Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kpete

(71,900 posts)
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 09:12 PM Apr 2013

None Dare Call It Treason: O'Connor has forfeited the right to be respected

None Dare Call It Treason
Vincent Bugliosi January 18, 2001 | This article appeared in the February 5, 2001 edition of The Nation.



In the December 12 ruling by the US Supreme Court handing the election to George Bush, the Court committed the unpardonable sin of being a knowing surrogate for the Republican Party instead of being an impartial arbiter of the law. If you doubt this, try to imagine Al Gore's and George Bush's roles being reversed and ask yourself if you can conceive of Justice Antonin Scalia and his four conservative brethren issuing an emergency order on December 9 stopping the counting of ballots (at a time when Gore's lead had shrunk to 154 votes) on the grounds that if it continued, Gore could suffer "irreparable harm," and then subsequently, on December 12, bequeathing the election to Gore on equal protection grounds. If you can, then I suppose you can also imagine seeing a man jumping away from his own shadow, Frenchmen no longer drinking wine.

................................

And if the Court's five-member majority was concerned not about Bush but the voters themselves, as they fervently claimed to be, then under what conceivable theory would they, in effect, tell these voters, "We're so concerned that some of you undervoters may lose your vote under the different Florida county standards that we're going to solve the problem by making sure that none of you undervoters have your votes counted"? Isn't this exactly what the Court did?

...........

These five Justices, by their conduct, have forfeited the right to be respected, and only by treating them the way they deserve to be treated can we demonstrate our respect for the rule of law they defiled, and insure that their successors will not engage in similarly criminal conduct.

...........

That an election for an American President can be stolen by the highest court in the land under the deliberate pretext of an inapplicable constitutional provision has got to be one of the most frightening and dangerous events ever to have occurred in this country. Until this act--which is treasonous, though again not technically, in its sweeping implications--is somehow rectified (and I do not know how this can be done), can we be serene about continuing to place the adjective "great" before the name of this country?

MORE:
http://www.thenation.com/article/none-dare-call-it-treason#

Retired Justice O’Connor hints: Bush v. Gore was a mistake
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2013/04/29/justice-oconnor-hints-bush-v-gore-was-a-mistake/

