Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Justice Stevens, in new memoir, rebukes Bush for 2000 recount maneuver

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
alp227 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-10-11 05:49 PM
Original message
Justice Stevens, in new memoir, rebukes Bush for 2000 recount maneuver
In his new book, former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens takes a jab at George W. Bush for seeking to stop the ballot counting in Florida during the 2000 presidential election.

Bush led his opponent, former Vice President Al Gore, by 537 votes when the Florida Supreme Court ordered state officials to continue a manual recount of votes cast. Bush immediately filed an application in the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to halt the recount.

Stevens calls the application frivolous, and recalls bumping into Justice Stephen Breyer at a Christmas party where the men discussed the application. We agreed that the application was frivolous, Stevens writes. To secure a stay, a litigant must show that one is necessary to prevent a legally cognizable irreparable injury. Bushs attorneys had failed to make any such showing.

Nonetheless, on December 9, the Court granted the stay by a vote of five to four. On Dec. 12, the Court resolved the 2000 election. As Stevens puts it, What I still regard as a frivolous stay application kept the Court extremely busy for four days.

full: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/political-bookworm/...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-10-11 05:53 PM
Response to Original message
1. Bush displayed BULLY TRAITS in them days...he was not a good model for The Oval Office
even after 8 years...his skills were lacking and obvious...

He was hopelessly LOST for all of 8 years..

He is still lost
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-10-11 05:53 PM
Response to Original message
2. Those who voted to hear this case will never be forgotten in our history......
they are infamous and they will become even more so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChandlerJr Donating Member (554 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-10-11 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Quick, without going to the Google
Name them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-10-11 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Asshole #1, Asshole #2, Asshole #3, Asshole #4, and Asshole #5,
Renquist
Kennedy
O'Connor
Scalia
Thomas
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-10-11 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. Fat Tony Scalia, William Klansman Rhenquist...
...Clarence "Whatever-Tony-Says" Thomas, Sandra "Temporary Insanity" O'Connor and Anthony no-relation Kennedy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-10-11 05:54 PM
Response to Original message
3. There was great chaos under heaven, and the GOP found the situation to be excellent
There was a lot of frivolousness in those six weeks, not all of it perpetrated by the Bush campaign, but much of it instigated by them. I still can't finish Jeffrey Toobin's book account of the election, because I just get too sick to my stomach re-living Republican chicanery, Democratic passivity, and Supreme Court jiggery-pokery.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libinnyandia Donating Member (526 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-10-11 06:00 PM
Response to Original message
5. Nader 2000
Nader made it possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-10-11 06:07 PM
Response to Original message
7. Damn pro-reality judicial activists!
Just another example of unelected judges using "laws" and "facts" to try to prevent candidates from taking public offices they bought and paid for--and failing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-10-11 06:51 PM
Response to Original message
9. It took 5 non-elected traitors to hand the 2000 election to GWB.
Figures it was also someone not elected to office. The day the music died. Bye bye democracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-10-11 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. It was a strange ruling from the states-rights strict-constructionist crowd: they decided
the state supreme court couldn't interpret state election law, and they ignored the clear intent of the constitution to throw electoral college disputes to the house of representatives
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-10-11 07:03 PM
Response to Original message
10. so how did the supremes come to support this admittedly 'frivolous' application?
Edited on Mon Oct-10-11 07:04 PM by spanone
it doesn't make sense...unless the supreme court was compromised
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-10-11 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Because if GWB would have lost his case it would cause grievous
harm to his chances of becoming POTUS. I know how weak it sounds, but that is the decision handed down by Scarface and Slappy. Cut the timeframe out of the picture and Gore would have 'won'. They used a technicality to STEAL the election...hence why many of us say it was STOLEN to this day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Aug 21st 2014, 09:33 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC