Antonin Scalia tells "60 Minutes": People should get over Bush-Gore decision

[RockaFowler]

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2008/04/aontonin-scalia.html

Still fuming over the 2000 presidential election? Don't look for any sympathy from Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

In a "60 Minutes" interview this weekend, Lesley Stahl asks about the perception that the court's decision, giving the White House to George W. Bush over Al Gore, was based more on politics rather than justice.

"I say nonsense," Scalia tells her. "Get over it. It's so old by now. The principal issue in the case, whether the scheme that the Florida Supreme Court had put together violated the federal Constitution, that wasn't even close." He notes that the U.S. Supreme Court decided, 7 to 2, that the Florida Supreme Court's method for recounting ballots was unconstitutional.

Scalia, a fierce conservative, stresses that the U.S. Supreme Court didn't ask for the case.

"It was Al Gore who made it a judicial question ... We didn't go looking for trouble," Scalia says. "It was he who said, 'I want this to be decided by the courts. What are we supposed to say -- 'Not important enough?' "



Scalia is an A**

[seemslikeadream]

1. Yea like we can forget the genocide that created

[Clear Blue Sky]

23. Easy for him to say...n/t

[newmajority]

2. Listen up Scalia, you Opus Dei, son of a Fascist, criminal son of a bitch.

We will NEVER get over it. Fuck you, you goddamn Nazi piece of shit. :grr:

[dysfunctional press]

13. and yet- he lives a luxurious life of happy contentment...

while you allow it to twist your guts into a knot, even though there's NOTHING that can be done about it.

it happened.
it CANNOT be changed.
we DO have to "get over it"- by directing our energy at those things that CAN be changed for the better.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

18. I was told by many people at time to "just get over it". I will, perhaps, in time, but it

isn't twisting my guts in a knot, either. I know, I saw, we had criminals launch a poltical coup and those who voted for the sham known as George Dubya Bush are culpable, as well.

[nels25]

42. Look it was not a political coup

SIGH!!

I am sorry it got decided the way it did, but it was in no way either a criminal or political coup.

No soldiers or tanks were involved, no arrests were made.

The courts in Florida could not come to a meeting of the minds.

The parties involved could not come to a resolution of this matter (considering the stakes that is also a big surprise :sarcasm: ).

That really only left 2 options:

1. Appeal to the supreme court which is the action that Al Gore chose or;

2. Let the process continue which would have meant that the Florida electoral college delegation would have been challenged and then the would mess would have been thrown into the House of Representative (since neither candidate had gained the need electoral votes to win) and then the House being slightly GOP at the time would most likely have voted in 43.

In the end we would have ended up with Bush as President.

Besides if memory serves me correctly the recount that Gore was pushing for was only a partial recount of mostly Democrat leaning counties, had the supremes decided this was correct do you really think that the GOP would have gone quietly into the good night?? Also how could you hope to convince the nation as a whole that a partial recount was in fact a valid way to go>

No a complete recount of the state would have been the only way to handle the matter and that is not what the supreme court was asked to decide but that is what in effect their decision added up to.

When you stop and think about it, it is not so shocking that it went down 7-2 in that direction.

And I again point out that a 7-2 decision is considered a solid decision on most matters the court decides.

Look I want progressive views to prevail, I am just tired of all the rancor and discord that I see.

It makes me tired.

:hurts:

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

57. dupe

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

60. No tanks, but there were the Brooks Brothers rioters yelling outside the doors as the recounts went

on, state troopers confiscating ballot boxes and Katherine Harris using her POLITICAL position to invalidate the process.

Then BUSH asked the Supremes to weigh in, using the judicial branch in a POLITICAL manner.

Not to mention the voters who were physically prevented from voting or accidentally (oops)PURGED from the voter roles.

It's well documented that Gore won Florida.

Of course, Bush had the help of the most ignorant of our country to get him within a half million nationally. He and Rove knew exactly how to dupe the gullible, disgusting that people fell for it, but they did.

A POLITICAL coup, taking that which they did not win.

[Art_from_Ark]

78. Your analysis is waaaaay off

First of all, it was a 5-4 decision that was not "solid" by any stretch of the imagination since the majority opinion was not signed and the 5 "justices" who sided with the plaintiff declared that the decision was good for that one time only (since it was based on the most asinine interpretation of the 14th Amendment ever made).

Second of all, the man who agreed to hear the case, right after the Florida State Supreme Court had unanimously decided to count all the votes (which is what you're supposed to do in a democracy), was none other than Cheney's duck-hunting buddy and the man who is telling us to "get over" the decision, Antonin Scalia.

Third, 4 of 5 the "justices" who supported this cockamamie decision were appointed either directly or indirectly by the plaintiff's father.

Fourth, the person in charge of counting the votes in the key state was none other than the plaintiff's campaign co-chair for the state, which was governed by the plaintiff's brother.

So take your indignation about the "rancor" surrounding the worst decision of the USSC since Dred Scott and :hurts: it

[eomer]

83. Where are you getting your "facts" from?

"The courts in Florida could not come to a meeting of the minds."

Not true. The Florida Supreme Court was handling the case and had issued a ruling on how the recount should proceed.

"Appeal to the supreme court which is the action that Al Gore chose"

Not true. It was Bush who appealed to the US Supreme Court, not Gore. That's why it is Bush v. Gore rather than Gore v. Bush.

[mrbluto]

86. Lack of mental stamina.

I am sorry it got decided the way it did, but it was in no way either a criminal or political coup.

No soldiers or tanks were involved, no arrests were made.

Clearly your definition of coup is too narrow.

A self-coup or autocoup is a form of coup d'état that occurs when a country's leader dissolves or renders powerless the national legislature and assumes extraordinary powers not granted under normal circumstances. Other measures taken may include annulling the nation's constitution and suspending civil courts. In most cases the head of state is granted dictatorial powers.