61 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
None Dare Call It Treason: O'Connor has forfeited the right to be respected (Original Post) kpete Apr 2013 OP
Thousands of lives and trillions of dollars too late. JaneyVee Apr 2013 #1
She has no conscience... NYtoBush-Drop Dead Apr 2013 #38
he's right, but i don't trust bugliosi any further than i could throw him. HiPointDem Apr 2013 #2
You shouldn't be throwing anyone, with your bad back and all NightWatcher Apr 2013 #3
i don't have a bad back. HiPointDem Apr 2013 #6
Your bad knee! MFrohike Apr 2013 #14
Knee. I can't believe I missed that one NightWatcher Apr 2013 #19
"These five Justices, by their conduct, bvar22 Apr 2013 #4
Right On Justice Stevens, we loose. bahrbearian Apr 2013 #7
That man, Justice Stevens, is my hero Samantha Apr 2013 #15
I didn't go Over-the-Edge until Bush v Gore. bvar22 Apr 2013 #28
And then the media HID the egg-throwing, furious protests at the inauguration of the tblue37 Apr 2013 #47
I can't remember the technical legal term for that "equal weight" argument Samantha Apr 2013 #52
If not treasonous, would it be appropriate to label it felonious as in the indepat Apr 2013 #44
I always called it treason. aquart Apr 2013 #5
Me too. truebluegreen Apr 2013 #20
Even if W had been a great president tblue Apr 2013 #32
I call it the 2nd xxqqqzme Apr 2013 #36
I would have said the rise of Reagan via the Iran-Contra affair was the first contemporary coup davekriss Apr 2013 #60
They call it "loyalty",...to Party, to Reagan, to God. (Who is a Capitalist) Spitfire of ATJ Apr 2013 #37
O'Connor and the rest of the courtesans should go down as mass murderers with that decision. freshwest Apr 2013 #8
I hope she rots in Hell! emsimon33 Apr 2013 #24
What's most telling to me Canuckistanian Apr 2013 #9
exactly phantom power Apr 2013 #30
a mistake, sandra? really??? niyad Apr 2013 #10
there are no conspiracies, dammit! Whisp Apr 2013 #11
Shame on Sandra sheshe2 Apr 2013 #12
The blood of so many is on their hands... FailureToCommunicate Apr 2013 #13
The 1964 book None Dare Call it Treason,came to mind from the Nation's title lunasun Apr 2013 #16
Now she says this. Marie Marie Apr 2013 #17
Agreed emsimon33 Apr 2013 #25
Bush V. Gore = worst SCOTUS decision ever, worst president ever. Initech Apr 2013 #18
+1 tex-wyo-dem Apr 2013 #22
I don't think it's overdramatic, either deutsey Apr 2013 #34
It's not overdramatic at all. It's what happened, and what was the inevitable result. calimary Apr 2013 #54
I don't believe it was a mistake at all. I believe it was deliberate crime. If SHE made a 'mistake' sabrina 1 Apr 2013 #21
I think she made a mistake if intentionally doing something illegal can be considered a mistake. rhett o rick Apr 2013 #49
I wish I could K&R this 1000 times! emsimon33 Apr 2013 #23
It was a 5-4 Republican vote. Old and In the Way Apr 2013 #26
And olivelove Apr 2013 #27
CORRECT Skittles Apr 2013 #57
Thanks Skittles olivelove Apr 2013 #59
This vote effected the entire world and cost millions of lives. Marrah_G Apr 2013 #29
too late to repair your legacy, sandra noiretextatique Apr 2013 #31
I looked at the Florida mob shot SCVDem Apr 2013 #33
She was singing a different tune on election night 2000 deutsey Apr 2013 #35
At the time, I thought John2 Apr 2013 #41
This message was self-deleted by its author YOHABLO Apr 2013 #46
raygun dothemath Apr 2013 #39
It is no big deal, I never had any respect for the 5 in the first place. Rex Apr 2013 #40
Vincent Bugliosi obviously doesn't understand OnyxCollie Apr 2013 #42
They sold America down the River of Perdition Berlum Apr 2013 #43
DU called it Treason from Day One. Octafish Apr 2013 #45
It is the same as it ever was. We are hated for being right. Rex Apr 2013 #48
''Only the educated are free.'' -- Epictetus Octafish Apr 2013 #50
It was Bush v. Gore sulphurdunn Apr 2013 #51
Scalia and Thomas should have recused The Wizard Apr 2013 #53
Spot on n/t lordsummerisle Apr 2013 #56
we heaven05 Apr 2013 #55
If Justice was real DonCoquixote Apr 2013 #58
I've Thought Long and Hard About This... syberlion May 2013 #61
 

JaneyVee

(19,877 posts)
1. Thousands of lives and trillions of dollars too late.
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 09:23 PM
Apr 2013

Glad it's finally getting on her conscience.

NYtoBush-Drop Dead

(490 posts)
38. She has no conscience...
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 04:26 PM
Apr 2013

she's afraid of meeting her maker. The Felonious Five - may they all SUFFER the same fate as O'Conner's husband. And then they can burn in hell.

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
4. "These five Justices, by their conduct,
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 09:28 PM
Apr 2013
... have forfeited the right to be respected, and only by treating them the way they deserve to be treated can we demonstrate our respect for the rule of law they defiled, and insure that their successors will not engage in similarly criminal conduct. "

Well Stated.
WORD!


Justice John Paul Stevens summed it up nicely in his scathing dissent filed on Bush v Gore:
[font size=3]"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."[/font]---Justice JP Stevens, Bush v Gore

Samantha

(9,314 posts)
15. That man, Justice Stevens, is my hero
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 10:24 PM
Apr 2013

I never thought I would say that again about a Republican, but here I am. I followed Election 2000 for hours each day while the campaign was being conducted. I followed the recount debacle even more. I did a lot of research on my own and learned a lot that was never reported. By the time the Supreme Court heard the case and rendered a decision, I was almost over the edge completely, that is how upset I was. When the decision was issued, I thought I might actually break down ... until I read Stevens' dissent. The words on the page sizzled with anger. The more I read the more I knew I was not crazy; here was a Republican saying exactly what I was thinking. I think he will go down in history as a truly great Supreme Court Justice. The words quoted above in your post I had hanging on my wall for years.

What some people do not know is that there was a movement to impeach the 5 Supreme Court judges who handed the election to Bush*. The announcement was going to take place at 5:00 one evening but the press conference was canceled. The day of the press conference was September 11, 2001.

