Yeah, that’s right you piece of shit excuse for a Supreme Court Justice. Fuck you.
Strict constructionalist? My ass. Fuck you.
(in case you hadn’t noticed, I’m a bit pissed off here)
Why the venom you may ask? Because he has decided to re-write history AGAIN and has just declared the process by which elections are decided, as outlined by the Constitution & the US Code, basically, unconstitutional when he wants it to be.
Was Bush v. Gore a “one time ruling”, or does he think SCOTUS should be the deciding factor in disputed elections?
Scalia said: “The election was dragged into the courts by the Gore people. We did not go looking for trouble.”
Really? Who filed the first lawsuit to block the recount? Ummmm… that would have been Bush. You know, ’cause a manual recount was automatically triggered by how close the original count was… oh never mind, you’d actually have to read the law to figure that one out.
“The issue was whether Florida’s Supreme Court or the United States Supreme Court [would decide the election.] What did you expect us to do? Turn the case down because it wasn’t important enough?”
No, how about following precedent and the LAW, oh wise one? Florida’s votes were the jurisdiction of the FLORIDA Supreme Court, not SCOTUS.
And how about the fact that esteemed legal scholars, from both the left and the right, completely disagreed with you and your rightwing minions?
The conservative justice… contended there would have been a difficult transition had the court not stepped in.
Okay, I’m about to blow a gasket here… I’m having flashbacks now and my blood pressure is rising… I need to be talked down and QUICK.
A “Difficult transition”? Really? Man, those Founders must have been on crack and not known what they were doing when they laid out the process for handling disputed elections… right? Hmmm… but how does that jive with your view that they knew EXACTLY what they were doing and the courts shouldn’t try to INTERPRET the Constitution/ law but to follow it to the letter…. changing times be damned… it doesn’t of course and you are full of shit.
So let me get this straight… Scalia has just said that SCOTUS’s job is to step in and decide cases based on what they THINK would be “easiest” for the country vs. the actual LAW. No wonder he’s Bush’s ideal justice.
Let me ask you a question oh esteemed nutbar… ever heard of Title 3 of the US Code? You know, the law which governs those “difficult transistions”… of course not, that would mean your OPINION wouldn’t matter.
And finally, the man just isn’t smart enough to be on the Supreme Court…
He also pointed out that studies by news organizations after the election showed Bush still would have won a Florida recount.
Really? Or is it still up in the air based on which votes were counted? And let alone the racist tactics used by the President’s brother in disqualifying voters… which in and of itself was AGAINST THE LAW.
And hey, we wouldn’t have had to rely on the news organizations to count the votes if you and your fellow brownshirts hadn’t STOPPED the legal recount by the ELECTION OFFICALS.
Which leads me back to… Fuck you Scalia. History will not treat you well.
I really didn’t expect to be online much today, but bring up the coup d’etat again and all bets are off…
… calm down spidey… Fitzmas will take care of these guys… I swear… if not there’s always Canada… oh right, you’re already there… okay, nevermind, carry on fuming… 😉
At least you’re there; how do you think we feel?
That sure was easy for Scalia to cause blood to boil all around the country. What an asshole.
That was always one of the things that really bugged me about the 2000 election… because I remembered, both from junior high social studies class AND from the series of events that put Gerald Ford in the White House, that the Constitution had procedures already laid out for disputed elections or a tie in the electoral college.
Granted, the results would have been the same — Bush would have won — but that would have followed the Constitutional protocol and been totally legal. And I would much rather have followed those procedures and not muddied things up.
But no, we had those damned activist judges get involved — funny, isn’t it, how the judges are only activists when their rulings displease the neocon or religious right, but not when they ignore clearly laid-out Constitutional procedures to get the ruling the neocons wanted in the first place?
exactly. follow the law and people would have at least been okay with it… and who knows about Bush winning anyway since by the time it got to the House and Senate in late 2001 the results could have been different after the recounts… but that wouldn’t have worked for the Bushies… can’t take a chance that he might have lost.
Did this come from out of the blue? If the subject hasn’t been in the news and one of these guys comes out with a forceful defense it usually means that bad news is coming. It seems to be their form of a pre-emptive defense.
If that’s the case, it would give more weight to the rumor last summer of a sealed indictment against him in connection with the election.
seems to have been… somebody just asked him a question about it after a speech.
There have been plea bargains, deals and new reports of testimony all over the place. Scanlon was a big one to flip. Conrad Black’s lawyers have asked to reschedule his proceeding until the 30th. That sounds like he might be working on a deal to testify against others, one of which might be Perle but definitely other neocons. Black’s other publication involvement was one of the British papers.
When things like the memo just ‘pop up’ but have been talked about for a while, it seems like it’s connected to evidence or testimony somehow. Usually it’s a first strike, get ahead of the story leak.
Scalia & his buddies know that their ruling went against the grain of their states rights philosophy. The one-time remark aims more at the possibility of its being used as a precedent in other contexts than another electoral decision. To reach the desired decision they touched ona number of constitutional issues. I’ve spoken to one lawyer who believes it might prove useful in a death penalty case.
Al Gore had been Vice President for 8 years. He won the popular vote. We were about to establish officially that he won the electoral college vote.
Transition? To what? The radical idea that bullying shouldn’t prevail in a democratic country. Thanks for sparing us all that shock.
We should spray-paint that supreme court temple orange.
if it’s legal to answer.
Orange Revolution