Coups d’état typically use the power of the existing government for the takeover. As Edward Luttwak remarks in Coup d'État: A Practical Handbook: A coup consists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder. In this sense, the use of either military or another organized force is not the defining feature of a coup d'État.

Wikipedia; self-coup

Sound familiar?

If the activities of the past seven plus years are not identified, publicized and punished then the risk it will happen again is cultivated. It is a critical error to give the Bush administration a pass, not just about the election, but also that they governed in such a patently partisan fashion with virtually no mandate.

What Al Gore did, or did not, do regarding the situation does not change the fact that the general will of the people was not served. Anyone with the power to remedy the situation that stood by is culpable, including all of us, but especially the corporate owned media that did not make the situation clear enough for people to understand just what was happening.

Your fatigue or lack of mental stamina isn't a valid reason to assist is papering over the broken nature of our current system.

[mrbluto]

98. Why am I not surprised you don't respond?

I guess "lack of mental stamina" covers more than just your limitations when dealing with the 2000 non-election.

Perhaps you're letting this "sink" like a z......?

[Growler]

17. You speak for me too.

nt

[CBGLuthier]

3. I imagine in the early 1860s

Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney told people the same thing about the Dred Sott decision.

[Kitty Herder]

4. Does any one know of a legitimate reason that sorry excuse for

a justice could be impeached? (Along with four of his cohorts.)

[Harry Monroe]

15. I was wondering the same thing.

Is is possible to impeach a Supreme Court Justice?? Scalia and his ilk NEED TO GO!!! I would think that his clear bias would be grounds for impeachment, since Supreme Court Justices are supposed to be unbiased and fair, weighing the law on their own merits (but we all know how that's going!!)

[Kitty Herder]

20. I don't think you can impeach them for bias. Although, I wish you could.

I think it requires high crimes and misdemeanors.

[benddem]

31. I remember the signs that said

impeach "Abe Fortas" in the 60's. He was a justice nominated by Lyndon Johnson.

[Usrename]

33. Yes there is a reason to impeach him. One that everyone will understand.

He went hunting with Cheney while he was deliberating on the energy task force decision. That's a conflict that cannot be denied.

This should be done, but we need a good Speaker to make it happen. Cheney's approvals are in the toilet too, so it should be very easy to do, and politically it's a win-win. Let the Rethugs try to defend their criminal cronyism. It's impossible to deny that it's criminal. And it's that "in your face, what are you going to do about it" type of criminality that makes for good political theater.

At least, that's what I think.

Scalia told a gathering at Amherst College on Tuesday night there was nothing improper about his accompanying Cheney to Louisiana last month to hunt ducks. The trip came three weeks after the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Bush administration's appeal in a case involving private meetings of Cheney's energy task force.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/18/politics/main607115.shtml

[Kitty Herder]

79. I forgot about that. Ha!

I hope we do get a speaker of the house who will act on that.

[Usrename]

91. I just like the whole idea of hitting them while their down.

If we start pouding on Scalia, what are they gonna do about it? I think it's the perfect strategy.

It would make a very political argument that goes right to the heart of bad government, and it makes them defend poor conduct.

[mike_c]

5. Scalia owns the damage done to this country by the Bush admin....

Whatever else he might be, Scalia is a smart and perceptive person. He can see what has happened to America since 2000. I'm not at all surprised he's defensive about his role in bringing things to this juncture.

[Warpy]

6. Scalia and Thomas both had massive conflicts of interest

when they installed Stupid into office in December, 2000. They should have recused themselves.

Failure to do so makes them both vulnerable to impeachment should we ever get a Democratic Congress with the backbone to stand up for the country and do it.

[Junkdrawer]

7. Tell it to St. Peter, Tony. n/t

[texasleo]

8. Bush v. Gore means that Bush asked for it

:eyes:

[RockaFowler]

10. That's what I thought, too

That's why I think he's an A**

I guess if you keep saying lies, you believe them eventually

[Ishoutandscream2]

9. "Get over it"? To hell with you, Scalia

Thousands of dead Americans, Iraqis, etc. Scarred for life veterans who were "lucky" to make it home. Record deficits and gas prices. Americans losing jobs and pensions. Record foreclosures. Need I go on?

"Get over it"? You're out of touch, you Bushbot asshole. Thanks for being a responsible party for the mess we're in.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

11. IT WAS A LICENSE FOR THE CUMSERVUTZ TO DESTROY OUR NATION

[kenny blankenship]

12. I'm glad you're mentioning it now Antonin. Because very shortly we will have a great chance

to revisit this unprecedented act of treason and bring justice back to this land.

[SoCalDem]

14. And Scalia should STFU

and in a perfect world..drop dead!

[DinahMoeHum]

16. Would someone care to send him a dead fish. . .or a rose?

or whatever the Mafia sends someone who is about to be. . .well, you know.

:evilgrin:

[NoGOPZone]

19. I've read a lot of Scalia's legal opinions

Unfortunately, "Get over it" is a close as he can come to making a decent legal argument

[awoke_in_2003]

21. Hey Scalia, I got one word for you

"VAFFANCULO"

[Virginia Dare]

22. Don't you have something better to do Anton you asswipe?

like go hunting with your buddy Darth Cheney?

IMPEACH THAT BASTARD, PLEASE IF IT'S THE LAST THING YOU DO DEMOCRATS, IMPEACH THAT M.F.'ING BASTARD!!!!!

[Usrename]

24. Bush was the plaintiff, not Gore.

What a lying sack of shit.

There was no 7-2 decision in Bush v Gore. He's just full of shit. There was a fiat by him and Rehnquist that it's unconstitutional to count leagally cast votes, but only this one time, in only this one race. What a total fascist asshole.

This man should be impeached as soon as possible.

His refusal to recuse himself from the Cheney decision while going hunting with him during the deliberations is impeachable.