It is amazing to me how ignorant some of our Supreme Court Justices have (and are, in some case) shown themselves to be. Some of them don't even know truly important details about some of the issues. For instance, Sandra Day O'Connor at one point said the decision didn't really matter because the media recount proved that Bush* would have won anyway. That is such an incredibly stupid remark. Three of the counties in Florida refused to cooperate, and the results the media recount reflected were missing the votes from those counties. One in particular was critical because there had been a huge expectation Gore would do a lot better in that one county than the tally reflected but to this day none of us know how that county went. The "recount" review that was presented in The New York Times was held up for months because of unexplained reasons. I always suspected there was a lot of pressure by the then White House to influence the Times not to publish a result that would provoke a domestic revolution. For instance, the other candidate really won but tough luck because once a president is inaugurated, he cannot be removed for reasons over than high crimes and misdemeanors during his term in office.

And while some above are critical of Bugliosi, that article he published soon after the election was riveting. And he was one of the few known names that had the personal courage to stand up, speak out and put it in print, damn the consequences.

But I guess this all really doesn't matter, because an earlier quote of Sandra Day O'Connor was that this Supreme Court decision was a "no brainer." Right she was, but not in the sense she meant it.

Sam

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
28. I didn't go Over-the-Edge until Bush v Gore.
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 12:26 PM
Apr 2013

I was/am no Constitutional Expert,
but when the Supreme Court proclaimed that if the counted ALL the votes, it would damage Bush, so when the SC interfered in a STATE recount to protect Bush,
I flipped.

I was standing on street corners holding signs and passing out pamphlets shortly after the Supreme Court "Decision" in Bush v Gore.

There was little organized opposition, and little discussion in The Media.
(Though, in retrospect, our Media is much worse TODAY)
Nobody really cared.

SELECTED
by corrupt Supreme Court

NOT ELECTED
by The People


Bush was inaugurated anyway.
The good thing is that I couldn't let go,
and found DU about a month later looking for Opposition Groups
who were "Not Over It"

Bush v Gore
The day our democracy died

tblue37

(64,980 posts)
47. And then the media HID the egg-throwing, furious protests at the inauguration of the
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 05:28 PM
Apr 2013

fake president.

Samantha

(9,314 posts)
52. I can't remember the technical legal term for that "equal weight" argument
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 06:50 PM
Apr 2013

But the SC reasoned that if all of the people whose votes had not been counted in the first-go-around had them counted in the recount, the end result could give those whose votes had been counted in the first-go-around less weight (should the recount turn the election around and give the vote count to Gore). So the Court reasoned this was unfair to those whose votes had been counted. In stopping the full recount, the USSC negated 51 million votes nationally that had been counted on election day for Gore to ensure that voters in Florida whose votes had been counted were given the proper weight--even if that meant disenfranchising those Floridians whose votes were not included for whatever reason.

"The first to vote is paramount" said the Florida Supreme Court in its first sentence of its decision. That phrase to me captures the epitome of what a Democracy should be. And if you look at the Constitution, the Supreme Court of Florida should have had the last word in the matter.

So Sandra Day O'Connor finally got it right -- just 13 years too late. That is beyond pitiful.

Sam

xxqqqzme

(14,887 posts)
36. I call it the 2nd
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 03:06 PM
Apr 2013

American coup. The first was Ford being installed as president w/ no election.

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
8. O'Connor and the rest of the courtesans should go down as mass murderers with that decision.
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 09:32 PM
Apr 2013

Oh, in their cloistered existance, they can claim they didn't know what would happen. But the big money behind Bush knew what would happen.

Anyone with more than two brain cells knew those who wanted Bush hated the poor, elderly, infirm and minorities. O'Connor knew full well the caliber of people she was voting in and in the end, those 5 votes overcame the votes of millions of Americans.

That is her legacy. She can live and die with it on her record.

Canuckistanian

(42,290 posts)
9. What's most telling to me
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 09:41 PM
Apr 2013

Is that they embedded a warning that this judgement was not to be used as precedent, which, in itself was precedent.

It's like they acknowledged that their opinions couldn't stand up to rigorous legal scrutiny.

phantom power

(25,966 posts)
30. exactly
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 01:48 PM
Apr 2013

If you have to issue a "one-time-only" clause with your ruling, then it was a bullshit ruling to begin with

 

Whisp

(24,096 posts)
11. there are no conspiracies, dammit!
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 10:03 PM
Apr 2013

everyone is honest and there is no shenanagans going on behind the curtains! You Alex Joneser you.

sheshe2

(83,340 posts)
12. Shame on Sandra
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 10:23 PM
Apr 2013

Retired Justice O’Connor hints: Bush v. Gore was a mistake.

