America's Judicial Coup (In accepting the Nobel Peace Prize Al Gore)

[kster]

By Robert, Sam and Nat Parry
December 12, 2007

Editor’s Note: In accepting the Nobel Peace Prize – and a measure of vindication that came with it – Al Gore recalled the painful events seven years ago when five Republicans on the U.S. Supreme Court stopped the counting of votes in Florida and handed the Presidency to George W. Bush.

At the time, many in Official Washington rejoiced at the decision on the grounds that it spared the country more partisanship. It also was the result that many top pundits wanted, the “election” of the well-liked Texas governor and the return of the so-called Republican “adults” who supposedly would guide him.

There was remarkably little concern among the Washington elites that the will of the American people was being overturned, that Gore had won a plurality of the votes cast across the country and was almost certainly the choice of Florida voters, too.

The hot word of the moment was “legitimacy.” It was deemed important to assure the American people that Bush’s selection was “legitimate” even if Bush would be the first popular-vote loser in more than a century to enter the White House.


http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/121107a.html

[seemslikeadream]

1. IMPEACH THEM

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011203/editors2

Still Time to Impeach the Supreme Court Five

THE NATION: But if you accept a review that says Bush would have won the recount, is it right to say that the Court "stole" the election for Bush?

BUGLIOSI: Let me offer an illustrative example: If the Los Angeles Lakers are leading the Boston Celtics by two points in the last game of the NBA playoffs with one minute to go, and suddenly the referee stops the game and hands the title to the Lakers, anyone would say the referee stole the NBA championship for the Lakers. Who would make the preposterous argument that if the Lakers and Celtics had played the game out the Lakers would win anyway, so what difference does it make what the referee did? Bush winning a media recount has nothing at all to do with the fact that the Justices intervened inappropriately to steal an election--and in so doing committed one of the most serious crimes in American history. The two realities are independent of each other.... A 5-year-old could see that, even if most of the media cannot.

THE NATION: So Bush remains a selected, not elected, President?

BUGLIOSI: Precisely. And we cannot have the Supreme Court picking our President--which is exactly what happened here--whether or not their pick ended up to be correct.

THE NATION: Since September 11, many voices that had taken up your call to impeach the Justices have gone silent. Will history, as well, be silent on this issue?

BUGLIOSI: Obviously September 11 dealt a solar plexus blow to this whole movement.... But I think that in the dispassionate light of the future, history is going to be harsh on us. We already know the moral bankruptcy and the destitution of character of these five Justices. They have proven that. But if we Americans meekly allow what the Court did to stand, without demonstrating our absolute outrage, what does that say about our character? I think history is going to be harsh not just on the Supreme Court but on the American people for allowing this to happen without marching in the streets. History will say we should have been in the streets.

[lovuian]

2. 2000 Election stolen with support of US Supreme Court

and Congress just sat back and watched it
It will go down as a day in History of Great Infamy

Our Government let us down

This is going to be like Coolidge and Hoover years

and Socialism is on the rise again

[kster]

3. kick.nt

[malaise]

4. Wow

Ordering this today.