HAD BEEN THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF MISSOURI COMPROMISE IN DRED SCOTT?

 This is something someone like Bobbitt can wrestle with.

DK noted Bush v Gore was to have no precedential value.

Isn't that a little bit of a heads up?

Let's frame the issue a little differently:

Could Bush v Gore even have precluded an impeachment proceeding against W, just after he took office, for impeacheable offenses he had committed to obtain it?

Absolutely not, in my judgment.

TO THIS DAY MANY PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT BUSH, W, STOLE THE ELECTION FROM GORE

They believe that W's entire administration was illegitimate, criminal, and fraudulent.

They also probably believe, with some evidence to back them up, that W's presidency itself  was based on impeacheable offenses resulting in his Presidency, just as is now claimed Trump's offenses are impeacheable though he is now out.

After all, comparing Trump to W, if someone can be impeached for offenses connected with his last day in office, why can't he be impeached for offenses leading directly to and making possible his assumption of an office carrying an impeachment consequence.

Professor Kaiser is just one of many thousands who maintain this.

The Deomcrats learned a lesson there, and Hillary advised Biden, re the upcoming election, never admit defeat, or admit refusal to challenge the election, if the results appeared to go against a win for him.

Professor Kaiser hates Bush v Gore more than he hates Dred Scott.