Truth. It WAS a mistake! One that caused this country unprecedented grief and suffering!

lunasun

(21,646 posts)
16. The 1964 book None Dare Call it Treason,came to mind from the Nation's title
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 10:47 PM
Apr 2013

Warning citizens about the communist infiltration of America and has been described as a cult classic for righties .

Anyway, the title of the book is derived from an epigram of Sir John Harington:
"Treason doth never prosper.
What's the reason?
Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason."

Yep epigram fits with this Nation info here also

Marie Marie

(9,999 posts)
17. Now she says this.
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 10:54 PM
Apr 2013

Remember how she was ready to retire and wanted to do so under a Republican President who would name her replacement? Well, she made sure that happened and can now live with her decision. Too bad, because before this, she was a reasonable Jusctice.

Initech

(99,914 posts)
18. Bush V. Gore = worst SCOTUS decision ever, worst president ever.
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 11:03 PM
Apr 2013

And I'll never, ever think differently about it. It was an elaborate corporate coup designed to give Wall St. absolute power over our military and resources and they get a nice tax write off while looting our treasury.

tex-wyo-dem

(3,190 posts)
22. +1
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 12:42 AM
Apr 2013

Bingo!

Justice O'Connor's decision will live in infamy....and, no, I don't think that's being overdramatic.

deutsey

(20,166 posts)
34. I don't think it's overdramatic, either
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 02:42 PM
Apr 2013

Bush v. Gore was the death blow that finally killed what was already an ailing American Republic.

During the 2000 election, I used to believe it would take decades for us to dig out of the rubble if Bush won...now, having endured two terms of the Bush coup, I'm not sure we'll ever recover from what they did.

calimary

(80,699 posts)
54. It's not overdramatic at all. It's what happened, and what was the inevitable result.
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 08:12 PM
Apr 2013

And once again, WE CALLED IT. We knew it. We saw it and were able to identify it. We knew the truth, and of course, nobody listened. To li'l old Sandra, I'll just say this - you're Too Fucking LATE. Easy for you to say, now, honey. LONG after the damage was done. You're just now getting around to it? What? Did you think there was some handy-dandy statute of limitations after which you could speak with impunity, and allow yourself to look at the reality around you? Well, maybe with the easily-suckered, you can. But NOT WITH US, honey.

And thanks for NOTHING, SANNNNdra. It's all yours. Got your name all over it, honey. You could have prevented it, with ONE vote: YOURS. And it'll hang around your neck for all of history. It's done. You did it. You can't excuse it now. You can't go back and fix it. You can't do the good and proper thing. The damage is done. And it's on YOUR conscience forever and ever, whether you like it or not. To riff on what all your little friends said during the last campaign? YOU BUILT IT. You built this house of shit with your four other fiendish pals in the black robes. Now you can live in it forevermore.

Unfortunately, that's how I will always remember her, regardless what else she's done, or how she's possibly otherwise distinguished herself. She's one of the Fiendish Five. Or Fucked Five, if you like it a little more frank.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
21. I don't believe it was a mistake at all. I believe it was deliberate crime. If SHE made a 'mistake'
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 12:12 AM
Apr 2013

like that, then she should never have been on the SC to begin with. To make such a mistake means you would have to be extremely stupid. Is she? I never thought she was stupid, I just assumed she was part of the crime.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
49. I think she made a mistake if intentionally doing something illegal can be considered a mistake.
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 05:34 PM
Apr 2013

She knew that the actions of the SCOTUS that she supported were not legal per the Constitution. But who was going to challenge them? Not the hapless Democrats that one could consider as complicit. No challenge from Gore. It's like it was a tennis match and the line judge made a mistake. Oh well, good game anywayz old chap. Fuck the masses.

Some like to blame Ralph Nader for the Bush/Cheney years. But what Ralph did was perfectly legal. What Sandra did was immoral and illegal. She is a smart lady and I assume has a conscience. She will regret her actions. I know it does no good for me to wish her ill will, but I do.

It's a shame that her actions giving Bush or Cheney the presidency will long stand to tarnish her record.

I also hold Al Gore accountable for not challenging this action. It was a Constitutional crisis but he and the Democrats were too cowardly to fight for our democracy.

The Revolution is waiting.

emsimon33

(3,128 posts)
23. I wish I could K&R this 1000 times!
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 01:48 AM
Apr 2013

Meeting O'Connor face-to-face is on my bucket list so that I can tell her that she WILL of in the lowest level of Hell with all the psychopaths that her vote put into power.

Old and In the Way

(37,540 posts)
26. It was a 5-4 Republican vote.
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 02:11 AM
Apr 2013

Gore won the popular vote by 500,000...but the SCOTUS decided they had to protect the Bush's interest in a state that was already known to be thrown for him. SCOTUS allowed the Organized Crime Party to destroy this country.

olivelove

(43 posts)
27. And
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 12:02 PM
Apr 2013

it proved to the court that they were omnipotent. If the court had decided against selecting Bush as president, I believe Citizen's United would not have been possible.

Marrah_G

(28,581 posts)
29. This vote effected the entire world and cost millions of lives.
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 12:28 PM
Apr 2013

She was not the only one who voted this way and the others are just as responsible.

noiretextatique

(27,275 posts)
31. too late to repair your legacy, sandra
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 01:48 PM
Apr 2013
treason is not "a mistake," and the court had no business getting involved. unlike others, i never blamed nader, but i sure as hell blame the Treasonous 5 because they gave us bushmurder, inc.

deutsey

(20,166 posts)
35. She was singing a different tune on election night 2000
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 02:45 PM
Apr 2013
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2000/12/24/the-truth-behind-the-pillars.html

Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and her husband, John, a Washington lawyer, have long been comfortable on the cocktail and charity-ball circuit. So at an election-night party on Nov. 7, surrounded for the most part by friends and familiar acquaintances, she let her guard drop for a moment when she heard the first critical returns shortly before 8 p.m. Sitting in her hostess's den, staring at a small black-and-white television set, she visibly started when CBS anchor Dan Rather called Florida for Al Gore. "This is terrible," she exclaimed. She explained to another partygoer that Gore's reported victory in Florida meant that the election was "over," since Gore had already carried two other swing states, Michigan and Illinois.

Moments later, with an air of obvious disgust, she rose to get a plate of food, leaving it to her husband to explain her somewhat uncharacteristic outburst. John O'Connor said his wife was upset because they wanted to retire to Arizona, and a Gore win meant they'd have to wait another four years. O'Connor, the former Republican majority leader of the Arizona State Senate and a 1981 Ronald Reagan appointee, did not want a Democrat to name her successor. Two witnesses described this extraordinary scene to NEWSWEEK. Responding through a spokesman at the high court, O'Connor had no comment.
 

John2

(2,730 posts)
41. At the time, I thought
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 04:58 PM
Apr 2013

the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to get involved in the Election for President in the state of Florida, was unConstitutional. I had based this on the separation of powers. My premise was it should have been the State Supreme Court of Florida's jurisdiction period because that was the authority given to it by the Florida Legislature when it came to interpreting Florida election laws. I thought at the time it was unprecedented for the U.S. supreme court to get involved. At that time, the Florida Supreme court was handing down decisions not favorable to Bush and his Party sought relief from the U.S. Supreme Court. The bottom line, there was too many irregularities in the florida election where votes were not counted or thrown out based on local election officials. The whole voting process was controlled by the Secretary of state in florida under Jeb Bush. There should have been a full recount or the entire election in Florida thrown out. Either way, I feel evidence shows Bush would have loss if all the votes were counted. I don't think he won the popular vote in the nation or in the State of Florida if all the votes were counted. I think that was being covered up and nobody wanted to contest it because of the image of the United States. Gore could have contested it himself but was persuaded to concede.

Response to deutsey (Reply #35)

 

dothemath

(345 posts)
39. raygun
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 04:48 PM
Apr 2013

Wasn't Bonzo Raygun responsible for putting the name of O'Connor forward for Supreme Court Justice? She looked like a bimbo he once 'acted' with in a movie. Snap - eminently qualified.

Sadly, dubya did him one better. Remember Harriet Myers?

Here is a quiz. (I would like to know myself, too.) Name a repub pres. who submitted the name of a person for justice that did not reflect a rightwing ideology. Not a repub ideology, but a rightwing nutjob tea party Cruz/Gohmert/Cantor/et al ideology, but a destructive republicon ideology.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
40. It is no big deal, I never had any respect for the 5 in the first place.
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 04:52 PM
Apr 2013

After that crushing defeat to democracy, I expected this country to go straight to hell. Sadly I was correct. How we survived 8 years of Chimpy McCokespoon, well some of us did. Some of us were not so lucky.

