General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGrrrrrrrrrr: Scalia Rewrites History - Claims 5-4 Bush v Gore Decision - ‘Wasn’t Even Close'
At the end of the speech, Scalia took questions from the audience. One person asked about the Bush-Gore case, where the Supreme Court had to determine the winner of the election.
Get over it, Scalia said of the controversy surrounding it, to laughter from the audience.
Scalia reminded the audience it was Gore who took the election to court, and the election was going to be decided in a court anywayeither the Florida Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court.
It was a long time ago, people forget It was a 7-2 decision. It wasnt even close, he said.
Bush v. Gore was not a 7-2 decision and indeed, Scalia could tell this is true by counting all four of the dissenting opinions in that case. Although it is true that the four dissenters divided on how the Florida recount should proceed two believed there should be a statewide recount of all Florida voters while two others believed a narrower recount would be acceptable not one of the Courts four moderates agreed with Scalia that the winner of the 2000 presidential election should effectively be chosen by five most conservative members of the Supreme Court of the United States.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/09/441313/scalia-rewrites-history-claims-5-4-bush-v-gore-decision-wasnt-even-close/
Giantsfootball10
(74 posts)Maybe he is still in Crawford.
Uncle Joe
(58,370 posts)Solly Mack
(90,775 posts)In prison.
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)He's a city-boy. The place in Crawford was purchased for publicity, to make him look like a cowboy - pictures of him "clearing brush" and other such nonsense. Once he was out of the Whitehouse, they sold that place and moved to a gated community outside of Dallas.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)I hope there is a strong negative reaction from the University for this.
by the way he's delusional to think this is ancient history and that people have forgotten it. If there's anything that Scalia will be remembered for, it will be being on the wrong side of Bush v. Gore.
sakabatou
(42,159 posts)billybob537
(3,840 posts)Kangaroos were okay for schools?
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)Canuckistanian
(42,290 posts)It ain't called "Gore v. Bush"
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Which he was, in Florida's courts. In response, the Bush team filed in federal court, thus naming the federal suit Bush v Gore.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Here is a decision of the Florida Supreme Court stating that Gore filed the case in the State of Florida.
In my opinion, the Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore will become an object of ridicule in the history books. Equal protection????
It's a very confused decision, I think. I do think that the majority on the Court were looking for a way to help Bush, but I was not sitting in their offices, so I, of course, do not know what was going through their minds.
Anyway, we know that their decision cast a dreadful curse on our nation.
Samantha
(9,314 posts)They had tried to goad Gore into seeking relief from the courts, but Gore refused to throw out the first ball in that court because he knew the American people would never accept the election as legitimate if it were determined by the courts as opposed to the literal votes. Any winner of such contest would be considered "illegitimate" in the eyes of those disenfranchised. Jim Baker planned from the beginning to get this issue to the Supreme Court and taunted the Gore campaign to be the first to move. When it did not, the Republicans were forced to do so. Baker knew if he could just get the issue to the Supreme Court, odds were it would decide in favor of the Republicans.
And so to Scalia, here is my message. 51 million Americans WILL NEVER simply forget what happened in Election 2000. That is exactly how many American votes were nullified by the Supreme Court's appalling decision. For additional information, see Justice Stevens scathing dissenting opinion, and keep in mind as you read it, he is a Republican.
Some of us will continue to refute the misinformation that continues to be spread to this day about that theft. And YOU need to GET OVER that.
Sam
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)The Plaintiff is ALWAYS listed first. Duh.
Uncle Joe
(58,370 posts)federal court, that's why they call it "Bush vs Gore," not the other way around.
The Supreme Court had no Constitutional reason to even take Bush's case, it was up to the people of Florida, and if they couldn't resolve it, the Florida Legislature and then ultimately the U.S. Congress in determining which set of electors to seat.
I can't decide whether Scalia is a deluded sack of fecal material or just a lying sack of shit?
Thanks for the thread, kpete.
CAPHAVOC
(1,138 posts)I remember that. What grounds did the appeal use? I can't remember. The legislature was going to go in the favor of Bush and over rule the Florida Supremes and appoint the electors for Bush. After SCOTUS ruled then Gore conceded.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Which I suppose is true, since it wouldn't exist.
Uncle Joe
(58,370 posts)to be of equal significance.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)These are not mutually exclusive. He is both.
And so is Thomas.
And also "I will not let my personal feeling effect my decisions" Roberts.
CAPHAVOC
(1,138 posts)So are the rest of them.
That doesn't mean he isn't a lying sack of shit.
Uncle Joe
(58,370 posts)equivalent to 3/5 ths of a human.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)questioning him about it. And when questioned, criminals often lie.