[fed_up_mother]

29. 7-2, and 5-4 per Wickipedia

"Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), was a United States Supreme Court case heard on December 11, 2000. In a per curiam opinion, by a vote of 7-2, the Court held that the Florida Supreme Court's method for recounting ballots was unconstitutional, and by a vote of 5-4, the Court held that no alternative method could be established within the time limits established by Florida Legislature."

The fact is that what Gore asked for was unconstitutional, Had he asked for a state wide recount, we may have never had a war.

It really sucks how one bad decision can destroy a people, an economy, a country's reputation.

[Usrename]

35. That isn't really what happened.

The case is Bush v Gore, remember? Bush asked the Florida Supreme Court for the remedy of a state-wide recount, and it was granted, without any opposition from Gore. Bush accused Gore of cherry-picking counties for the recount he was entitled to. The court agreed and ordered a state-wide recount.

The county I live in was recounted, and the results of the hand-count were certified by Harris. They never ruled that the recount in my county was unconstitutional and should be struck down.

The whole case was a farce, and according to the court itself, the decision isn't law. It's beyond pathetic.

[Uncle Joe]

41. Recommending for this post.

Thanks Usrename.

[Usrename]

46. You're welcome. And thanks for reading my rants.

Not too much gets me as excited as when folks don't quite fathom what a complete travesty all of this is.

I don't blame anyone for not being able to sort out what happened back then, especially anybody in our DU community, which was created in response to that debacle. When it comes to the 2000 election, there are a lot more lies than there is truth out there.

And don't even get me started about Voter News Service and the exit polls down here. If there is one thing that will have a more devastating, much longer lasting effect than Bush v Gore, it's what they did to VNS and how they have adulterated the whole notion of using exit surveys to help validate clean and fair elections.

[fed_up_mother]

68. Bushed asked for that after Gore wasted time asking for a partial recount

He should have gone straight for the state wide recount.

[kdmorris]

72. But, that's the thing

according to the state law at the time, it would have been against the state law for Gore to ask for a state-wide recount. He was only allowed to ask for a recount if there was a certain number of uncounted votes or a certain percent of error.

The state just happened to have most of the really shitty voting systems in what people call Democratic counties. I would have thought that he should have asked to have Duval counted instead of Volusia county, but they problem in Duval wasn't that there was too many non-votes or too many overvotes. In that case, they just stopped many of the poor blacks in Jacksonville from ever voting at all.

Another thing that the Supreme Court wrote in the majority opinion was incorrect. It was STATE LAW that said that when hand recounts are done, if you can discern the intent of the voter, you can count that vote. It was NOT the Florida Supreme Court that said that. They were just saying what the law was at the time. (Florida did away with most of those laws in the wake of 2000 so that they didn't have to have a paper trail on touch screen machines)

I have video still of those horrible months. I have what CNN said and I taped almost the entire recount of Palm Beach County. One day, I'm going to take those VHS tapes and put them on DVD.

But you are wrong. This was NOT Gore's fault. This is Bush's fault and his friends at the Supreme Court. I will try to find links to citations if you require them, but it's late now and I don't feel like delving into those days right now. It's been a bad enough week for me as it is without having to relive it. Like you, at the time, I didn't understand why Gore only asked for a recount of 4 counties. Unlike you, at the time, I went looking into why he would do that, without listening to CNN for why he did it.

[Usrename]

76. You are absolutely correct about what happened in Florida.

That whole thing about the way the intent of the voter was determined was a bullshit argument in the first place. Just like in other contested elections in the past, any and all contested ballots would have been made available for review by the Supreme Court justices themselves. And they would use their own judicial authority to determine which votes would count. Just like the legislature wanted it to happen when they wrote the law. (Ironically, a statute that was exactly the same as the one Bush signed into law when he was governor of Texas.)

There was one precinct in Duval County with a 20% overvote, though.

They want us to believe that one out of every five voters wanted two different people to be president. That's fraud.

[kdmorris]

87. I didn't know that about Duval

I knew some places had huge numbers of errors (hell, everyone remembers hanging chads, but Duval was still using those old metal "turn the screw" kind of machines.

I wasn't sure why he had asked for Duval, as well, but you've cleared it up. He could only ask for a recount when that county as a whole has a certain percent discrepancy.

I didn't know which county you were in, but I figured it had to be one of the disputed ones. :D

[Usrename]

90. Volusia was the only place to get the hand count certified.

We got ours hand counts done on time and met Kathleen Harris' ridiculous deadline for certification, so she had to certify our results. I think it was within a few days of the election, well within her window for certifying "normal" returns from counties that didn't even do the hand count.

I think only one precinct in Duval had those kind of crazy overvotes, and they had a punch type butterfly ballot. It was designed such that the presidential candidates were carried over onto a second page (they used very large type, supposedly for blind people). Because of this fact, it was argued that the black folks up there who were told to "vote every page" were just really stupid, and so they just didn't know any better because, after all, they're just a bunch of illiterate n---. That's why there wasn't a whole lot of national media attention about it, and also another reason why the marches happened in Tallahassee. People were pissed off about that. Really pissed off.

What's really sad about the whole Duval story is this. When the Voting Rights Act was first passed, way back a long time ago, all the school kids down here were repeatedly show a film which explained all about it. This old "butterfly ballot" trick, along with the same double-punching of ballots, and the accusing folks of failing to vote correctly because of illiteracy after the ballots had been altered, was one of the tactics that they showed in the films. I can still remember the scenes in the film, because I saw the damn thing so many times. That's the reason butterfly ballots have been illegal down here for decades. It's the same old same old, if you get my point.