 

OnyxCollie

(9,958 posts)
42. Vincent Bugliosi obviously doesn't understand
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 05:06 PM
Apr 2013

the power that Ralph Nader has to bend the minds of the SCOTUS to his will.

IT'S NADER'S FAULT!!!

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
45. DU called it Treason from Day One.
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 05:23 PM
Apr 2013

Now those of us who do are labeled "conspiracy theorists" by the trusting, authoritarian souls who like to get DUers banned for speaking inconvenient truth.

FWIW: Thirteen years on, I still don't give a damn what anyone else thinks. What I know is what counts in my self-judgement.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
48. It is the same as it ever was. We are hated for being right.
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 05:29 PM
Apr 2013

And when more proof of that shakes loose over the years...it is the same ol, same ol song and dance from our detractors. That is why I will NEVER let anyone decide what it right or wrong for me...only me. For me to have respect, there has to be trust...and you and I both know how that works out in post 9/11 America.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
50. ''Only the educated are free.'' -- Epictetus
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 05:51 PM
Apr 2013

My grandfather was an educator and straightened me out on the matter at an early age:

"They can take away everything you own, but they can't take away what you know."

The Wizard

(12,482 posts)
53. Scalia and Thomas should have recused
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 08:09 PM
Apr 2013

themselves for conflicts of interest. Scalia's son worked for the firm representing Bush and Thomas' wife was on the Bush transition team. They should be impeached. When you're in a position to make a decision backed by the power of the State, and that decision provides you with material gain, your adjudication duties and privileges must be revoked.
The eight years that followed the corrupt decision of the felonious five cast a shadow over this nation that still has negative effects on our reputation.

 

heaven05

(18,124 posts)
55. we
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 08:17 PM
Apr 2013

lost all available pretense at being a (d)emocracy with that ruling in favor of cheney, bush monkey and his gang. We will never again be able to say we have a democracy of the people, by the people and never again for the people. I was let down in 2000 even being the cynic I am. All pretense, gone forever!

syberlion

(136 posts)
61. I've Thought Long and Hard About This...
Wed May 1, 2013, 01:26 AM
May 2013

O'Connor was a Reagan appointee, and let's not forget America's most activist judge, Scalia. When the history of this country is finally written, the beginning of the end will be correctly traced to Reagan.

Bush the first was his Vice President, Casper Weinberger was Secretary of Defense, Edwin Meese Attorney General, Alexander "I'm in control..." Haig as Secretary of State.

Bush was previously appointed by Ford (the first non-elected President) as the director of the CIA. Bush, who as president pardoned Casper Weinberger even before he was tried for his part in the Iran-Contra Affairs (remember that one?). This was after Attorney General Ed Meese refused requests of assistance by the FBI and apparently looked the other way while a "shredding party" took place destroying National Security Council documents purportedly verifying Reagan's involvement in the arms sales to Iran.

The actions of the Reagan and then Bush the first's administrations set the president of certain people being above the law. Their actions in dealing with (or allowing) criminal actions of those in their own and in previous administrations signaled to right-wingers they could act without fear of legal action. Even if they were caught, they'd be pardoned.

What does this have to do with Bush v. Gore?

Even if the Supreme Court was found out as to their plot to install an unconstitutionally non-elected President, even if they were impeached by the Senate and tried in federal court, they knew they could act with impunity. Someone would pardon them, probably the very president they elevated to the post.

The point is, what the founding fathers set up as a nation of laws of which no one was above, is now a nation of men not unlike the very country our founding fathers fought against.

We no longer have trust in the judicial system. There is the law for the average person and then there is a system for those able to avoid the system. Even if they can't avoid it, there are ways designed for them to get through it unscathed (Scooter Libby, anyone?).

As to treason, the attempt to overthrow one's own government, it isn't where to begin as much as where do we end it? When do we reinstate the Constitutional government? At what point do we stand up against the very tyranny we left when we separated from King George and England?

What gets me about this whole farce is when you've corrupted the judicial branch, you've damaged the entire under-pinning of the government. So, when O'Connor says Bush v. Gore was a "mistake" she's admitting her complicity in a crime against the Constitution and is admitting she participated in circumventing the process, as written down in law, this government uses to govern itself. In effect, she helped overthrow the duly elected president by disrupting one state's process of counting ballots (these are the self-same states rights people).

The question is, if the highest court in the land is corrupt, who's judging them? More importantly, how do we clear out the corruption?

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»None Dare Call It Treason...