But wait, someone will be along any moment to Blame Nader for Scalia's and his buddies' criminal act. Scalia is not the only one who has developed anmesia about that election.
They so desperately hope that people have forgotten that travesty. It must have been a shock to him in his bubble, to find out that people are never going to forget it.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)That's interesting. I still to this day think Gore should've done a statewide recount. He would've still won.
Uncle Joe
(58,370 posts)which had obvious problems with the vote and the vote was close, but twice Gore offered Bush to recount the votes in the entire state to which Bush; declined, because the corporate media had already prematurely declared him the winner.
All Bush wanted to do was run out the clock and he knew the U.S. Supreme Court was in his pocket.
The Florida Supreme Court finally ruled to count all the votes in the state and that's when the U.S. Supreme Court which had been stalling the process the entire time basically ruled the clock had run out as some arbitrary date mattered more than determining the intent of the people.
When you speak of "selective recounting," Florida had selective voting, but the U.S. Supreme Court didn't give a rat's ass about that.
former9thward
(32,028 posts)What was before the court was whether the ongoing recount was Constitutional. The vote was 7-2 that it was not. As remedy five Justices said to stop the count and four Justices offered different ways to count.
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)And it's just so funny because he's totally not impartial. And we should all just forget that we won the revolution. It was so long ago. What the hell, King George still reigns.
Cuckoo!...cuckoo!
malaise
(269,067 posts)Scalia fugging LIED!
alp227
(32,036 posts)Response to kpete (Original post)
Post removed
Skittles
(153,169 posts)a republican hack would though; yes INDEED
ThomThom
(1,486 posts)who where there to study and learn and get an education. They did not vote in the election and were just trying to get first hand the thinking behind the decision. A little touchy are we? Did he even attempt to explain the legal logic he used to make the decision or did he just get indignant because he knows the law was not served.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Pezzo di merda!
Pompinara!
And, those are your good points!
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Va fan Culo!
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)Iliyah
(25,111 posts)live themselves? He has broken one of the 10 Commandments "Thou Shall Not Lie".
Seriously, he needs to resign alongwith at least 3 more.
LiberalFighter
(50,953 posts)If his wife, children or grandchildren were to suffer the consequences of his actions then he might give more thought to the right decision.
Uncle Joe
(58,370 posts)his birthday, is that tragically cosmic or what?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Olson
"Olson argued a dozen cases before the Supreme Court prior to becoming Solicitor General;[3] In one case, he argued against federal sentencing guidelines, and in a case in New York state, he defended a member of the press who had first leaked the Anita Hill story.[2] Olson successfully represented presidential candidate George W. Bush in the Supreme Court case Bush v. Gore, which effectively ended the recount of the contested 2000 Presidential election."
(snip)
"Olson has been married four times. Olson's third wife,[8] Barbara Olson, was a passenger on the hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 that crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, his birthday. The following year Olson met Lady Booth, a tax attorney and native of Kentucky, and the two were married on October 21, 2006, in Napa County, California."[8]
"
LynneSin
(95,337 posts)We had our decisions made before we even heard anyone speak on the case.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)to reason and to recall fact have degenerated as much as Scalia's should retire willingly or be persuaded to step down by his colleagues.
Response to kpete (Original post)
Post removed
LastLiberal in PalmSprings
(12,586 posts)"The Path to Florida", Vanity Fair, October 2004:
http://makethemaccountable.com/articles/The_Path_To_Florida.htm
Scalia is living in a fantasy world; he will go down in history as one of the most corrupt Supreme Court justices, IMO.
MrCoffee
(24,159 posts)Well, not quite the same, he didn't say anything except that he wouldn't say anything about it.
xmas74
(29,674 posts)He spoke at my local university a few years' back and when asked about it, he just ignored the questioner. He felt the need to spend all his time discussing abortion.
I enjoy attending lectures. I don't necessarily have to care about the subject matter or even approve of the pov. If I learn something, anything, I'm happy. Scalia was one person I learned absolutely nothing from. I left his lecture feeling drained. I felt as though I had a half day of my time stolen that couldn't be returned.
(and this is from someone who even attended Tom DeLay's speech at Westminster. http://www.churchillmemorial.org/lecture/green/Pages/TomDeLay.aspx )
newspeak
(4,847 posts)The question we need to ask scalia is why did two justices not recuse themselves because members of their families were directly involved in little boot's election?
I want him to answer that question. There are some in the supreme court I have no respect, because they do not deserve respect.
Even with the butterfly ballots "jews for buchanan" and the bogus voter suppression list and the intimidation at the polls, Gore still won florida. What we witnessed was a coup aided and abetted by a partisan supreme court, the corporate media and a bunch of paid bullies bussed in to florida.
And the damage the BFEE, darth cheney administration did to this country, is mind boggling. Hey cheney, how's halliburton doing since you put us into harm's way? Because they weren't fairing so well BEFORE the election was stolen.
FedUp_Queer
(975 posts)I've read the Constitution, and I can't find the part where the Supreme Court gets to install the president. "Democratically elected" (at least I thought) means the entire citizenry gets the opportunity to vote, not 9 people in black robes in Washington.
nvme
(860 posts)The Repubs controlled both houses at the time.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)They had no business deciding that election, they are not elected representatives of the people, it was a totally illegal decision. And the people had no input there. At least if Congress had handled it they would have been hearing from the people without a doubt and who knows, a few of them might have been honest enough to send it back to where it belonged, Florida!
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)since Dred Scott.
tclambert
(11,087 posts)ever, though you could argue Bush v. Gore made that decision possible since Bush appointed Roberts and Alito.
FedUp_Queer
(975 posts)I don't think Citizens United was the worst decision. It was a logical conclusion from Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (which established corporations as "persons" under the 14th Amendment; which is utterly absurd, but makes Citizens United logical). I think, bar none, the worst decision was the Dred Scott decision or Plessy v. Ferguson.
nxylas
(6,440 posts)As you say, without that, there could be no Citizens United.
FedUp_Queer
(975 posts)Here's the deal. As an attorney, I have realized the PROCESS MATTERS. Just because we think something is a foregone conclusion or "would have come out the same way" is never a reason to dispense with the process (because nobody REALLY knows the outcome...for me the best example is that Justice Kennedy wrote the majority Opinion in Lawrence v. Texas which overturned Bowers v. Hardwick). Second, the vote in the House of Representatives is not one person, one vote. Each state delegation gets one vote. In that regard, each STATE has an equal say. Who really knows what would have happened.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)We have laws for a reason and when the legal process is corrupted, as it was in the 2000 election, nothing good can come of that, and it didn't.
And as you said, we have no idea of the outcome. Sometimes those in office surprise us when they realize their legacies are involved, eg, or simply because they do in the end, put the country before their personal feelings or their party. It has happened many times once the process was followed, as in the Impeachment of Clinton eg.
And as you pointed out, when Congress is involved it is not just one vote representing the entire country.
Canuckistanian
(42,290 posts)Why the USSC was allowed any say on this matter astounds me.
The Wizard
(12,545 posts)as he was known in the Nixon White House, should have recused himself from ruling on the case. His son worked for the firm representing Bush, thus, giving the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Thomas should also be impeached. His wife was on the Bush transition team and as such he stood to profit from his decision. Another conflict of interest.
Because of these two political hacks we were victims of the biggest treasury looting in history. As the repubes are wont to say: "That's your money."
jimlup
(7,968 posts)And he passes as the "competent" one by ultra-right standards.
Crunchy Frog
(26,587 posts)And he's mostly right about that, unfortunately.
backtomn
(482 posts)7-2 stopped the recount, but 2 justices thought that a new recount could still occur under different rules......look it up. Geez.
My issue isn't only with Scalia (that is a long-standing problem) but with Souter and another justice voting against it. How does that happen. I don't think that we could trust that court.......and it is worse now. I am still hoping for a few retirements this year.
BeyondGeography
(39,375 posts)"Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a remedy. See post, at 6 (Souter, J., dissenting); post, at 2, 15 (Breyer, J., dissenting). The only disagreement is as to the remedy."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html
The 5-4 remedy vote is what stopped the recounts.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)Dear Justice Scalia, please have a heart attack and die.
I just posted the same thing, except maybe in a little meaner way.
beac
(9,992 posts)Fla_Democrat
(2,547 posts)The Supreme Court of Florida has said that the legislature intended the States electors to participat[e] fully in the federal electoral process, as provided in 3 U.S.C. § 5. ___ So. 2d, at ___ (slip op. at 27); see also Palm Beach Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, 2000 WL 1725434, *13 (Fla. 2000). That statute, in turn, requires that any controversy or contest that is designed to lead to a conclusive selection of electors be completed by December 12. That date is upon us, and there is no recount procedure in place under the State Supreme Courts order that comports with minimal constitutional standards. Because it is evident that any recount seeking to meet the December 12 date will be unconstitutional for the reasons we have discussed, we reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida ordering a recount to proceed.
Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a remedy. See post, at 6 (Souter, J., dissenting); post, at 2, 15 (Breyer, J., dissenting). The only disagreement is as to the remedy. Because the Florida Supreme Court has said that the Florida Legislature intended to obtain the safe-harbor benefits of 3 U.S.C. § 5 Justice Breyers proposed remedyremanding to the Florida Supreme Court for its ordering of a constitutionally proper contest until December 18-contemplates action in violation of the Florida election code, and hence could not be part of an appropriate order authorized by Fla. Stat. §102.168(8) (2000).
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)Last edited Sun Mar 11, 2012, 02:47 AM - Edit history (1)
was his longtime friend and hunting partner, Dick Cheney!
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-250_162-588582.html
And the SOB got his position on the Supreme Court when the plaintiff's father was vice president!
And another one who voted in bu$h's favor, Clarence Thomas, was actually appointed by bu$h's father!
And Sandra Day O'Connor, who was also appointed to the Court when bu$h's father was vice president, expressed relief that bu$h was awarded the presidency!
That warped decision, which had absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with the 14th Amendment upon which it was ostensibly based, was made by "justices" with serious conflicts-of-interest.
JHB
(37,161 posts)We have always been at war with Eastasia.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)"Gee, I really don't wanna get into - I mean this is - 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. The vote was seven to two," Scalia says.
Not the final decision, but the "principal issue in the case".
Lasher
(27,602 posts)He is almost as vile as his hunting buddy, Lord Vader.
Gman
(24,780 posts)and Gore was the respondent. Every even PRE-law students knows person filing the suit is listed first. The person being sued is listed second after vs.. How can he even begin to say Gore filed the suit? It was during the recount and Gore was inching closer to going ahead of Bush that the recount was stopped by a lawsuit filed by Bush. How can he even say this?
Over the years, I have shoved it up the butt of every single conservative that came at me with that "Gore filed the suit" bullshit. I ask them if they even know what the significance of who is listed first means and what the name after vs. means? Every time I leave them with a blank look.
Son of a bitches.
former9thward
(32,028 posts)It went to the Florida Supreme court which ruled 4-3 to do a second recount. That was appealed to the U.S. Supreme court. Bush's name went first because he was the petitioner to the court.
Gman
(24,780 posts)BzaDem
(11,142 posts)What did Scalia have to say about that old, 7-2 decision? From his dissent in Casey (reaffirming Roe vs. Wade in 1992):
There comes vividly to mind a portrait by Emanuel Leutze that hangs in the Harvard Law School: Roger Brooke Taney, painted in 1859, the 82d year of his life, the 24th of his Chief Justiceship, the second after his opinion in Dred Scott. He is all in black, sitting in a shadowed red armchair, left hand resting upon a pad of paper in his lap, right hand hanging limply, almost lifelessly, beside the inner arm of the chair. He sits facing the viewer, and staring straight out. There seems to be on his face, and in his deep set eyes, an expression of profound sadness and disillusionment. Perhaps he always looked that way, even when dwelling upon the happiest of thoughts. But those of us who know how the lustre of his great Chief Justiceship came to be eclipsed by Dred Scott cannot help believing that he had that case--its already apparent consequences for the Court, and its soon to be played out consequences for the Nation--burning on his mind. I expect that two years earlier he, too, had thought himself "call[ing] the contending sides of national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution."
It is no more realistic for us in this case, than it was for him in that, to think that an issue of the sort they both involved--an issue involving life and death, freedom and subjugation--can be "speedily and finally settled" by the Supreme Court, as President James Buchanan in hisinaugural address said the issue of slavery in the territories would be. See Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the United States, S. Doc. No. 101-10, p. 126 (1989). Quite to the contrary, by foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish.
So let's get this straight. Bush v. Gore, an old 7-2 case that most certainly "foreclosed all democratic outlet" for resolving the issue (the US Congress), and "banished the issue from the political forum that gives all... a fair hearing," is a decision that people should "get over."
But Roe v. Wade, an old 7-2 decision that Scalia accuses of doing the same thing, is comparable to Taney's decision in Dred Scott vs. Sanford (holding that African Americans have "no rights which the white man was bound to respect," and mandating that slavery be extended to the territories).
lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)fucking thing.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)without authorities around to protect your punk ass, I would knock your teeth out, and if I got arrested, I'd be satisfied. You are a very fortunate wimp.
caseymoz
(5,763 posts)Well, that would explain a lot.
Or, more likely, he downright lies about it. This is the main guy who decided the election, the worst post-Dred Scott decision (up until the even worse Citizen's United?). His intervention was instrumental in saddling the country with the worst President ever, giving us 9/11 less than a year later, and then the Iraq and Afghan Wars, not to mention the Patriot Act and Gitmo.
Yeah, Scalia, having a dick like you say it just makes me want to get over it, especially when you show your intellectual fitness and honesty by fudging the vote count. You shouldn't even be on then bench in a traffic court.
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)You are a piece of slime and will go down in history as the man who subverted democracy in the United States.
RiffRandell
(5,909 posts)I despise him.
davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)that Scalia isn't even close to sane. Unfortunately, the lunatic is on the Supreme Court.
madinmaryland
(64,933 posts)Interesting choice!
PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)Supreme Court still Selected a president. So for 4 years we didn't have an elected president. so when we complain about screwy elections in any other country. our argument is shot
Stardust
(3,894 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)thought we had, he realized he was wrong. I wonder if he knows that history will remember it and after he is gone his name will forever be associated with one of the worst decisions ever made by the USSC.
Stardust
(3,894 posts)YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)Hold Scalia Accountable for his remarks. We can't allow the media to let this go. He's was an incredible liar. If Gore were there during 9/11 I can't imagine how much better he would have handled it. However it would have to have been better than the lies the Bush Adm. told us ... and still no one has been indicted. So we can never forget what went down in Florida ever.
disndat
(1,887 posts)There would not have been 9/11. nt.
libinnyandia
(1,374 posts)New Hampshire, which he would have won under normal circumstance. No 9/11, no tax cuts for the 1%, no citizens united.
disndat
(1,887 posts)taking money to run from the Republicans? If so, Nader is just as responsible for what happened as the Supreme Court despicable 5.
libinnyandia
(1,374 posts)Nader's campaigns.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)And Obama will get to replace him. Payback is a bitch.
NICO9000
(970 posts)As an Italian-American, I am ashamed to share a culture with him. An awful, awful excuse for a human.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)they voted 7 to 2 to let FLORIDA SUPREME COURT make the final decision as it should have
(and they would have found a way for a full recount or partial recount and Gore would win.
the 5 to 4 vote (which was disputed and one sided said
NAH NAH NAH SUCKERS, THE TIME IS UP (as they waited and waited to give the ruling til
the last possible minute).
Scalia has a sleight of hand in his answer.
7 to 2 meant Gore would have prevailed
5 to 4 said he wouldn't be given the chance.
Remember when we hung on every word, the Florida Sup. Court Clerk/spokesman Craig Waters
read to us on the steps of Florida Supreme Court!
Remember how happy we were
VOTE DEMOCRAT in 2012 and let's change the court back.
underpants
(182,839 posts)there was no concrete deadline.
I can't remember the number or percentage - I heard this on the book on tape of Jon Krakauer EXCELLENT book about Pat Tillman "Where Men Seek Glory"
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)And history will remember him as an embarrassing mistake, a hateful fascist corporate whore.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)Such lies!
even stating the 12 years ago is a long, long time. Perhaps for a 20 year old, which Scalia is NOT.
MADem
(135,425 posts)olegramps
(8,200 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)--- Justice Stevens, Bush v. Gore
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)Sorry about your legacy, dude. Better luck in your next life.
Rex
(65,616 posts)as the pile of shit that started this all off...rot in Hell!!! Because of you, millions of people are now dead that would probably still be alive all these years later. All that blood on you hands Scarface...how do you sleep at night?
Initech
(100,082 posts)Madmiddle
(459 posts)called for in this country with the activist judges changing the law.
VPStoltz
(1,295 posts)The Recons hired a mob of goons to disrupt the ballot counting process to the point where the counters felt endangered. I don't believe all the ballots were counted before the case went to the SCOTUS.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)And Scalia also said that, unlike every other Supreme Court decision, that decision only applied to that one case. They knew they were wrong.
newspeak
(4,847 posts)the american people have suffered the consequences. Anyone listening to little boot's before the election would know what a sociopathic, narcissitic piece of work he is. When one thinks that daddy would have won if he only started another war or prolonged a war; because the people love them some war president. men who never saw the horrors of war; yet, their families have made plenty of profit off of war; would, in a heartbeat, find any excuse for war.
Before the election, these cretins had an agenda and it involved war and profits. Anyone thinking something more honorable, I have a bridge to sell you. The chuckling, like it's some joke, after 9/11, how he had hit the trifecta. The looking for WMDs around a desk, while our soldiers were still in harms way. Yeah, these cretins cared about their base; unfortunately, it wasn't the majority of american people and it wasn't the health and well being of this country.
Blue Owl
(50,439 posts)Scalia can shove his little mandate where the sun don't shine.