If someone were to look closely at Palm Beach County, the other place where illegal butterfly ballots were used, the big number down there is also the spoilage due to overvoting. It was another place where I'm convinced the ballots were tampered with. And the coverup, at least down there, was also well executed, with breathless seniors appearing on the news saying "I voted twice for president because I accidentally voted for Buchanan, and then when I realized I had screwed up, instead of asking for another ballot I just panicked and punched Al Gore, too. I'm a moron." Although I don't doubt that someone may have actually done that, out of the thousands that voted down there, it certainly was not enough to account for the crazy out of whack overvote numbers.

[kdmorris]

95. Yeah, Palm Beach County missed the deadline by

somewhere close to an hour.

One nice thing about vote tampering. There's no way for us to prove it. I watch the election recount on our local government channel at the time and the Republican "monitor" objected to everything. Nothing was ever said about those disputed ballots, even though the entire recount was not accepted anyway. If we had gotten Katherine Harris to certify the actual vote total from Palm Beach County, those disputed ballots still would not have been counted. And Florida law stated that if you can discern the intent of the voter, you can count the vote.

Miami-Dade County stopped recounting after the thugs broke into the elections office and threatened the people there.

I don't doubt that there were a lot of people in Century Village that voted for Buchanan and never even realized it. When I went to vote, the ballot didn't quite line up correctly in that lovely butterfly ballot. I actually had to make sure that the correct chad was punched out of my card. So I KNOW I voted for Gore. My husband isn't so such.

But I am certain (no facts, just probabilities and logical possibilities) that there were NOT 3500 Jewish (the largest percentage of elderly in Century Village) people who thought that a man who says the Holocaust never happened would make a great president.

I'm still amazed that people don't realize what happened here. It started well before the election (97,000 "felons" were thrown off the voting roles, but turns out most of them were just black and latino, with a similar name as someone who was convicted of a felony). That's a huge violation of the Voting Rights Act and it really doesn't seem like anyone noticed...or cared.

[Usrename]

93. Here's a good account of what happened in Duval County.

The sample ballot in Duval County (Jacksonville) in Florida was deceptive and different than the real one, according to Gore NE FL campaign chairman Mike Langton. “The instructions of the sample ballot from the supervisor of elections was to ‘Vote all pages’ - step # 4”, said Langton. The sample ballot (which we received) that appeared as an insert in the Sunday Jacksonville Times-Union says that; it also shows all presidential candidates on one page. The actual ballot, however, spreads the 10 presidential candidates onto 2 pages- if one votes every page, they will vote for president twice (overvote) and invalidate their ballot. A stunning 22,000 people did that in Duval Co., more than in Palm Beach (with 69% more voters) with the notorious butterfly ballot; altogether some 27,000 ballots were rejected in Duval, 9% of the total.



“They were primarily (about half) in the black community that went 80-95% for Gore,” said Langton, “Statewide, there were 184,000 overvotes and undervotes, which is an astronomical number.” In the 1996 election there were only 7800 total votes rejected in Duval: since overvotes are usually rarer than undervotes (no candidate selected), this election had 6 1/2 times more overvotes; the total voided increase was 3 1/2 times. There was another unusual result: 5000 Duval people voted for Senate, but didn’t vote for President- usually the top of the ticket is the biggest vote-getter, an indicator of hanging chad on the punch cards.



“We’re stuck between a rock and a hard place, because if you make print so small that you can get it all on one page, then people complain they can’t read the card,” said Robert Phillips, Duval election operations mngr. “On the bottom of the page it said, ‘TURN THE PAGE FOR CONTINUED LIST OF CANDIDATES FOR PRESIDENT’.” The second page did contain 5 obscure Pres. tickets that few voters would have even heard of.



http://mikehammer.tripod.com/duvalap.htm

[Usrename]

75. Florida law doesn't allow for him to choose where to ask for recounts.

The way the law is here, an automatic statewide recount was triggered because the race was so close. Gore and Bush had no choice about that. Due to the results of this automatically triggered recount, which no one requested, Gore was allowed (by statute) to request a hand count in all counties where the second count differred from the first count, based on the theory that the discrepancies betweed the counts in these four counties (and only these four counties) was large enough to affect the outcome of the election.

Of the four counties that met this legal critera, mine was one of them (Volusia County). Gore, as was his right, requested a hand count in all four of the counties that qualified for a hand count. Under Florida's legal framework, these were the only counties in which he was entitled to request a hand count.

Bush thought this was unfair, accused Gore of cherry-picking counties for the hand count, and sued in the Florida Supreme Court, claiming that this was unfair and Gore was cherry-picking, even though he knew Gore was only following what was allowed under the law. Gore (to his credit) did not oppose their complaint in court, in fact he did just the opposite, both publicly and in his legal pleadings. Gore also requested that the court allow the state to "count every vote."

You must remember that mantra from Gore and his campaign, all the stuff Gore was saying about the "will of the people" and making sure to count "every legally cast vote".

In any event, the Florida court decided in favor of Bush (and Gore, remember, because both parties agreed to this) and ruled that there would be a state-wide recount as Bush requested. Bush won the decision to have a state-wide recount.

Then (in addition to having Kathleen Harris interfere with the recounts by slowing them down) Bush went to the U.S. Supreme Court and argued that the relief he had ask for, and had been granted by the Florida court, was unconstitutional.

[kdmorris]

63. What did Gore ask for that was unconstitutional?

Please enlighten me on that.

Elections are legislated at the state level. The state constitution was what should have prevailed here.

You don't seem to really know the facts of the case here. Those of us who lived through that and may or may not have had our votes counted do seem to remember a little better. (Palm Beach County here)

[eomer]

89. The equal protection argument used by the US Supreme Court

is a tortured argument that defies any remote sense of logic or common sense. Clearly it was a case of constructing a legalistic cover story in order to get a desired result rather than any kind of consideration of the actual implications of the law and precedents. Because, who could say with a straight face that our system of electing a president gives each person's vote an equal chance of being counted (or cast, for that matter). Anywhere you look you will find drastic differences in the process afforded and the protection given to the right to vote and count the vote. Drastic disparities will show up glaringly if you compare states against each other, if you compare counties within Florida or any other state, or if you compare different areas within a county of any state. Equal protection? What a joke! Clearly this is a requirement that applies only when this elite set of deciders finds it in their interest to apply it. They even as much as admitted that their application of it in Bush v. Gore was capricious and arbitrary and therefore should not be taken as precedent in any other case. After all, maybe next time they will need to rule exactly the opposite to get their candidate selected! And, wow, how self-centered can a person get? O'Connor ruled the way she did because she didn't want to have to postpone for four years her plans to retire to Arizona. Sheesh!

[UTUSN]

25. In other words...

[judasdisney]

38. This photo was (infamously) taken in a CHURCH

And it means something slightly more profane than "I don't give a damn."

See that smug look on his face? He was confirmed like a breeze by the Senate into his Supreme Court seat.

America deserves what's coming.

[kdmorris]

26. What an asshole

Guess he figures we are all too stupid to know that Bush v Gore MEANS that Bush brought the suit. Wonder how many people have actually READ the court's findings.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

asshole just isn't strong enough... I need a much stronger curse word to describe him.

[devilgrrl]

27. That guy needs to be locked up for the rest of time.

Throw away the key

[fed_up_mother]

28. It was 7-2, and Gore screwed up

Blame the Supreme Court (hell, blame them for a lot of things), but blame Gore, as well. Bushit and Gore both had dozens of lawyers, but Gore got very bad advice or he didn't take follow it. Future generations will be able to admit that. We're still too passionate about it, especially in view of the war, the sinking economy, and the fact that we have the stupidest man in the world for president who has embarrassed us and destroyed our nation for generations to come. :(

[Usrename]

30. Who told you that?

It wasn't 7-2, they never decided anything about that case with a 7-2 decision. That's just plain wrong.

Have you read the decision?

And future generations WON'T ever have to deal with it or get over it because it does not apply to them.

It says so right in the decision that they wrote, that this case should not be used as a precident for deciding other cases, that it was a one-time-only decision where legally cast votes would not be counted. And they don't give any reason at all for that. NONE.

[NoGOPZone]

32. It was 7 to 2 only on the issue

of whether or not the Florida Supreme Court's recount method was Constitutional. It was 5 to 4 on the more important issue of whether or not a Constitutional recount could be had in the time remaining.

I don't know how much you can blame Gore for this. I feel what future generations are going to think is that this was one of the Court's worst decisions in its history. Basing the ruling on an Equal Protection notion and trying to avoid a precedent by saying it's only relevant to the present circumstances aren't very convincing.

[Usrename]

36. The facts don't even support the equal protection argument.

My county did a recount in the prescribed time, and the hand count was certified by the Secretary of State. My vote was recounted, and apparently that was OK with the Supremes, but they thought it was somehow wrong to continue the process.

It doesn't even begin to make sense, except that by a 5-4 decision they wanted Bush to be president.

[NoGOPZone]

37. Agreed; equal protection was only an excuse.

Vincent Bugliosi nailed it in None Dare Call it Treason

"Now, in the equal protection cases I've seen, the aggrieved party, the one who is being harmed and discriminated against, almost invariably brings the action. But no Florida voter I'm aware of brought any action under the equal protection clause claiming he was disfranchised because of the different standards being employed. What happened here is that Bush leaped in and tried to profit from a hypothetical wrong inflicted on someone else. Even assuming Bush had this right, the very core of his petition to the Court was that he himself would be harmed by these different standards. But would he have? If we're to be governed by common sense, the answer is no. The reason is that just as with flipping a coin you end up in rather short order with as many heads as tails, there would be a "wash" here for both sides, i.e., there would be just as many Bush as Gore votes that would be counted in one county yet disqualified in the next. (Even if we were to assume, for the sake of argument, that the wash wouldn't end up exactly, 100 percent even, we'd still be dealing with the rule of de minimis non curat lex--the law does not concern itself with trifling matters.) "

[Uncle Joe]

45. And it seems logical to me that if you make an argument for equal protection it should apply

to Gore as well as Bush.

I also agree it was only an excuse.

[fed_up_mother]

67. Exactly.

That was my point. Gore didn't care about equal protections, either.

[Uncle Joe]

70. I totally disagree with your assumption, read post 36 and 37

I don't believe equal protection applied to Al Gore anymore than it applied to Bush, but if you did apply to it Bush that should go both ways.

[Jack Rabbit]

34. I'm no thief. I only drove the getaway car.

Scalia's name will go down in infamy.

[nels25]

39. At the risk of getting nailed on this one.

I find some credence in his arguments.

It was in fact a 7-2 not 5-4 decision.

Also remember this was before any Bush changes to the court, and the court had on more than a few occasions at that time found for cases on a more moderate or shall we say liberal basis.

A 5-4 ruling IMHO would have lent alot more legitimacy to our claims over the years.

A 7-2 ruling is clear ruling in favor of the viewpoint they decided the matter on.

I also think it was true that the court did not go looking to get tied up in this matter.

Historicaly the court tries to steer clear of any case that will have it deciding elections, it much prefers that to be left to the parties and politicians.

When presented this case tell me how they could have ducked it??

The media would have howled, both parties would have gone nuts.

The court had no recourse but to take this case under advisement no matter who brought it to them.

I remember thinking back within the first week of the situation that the Supreme Court would end up being involved.

I also think that all things being considered it was most likely for the best and will be judged so by history.

Remember that the recourse was to let this go to the House, where at the time the Republicans had a slight majority, in the end we still would have ended up with a President Bush.

And as a final note, in the last 10 years I have learned that stridency and pure hate takes a lot out of a person, it can and will make you sick if you let it.

We can not change what happened with that decision, the nation is worse off for it, but it can not be changed.

Better to go forward and live life and try to make this country great again.

Just my 2 cents.:hide:

[Bjorn Against]

62. It was a 5-4 decision that stopped the recount, it was not 7-2.

Only the methods for counting the votes in Florida were ruled unconstitutional by a 7-2 vote. The electoral system in Florida is not exactly known for its adherence to the Constitution so there is no doubt that Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris were violating the Constitution with their methods. The 7-2 decision did not stop the vote count though, it was the 5-4 vote that stopped the recount. That is the vote that matters.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

92. Here's where you got your ass metaphorically kicked further upthread. Had you forgotten already?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3202005&mesg_id=3202502

Posting it over and over does not make it anything but SPAM.

Try as you might to change history, what happened, happened, and it's too bad you did your part to help, by voting for the front man for a criminal organization. I feel fine, I saw it when it happened, I hope that the wheels of justice continue to grind in addressing this most egregious episode in American history.

You certainly have your false talking points down pat.

[Usrename]

96. You are wrong. Four justices wrote dissenting opinions. It was Per Curiam.

Per Curiam

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

GEORGE W. BUSH, et al., PETITIONERS v.
ALBERT GORE, Jr., et al.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per Curiam.

more>http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html





Nobody signed this opinion - nobody!

But there are four written dissenting opinions!

They are each signed by their authors, and the concurring justices!


Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer all dissented!






GEORGE W. BUSH, et al., PETITIONERS v.
ALBERT GORE, Jr., et al.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer join, dissenting.

The Constitution assigns to the States the primary responsibility for determining the manner of selecting the Presidential electors. See Art. II, §1, cl. 2. When questions arise about the meaning of state laws, including election laws, it is our settled practice to accept the opinions of the highest courts of the States as providing the final answers. On rare occasions, however, either federal statutes or the Federal Constitution may require federal judicial intervention in state elections. This is not such an occasion.

more>http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZD.html





GEORGE W. BUSH, et al., PETITIONERS v.
ALBERT GORE, Jr., et al.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

Justice Souter, with whom Justice Breyer joins and with whom Justice Stevens and Justice Ginsburg join with regard to all but Part C, dissenting.

The Court should not have reviewed either Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd., ante, p. ___ (per curiam), or this case, and should not have stopped Florida’s attempt to recount all undervote ballots, see ante at ___, by issuing a stay of the Florida Supreme Court’s orders during the period of this review, see Bush v. Gore, post at ____ (slip op., at 1). If this Court had allowed the State to follow the course indicated by the opinions of its own Supreme Court, it is entirely possible that there would ultimately have been no issue requiring our review, and political tension could have worked itself out in the Congress following the procedure provided in 3 U.S.C. § 15. The case being before us, however, its resolution by the majority is another erroneous decision.


more>http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZD1.html





GEORGE W. BUSH, et al., PETITIONERS v.
ALBERT GORE, Jr., et al.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

Justice Ginsburg, with whom Justice Stevens joins, and with whom Justice Souter and Justice Breyer join as to Part I, dissenting.

I

The Chief Justice acknowledges that provisions of Florida’s Election Code “may well admit of more than one interpretation.” Ante, at 3. But instead of respecting the state high court’s province to say what the State’s Election Code means, The Chief Justice maintains that Florida’s Supreme Court has veered so far from the ordinary practice of judicial review that what it did cannot properly be called judging. My colleagues have offered a reasonable construction of Florida’s law. Their construction coincides with the view of one of Florida’s seven Supreme Court justices. Gore v. Harris, __ So. 2d __, __ (Fla. 2000) (slip op., at 45—55) (Wells, C. J., dissenting); Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, __ So. 2d __, __ (Fla. 2000) (slip op., at 34) (on remand) (confirming, 6—1, the construction of Florida law advanced in Gore). I might join The Chief Justice were it my commission to interpret Florida law. But disagreement with the Florida court’s interpretation of its own State’s law does not warrant the conclusion that the justices of that court have legislated. There is no cause here to believe that the members of Florida’s high court have done less than “their mortal best to discharge their oath of office,” Sumner v. Mata, 449 U.S. 539, 549 (1981), and no cause to upset their reasoned interpretation of Florida law.

more>http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZD2.html





GEORGE W. BUSH, et al., PETITIONERS v.
ALBERT GORE, Jr., et al.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Stevens and Justice Ginsburg join except as to Part I—A—1, and with whom Justice Souter joins as to Part I, dissenting.

The Court was wrong to take this case. It was wrong to grant a stay. It should now vacate that stay and permit the Florida Supreme Court to decide whether the recount should resume.

I

The political implications of this case for the country are momentous. But the federal legal questions presented, with one exception, are insubstantial.

more>http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZD3.html



I hope you can understand the simple fact that when four justices dissent from the courts ruling, it is not a 7 - 2 decision!

That should be easy to understand, even for someone who is not a lawyer.

Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer all dissented! I hope that is clear!

[mrbluto]

101. Your 2 cents has suffered some inflation.

So just let it go?

How do you say that in latin to the greeks?

I'm certain that there's also a german version used in the thrities and one that Atilla's troops used when sacking chinese cities.

There's probably a Mafia aphorism that covers it in a more nuance manner.

There's even a version the dudes use when they've been ripped off at a rainbow gathering:

"let it go man - it's all good."

Roll over, bend over, relax.

What you're suggesting is "Free coup attempts for all fascists - if at first you don't succeed then try, try again. No hindrance!"


What are you saying now when they've done so much damage?

What do you say to the child whose father gets stop-lossed for an extended term in hell?

What are you dreaming you'd say to guys with hoods over their heads in Gitmo?

What are you going to say when they finally succeed?


"let it go man - it's all good."

I hope not.

BTW - if it had gone to congress for a vote then at least those people would have faced reelection at some point and would have be seen as owning the disaster that they now may disavow. (i.e. the Bush Administration) They would never have let it get this bad with out the nigh-unimpeachable, nigh-unaccountable cut-out that is the SCOTUS. They had to have it go to the supreme court.

[iris5426]

40. Did anyone catch Boston Legal this week?

Watching Alan tell off all the justices was great...if only that would happen in real life! I love that show...he totally called Scalia on the hunting with Cheney thing, along with a bunch of other stuff.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

66. I stayed up to watch it on the Left coast

East coast du'ers gave me the heads up. It was an awesome speech!

[Terran]

43. I guess that goes for legal precedents that are old too

We should just "get over" them, because they're "old", and do whatever the fuck we want, eh Nino?

[Hissyspit]

44. POS not SCOTUS n/t

[kpete]

47. K&R

[librechik]

48. when you resign, Duckblind boy

then I'll "get over" having a compromised Constitution hater on MY Supreme Court!

[yardwork]

49. Scalia is a liar. And a really lousy constitutional scholar.

Scalia doesn't know jack-shit about the constitution and it shows. All he knows how to do is his masters' bidding - he's a whole for the corporatists. I doubt that he believes in God. If he does, he's hiding one hell of a guilty conscience.

[lumberjack_jeff]

50. This should be required reading in HS civics class

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT


Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer join, dissenting.

The Constitution assigns to the States the primary responsibility for determining the manner of selecting the Presidential electors. See Art. II, §1, cl. 2. When questions arise about the meaning of state laws, including election laws, it is our settled practice to accept the opinions of the highest courts of the States as providing the final answers. On rare occasions, however, either federal statutes or the Federal Constitution may require federal judicial intervention in state elections. This is not such an occasion.

The federal questions that ultimately emerged in this case are not substantial. Article II provides that “ach State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors.” Ibid. (emphasis added). It does not create state legislatures out of whole cloth, but rather takes them as they come–as creatures born of, and constrained by, their state constitutions. Lest there be any doubt, we stated over 100 years ago in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 25 (1892), that “hat is forbidden or required to be done by a State” in the Article II context “is forbidden or required of the legislative power under state constitutions as they exist.” In the same vein, we also observed that “he legislative power is the supreme authority except as limited by the constitution of the State.” Ibid.; cf. Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, 367 (1932).1 The legislative power in Florida is subject to judicial review pursuant to Article V of the Florida Constitution, and nothing in Article II of the Federal Constitution frees the state legislature from the constraints in the state constitution that created it. Moreover, the Florida Legislature’s own decision to employ a unitary code for all elections indicates that it intended the Florida Supreme Court to play the same role in Presidential elections that it has historically played in resolving electoral disputes. The Florida Supreme Court’s exercise of appellate jurisdiction therefore was wholly consistent with, and indeed contemplated by, the grant of authority in Article II.

It hardly needs stating that Congress, pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 5 did not impose any affirmative duties upon the States that their governmental branches could “violate.” Rather, §5 provides a safe harbor for States to select electors in contested elections “by judicial or other methods” established by laws prior to the election day. Section 5, like Article II, assumes the involvement of the state judiciary in interpreting state election laws and resolving election disputes under those laws. Neither §5 nor Article II grants federal judges any special authority to substitute their views for those of the state judiciary on matters of state law.

Nor are petitioners correct in asserting that the failure of the Florida Supreme Court to specify in detail the precise manner in which the “intent of the voter,” Fla. Stat. §101.5614(5) (Supp. 2001), is to be determined rises to the level of a constitutional violation.2 We found such a violation when individual votes within the same State were weighted unequally, see, e.g., Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 568 (1964), but we have never before called into question the substantive standard by which a State determines that a vote has been legally cast. And there is no reason to think that the guidance provided to the factfinders, specifically the various canvassing boards, by the “intent of the voter” standard is any less sufficient–or will lead to results any less uniform–than, for example, the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard employed everyday by ordinary citizens in courtrooms across this country.3

Admittedly, the use of differing substandards for determining voter intent in different counties employing similar voting systems may raise serious concerns. Those concerns are alleviated–if not eliminated–by the fact that a single impartial magistrate will ultimately adjudicate all objections arising from the recount process. Of course, as a general matter, “he interpretation of constitutional principles must not be too literal. We must remember that the machinery of government would not work if it were not allowed a little play in its joints.” Bain Peanut Co. of Tex. v. Pinson, 282 U.S. 499, 501 (1931) (Holmes, J.). If it were otherwise, Florida’s decision to leave to each county the determination of what balloting system to employ–despite enormous differences in accuracy4–might run afoul of equal protection. So, too, might the similar decisions of the vast majority of state legislatures to delegate to local authorities certain decisions with respect to voting systems and ballot design.

Even assuming that aspects of the remedial scheme might ultimately be found to violate the Equal Protection Clause, I could not subscribe to the majority’s disposition of the case. As the majority explicitly holds, once a state legislature determines to select electors through a popular vote, the right to have one’s vote counted is of constitutional stature. As the majority further acknowledges, Florida law holds that all ballots that reveal the intent of the voter constitute valid votes. Recognizing these principles, the majority nonetheless orders the termination of the contest proceeding before all such votes have been tabulated. Under their own reasoning, the appropriate course of action would be to remand to allow more specific procedures for implementing the legislature’s uniform general standard to be established.

In the interest of finality, however, the majority effectively orders the disenfranchisement of an unknown number of voters whose ballots reveal their intent–and are therefore legal votes under state law–but were for some reason rejected by ballot-counting machines. It does so on the basis of the deadlines set forth in Title 3 of the United States Code. Ante, at 11. But, as I have already noted, those provisions merely provide rules of decision for Congress to follow when selecting among conflicting slates of electors. Supra, at 2. They do not prohibit a State from counting what the majority concedes to be legal votes until a bona fide winner is determined. Indeed, in 1960, Hawaii appointed two slates of electors and Congress chose to count the one appointed on January 4, 1961, well after the Title 3 deadlines. See Josephson & Ross, Repairing the Electoral College, 22 J. Legis. 145, 166, n. 154 (1996).5 Thus, nothing prevents the majority, even if it properly found an equal protection violation, from ordering relief appropriate to remedy that violation without depriving Florida voters of their right to have their votes counted. As the majority notes, “(a) desire for speed is not a general excuse for ignoring equal protection guarantees.” Ante, at 10.

Finally, neither in this case, nor in its earlier opinion in Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, 2000 WL 1725434 (Fla., Nov. 21, 2000), did the Florida Supreme Court make any substantive change in Florida electoral law.6 Its decisions were rooted in long-established precedent and were consistent with the relevant statutory provisions, taken as a whole. It did what courts do7–it decided the case before it in light of the legislature’s intent to leave no legally cast vote uncounted. In so doing, it relied on the sufficiency of the general “intent of the voter” standard articulated by the state legislature, coupled with a procedure for ultimate review by an impartial judge, to resolve the concern about disparate evaluations of contested ballots. If we assume–as I do–that the members of that court and the judges who would have carried out its mandate are impartial, its decision does not even raise a colorable federal question.

What must underlie petitioners’ entire federal assault on the Florida election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make the critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their position is wholly without merit. The endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today’s decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.

I respectfully dissent.

[Hydra]

51. Scalia doesn't give a damn about what we think

But he would probably prefer we forget about how SCOTUS handed Bush the presidency much the way you would appoint a King- over the objections of most of the people living here that bothered to vote. It makes it harder for him to get people to fawn all over him.

[treestar]

52. Too bad for him

Historians will be writing books on this for centuries.

Typical of a right winger to want everyone to just shut up about a subject they don't like, and to be immature enough to expect it and actually vocalize it.

[txaslftist]

53. Screw you Screwlia.

What a prick.

[Pooka Fey]

54. NEVER!!!

Get over it??? That will NEVER happen.

[madmax]

55. Scalia should kiss my ass! n/t

[nichomachus]

56. Yeah, right after the Christo-fascists "get over" Roe v Wade n/t

[stubtoe]

94. Good zinger, that!

Wish I'd thought of it. :)

[Bucky]

58. I know of about 4000 Americans who no longer fret over this decision

Plus there was another 1500 or so in New Orleans who are no longer in a position to gripe.

[RockaFowler]

65. Bucky I love what you just said

That's why we should never forget. And that's why I will never forgive what they did to this country.

[grace0418]

59. When a bad decision causes the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and ruins a country,

Scalia can fuck off if he thinks we're going to forget.

[samspade.]

61. Not important enough?

How about not a federal case?

SCOTUS never should have taken Bush v Gore.

[knitter4democracy]

64. Yeah, that Roe V. Wade is so old. You should just get over it.

I mean, really, it was sooo long ago. :eyes: Brown v. Board of Ed? They should just get over it. Abington? It's so long ago they should just get over it.

Seriously--did he hear what the hell came out of his mouth? What a moron. Can we impeach him when we take over the White House and Congress? Pretty please?

[Cleita]

69. What's with these neo-cons telling us to "get over" things

after they've beaten us down and dragged us through the mud. I want to get over them, after they've been cuffed and put into orange jump suits and the gray bar hotel forever.

[rpannier]

71. Scalia, a fierce conservative, stresses...

I think that's a typo...
It should have read

Scalia, a farce and a conservative....

[defendandprotect]

73. Because Gore went to the Florida courts . . . that meant that Scalia had

a free pass to stop the Florida SC's mandated recounting of votes --

.... because it would be harmful to Bush's interests in becoming president -- !!!

The last I heard Bush was winning by 34 votes!

And, Gore won the election ---

Unfortunately . . . who was the interviewer . . . can't think of her name . . .
made no move to challenge anything he said. They count on that ---

[Festivito]

74. I'll get over that decision when I get over democracy. /nt

[BeyondGeography]

77. Juvenile ramblings from the so-called "scholar"

If anything, the utter bankruptcy of these pronouncements tell you that installing Junior has been such a disaster even Scalia realizes it at some level.

[El Pinko]

80. If it wasn't a political decision, then why did they stipulate that it never be used as precedent?

If it wasn't a political decision, what law or legal precedent did they make their decision based on?

If I remember right - their excuse for the decision at the time (which was protested by several members of SCOTUS) was that to give the presidency to the candidate that won the popular vote would "put the public through too much turmoil" or something to that effect.

And hundreds of thousands of votes in Florida were NEVER counted.

Several newspaper studies after the election showed that Gore had won in Florida by a slim margin, and that would have been borne out had all the ballots been hand-counted.



Antonin Scalia needs to STFU. I'll be over it when POS Bush takes his worthless carcass out of the White House for the last time.

Unfortunately, the United States won't be over the disastrous effects of his presidency for decades, if ever. :mad:

[ColbertWatcher]

81. Here's a message for you, Scalia:

[Perry Logan]

82. America is in a state of civil war. This isn't over until the Right are driven out of our country.

[Ganja Ninja]

84. I'll get over it when this criminal administration is sitting in jail.

And I'll get over it when all the remaining SC Justices (that voted to appoint Bush) and Bush's SC appointees are kicked out of the SC on their asses. They don't belong there because they were appointed by a President that was not "elected" but "selected".

[Snarkturian Clone]

85. Well, what's done is done,

Let's try to fix it with the new Admin. in '09

[bdamomma]

88. the arrogance of this man is stunning.

one of the bush loyals, and Dicks of course.

[lonestarnot]

97. Just know that will be some pissy stink'n grave!

[Breeze54]

99. I can't wait to see that interview....

What an pompous ass! :grr:

[sandyd921]

100. Yep, just get over the fascist takeover of Amerika. n/t