HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Scalia Rewrites History, ...

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 12:05 PM

Scalia Rewrites History, Claims 5-4 Bush v. Gore Decision ‘Wasn’t Even Close’

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by jannyk (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).

Source: ThinkProgress

During a speech at Wesleyan University last night, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia offered a strange revision of the time he joined with four of his conservative colleagues to make George W. Bush president:

At the end of the speech, Scalia took questions from the audience. One person asked about the Bush-Gore case, where the Supreme Court had to determine the winner of the election.

“Get over it,” Scalia said of the controversy surrounding it, to laughter from the audience.“

Scalia reminded the audience it was Gore who took the election to court, and the election was going to be decided in a court anyway—either the Florida Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court.

"It was a long time ago, people forget…It was a 7-2 decision. It wasn’t even close,” he said.


Read more: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/09/441313/scalia-rewrites-history-claims-5-4-bush-v-gore-decision-wasnt-even-close/

23 replies, 3021 views

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 23 replies Author Time Post
Reply Scalia Rewrites History, Claims 5-4 Bush v. Gore Decision ‘Wasn’t Even Close’ (Original post)
Galraedia Mar 2012 OP
BeyondGeography Mar 2012 #1
peace13 Mar 2012 #2
TBF Mar 2012 #3
anti-alec Mar 2012 #6
underpants Mar 2012 #13
TBF Mar 2012 #15
Angry Dragon Mar 2012 #4
naaman fletcher Mar 2012 #5
earthside Mar 2012 #7
drynberg Mar 2012 #8
saras Mar 2012 #14
former9thward Mar 2012 #9
BeyondGeography Mar 2012 #18
former9thward Mar 2012 #22
Alexander Mar 2012 #10
sofa king Mar 2012 #12
Alexander Mar 2012 #21
pscot Mar 2012 #16
Alexander Mar 2012 #19
annabanana Mar 2012 #17
NoGOPZone Mar 2012 #11
ProgressiveATL Mar 2012 #20
jannyk Mar 2012 #23

Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 12:13 PM

1. He knows his pathetic legacy will hinge on his role in that case

"5-4 is really 7-2" is not going to change that, tubs. You cleared the way for the worst President of modern times. This won't get any easier for you with historians.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 12:14 PM

2. Wow!

We are the fools if we let this guy keep his job!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 12:14 PM

3. I looked up his age and he'll be 76 tomorrow -

maybe some memory issues setting in?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #3)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 12:21 PM

6. Force Scalia to retire with Alzheimer's

 

And set forth for his speedy departure with clogged arteries and veins.

Vaffunculo to you, Scalia.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #3)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 01:21 PM

13. He's just confused - he double counted Clarence Thomas and his vote

(because Scalia basically holds two votes on the Court)

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underpants (Reply #13)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 01:32 PM

15. wouldn't surprise me

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 12:14 PM

4. the New Republican Math

new textbooks available soon

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 12:19 PM

5. he's referring to the 7 votes...

 

That said using different counting standards in different counties was a violation of the equal protection clause. Breyer and Souter joined the majority on that. The Bush V. Gore apologists say that ruling alone decided it in favor of Bush, and therefore it's a 7-2 decision.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 12:43 PM

7. Scalia is such a hypocrite.

For a 'strict constructionist' and an 'original intent' Justice like Scalia, the Bush v. Gore ruling was a complete repudiation of everything he allegedly believes in.

The Constitution has a pretty clear prescribed process for deciding disputed presidential elections --- the Supreme Court has no role constitutionally in that process. Yet he and his Bush-family pals decided to get involved anyway and essentially award the election to G. W. Bush.

Of course, Scalia wants us all to "get over it" and forget his role in his undercutting of the Constitution that he so blatheringly claims to protect.

See the book: 'The betrayal of America : how the Supreme Court undermined the Constitution and chose our President' by Vincent Bugliosi.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 12:56 PM

8. IF YOU WERE SCALIA, WOULD YOU

want to remember the truth? Antonin is deep into DENIAL, not wanting to know just how much he and and the other 4 Red Team members of the Supremes have shafted our whole nation, giving pain for the 96 months of the W Team, and causing damage to our economy, environment, and our very future prospects...Yeah, I can see him trying to blow off this terrible deed. But, millions remember it very well and won't be led astray by this heinous excuse for a "Justice".

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to drynberg (Reply #8)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 01:32 PM

14. Oh, bullshit. That's like saying Obama is in "denial" about being president...

 

If I were Scalia, I'd know the truth, I'd be studying how to betray it further, I'd be consulting with think tanks specializing in mass psychology to get better at it, I'd be GLOATING over the harm I've done to people, watching it on TV and laughing.

But DENIAL? SORROW? Fuck, no.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 12:56 PM

9. How is this rewriting history?

The primary issue before the court was whether the second recount in Florida was constitutional or not. The vote was 7-2 that it was not constitutional. The next question was what the remedy was going to be. Five of the justices said to stop the count. Four of the justices offered differing methods of doing a recount.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #9)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 01:57 PM

18. Wrong...the primary issue was the remedy

If that had been split the other way, the recounts would have continued and the 7-2 vote would have been considered meaningless.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BeyondGeography (Reply #18)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 02:10 PM

22. If you think that is wrong then you have never read the decision.

The court only got to the issue of a remedy because they decided the primary issue before them -- were the standards set by the Florida Supreme court for the second recount constitutional? 7-2 said they were not. Only once that issue was decided did they get to what a remedy should be.

Also people forget that just 8 days before Bush v Gore the Supreme court voted 9-0 for Bush in Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board. That case was closely related to Bush v Gore.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 01:03 PM

10. Scalia: "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances"

In other words, Bush v. Gore did not set precedent for any similar future cases.

Anyone who knows law in the US will tell you that every Supreme Court case is supposed to set precedent. Every single one.

But Bush v. Gore didn't.

To summarize, the Felonious Five knew they were screwing with the actual vote in Florida, had no legal justification for doing so, and decided they needed to hand the election to Bush anyway.

I'd love to see him retire in Obama's second term, and have his replacement be a solid liberal.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alexander (Reply #10)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 01:21 PM

12. 66 votes in the Senate would ensure his immediate retirement.

That's what we're aiming for in 2014: enough Senate votes to impeach Clarence Thomas; I for one am confident that the disclosures in the Thomas report will almost certainly be enough to ensure that both he and Scalia leave before they're tossed.

They were rewarded for that vote. That much is already clear to me.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sofa king (Reply #12)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 02:08 PM

21. I'd love for that to happen. But it won't.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alexander (Reply #10)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 01:48 PM

16. Good luck with Obama noninating a solid liberal

That would upset the republicon senators.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pscot (Reply #16)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 02:02 PM

19. I don't have much of a problem with Kagan and Sotomayor.

Both of whom were confirmed with filibuster-proof majorities.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alexander (Reply #10)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 01:56 PM

17. Fat Tony will never retire.

I think we should all go in on a "Hot Pastrami on Rye Of The Day Club" membership for him.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 01:20 PM

11. Scalia says "Get over it" a lot

Someone needs to tell him to get over Lawrence v. Texas.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 02:08 PM

20. "It was a long time ago, people forget"

Proof of his own pudding, or something like that.

Scalia will go down in history as worst supreme court judge ever. "Supreme", heh. Not so much.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Galraedia (Original post)

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 02:23 PM

23. Locking - duplicate post.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink