Antonin Scalia has been on the U.S. Supreme Court for 20 years. That’s a lot of years and cases and decisions. Yet he told students at the University of Connecticut’s law school Wednesday: “I think the proudest thing I have done on the bench is not allow myself to be chased off that case” — “that case” being the one about whether Vice President Dick Cheney, his friend and hunting buddy, should have to reveal details about the secret White House sessions that led to the Bush energy policy (in the end, Cheney didn’t). Surely Scalia was exaggerating about where the episode falls among his points of pride. He also said, “For Pete’s sake, if you can’t trust your Supreme Court justice more than that, get a life.”
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/23
- Monkeyhawk on Too many exemptions
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
60 Comments
Mr. Scalia,Get a life, and short of that, get an early death.
Scalia is the embodiment of the slime that gave him his position, namely the corporate GOP. This latest that he is proud of protecting Cheney and energy interests is more proof that Supreme court justices should be elected, not appointed.
Scalia is scum of the lowest order.
Classy comments from our liberal brothers. Wishing the death of someone and calling people names is the height of their intellectual prowess. Sad.
Sounds like Scalia needs another hunting trip with Dick (Shooter)Cheney!
Interesting that our Rightie brothers can’t see “conflict of interest” when it is staring them in the face.
BlowJoe,
‘Classy comments’, eh? Well, here’s a picture of Scalia responding to his critics with a Sicilian gesture that means something along the lines of ‘fuck you’ and ‘up your ass.’
http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/newswire/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002275629
And then the photographer who snapped the picture lost his job at The Pilot, the newspaper of the Archdiocese of Boston, after Scalia tried to suppress the photo, which ran in The Herald.
Classy Scalia, classy conservatives.
That should tell you, Scalia has precious little to be proud of during his tenure.
Proof, once again, that the left only respects the Constitution that they like (”more proof that Supreme court justices should be elected, not appointed.” – JR).
Scalia is the brightest intellectual on the court – and the most criticized. You may disagree with him; you are certainly entitled to do so. Reasonable people can, and do, disagree with his textualist philosophy. But you cannot ignore him, nor can you simply dismiss him.
I don’t know that I’d consider the moment that Scalia cites his high point. But saying so does stir the pot, and Scalia loves to stir the pot. If he kissed ass, he’d be Chief Justice now, but he doesn’t kiss ass. The Court needs his point of view – it’s a stronger Court with him, even if you disagree with him (perhaps ESPECIALLY if you disagree with him).
Do some research to see if the incident you are writing of was in fact a “conflict of interest.” It wasn’t. Not even close. At no point does going hunting with a person make you inelligible to hear the case. Social aquaintence does NOT a conflict of interest make; if that were the case, lawyers and judges would be conflicted out constantly, for they run in the same circles. It takes substantially more than that.
I could note that one of the plaintiffs in the recent FAIR decision (involving US Armed Forces recruiting at law schools and the schools protesting DADT) was Justice Ginsburg’s HUSBAND. Was that a conflict of interest? Did she recuse herself? No. No. (He lost 8-0, BTW).
The bottom line from the left here is that they don’t like Scalia’s philosophy and judging. That’s fine, but when they aren’t up to par when it comes to seriously criticizing it (and few are), they resort to bogus cries of “conflict of interest when that fails, sink to intellectual gems like “scum of the lowest order.”
Oh Gosh – now that hurts.
And that’s just too bad. Can you say “lifetime appointment?” With any luck, Roberts will be Scalia with a “nice” face.
Blow for once has a point. I take back what I said about Scalia. I apologize, too.
Having more class than than cretins like Scalia is very easy to do.
Hey BlowJob – is that a stain on your shirt? Cheney’s DNA or Bush’s?
I surprised he didn’t say his proudest moment was casting the deciding vote to stop the re-count in Florida. This allowed the Chair of the Elect-Bush-Committee who also just happened to be Florida Election Commissioner call it for her man.
One man’s vote–Antonin Scalia’s–cancelled out the will of 500,000 Americans who wanted Gore over Bush. One man’s vote–Antonin Scalia’s–overrode tens of thousands of Floridians who had voted for Gore over Bush but saw their votes discarded by partisan vote counters in violation of state law.
Antonin Scalia told democracy to drop dead in his 2000 ruling. And it did.
Lefthook:
Please. Get over it. That was a 5-4 decision; not “one man’s vote.” Per Curiam opinion, with Renquist, Thomas, Scalia, concurring and joining Kennedy and O’Conner in the majority. Are all corrupt? So are we complaining about the process, or the outcome?
I will note that it is not clear at all that Gore won Florida, by any recount. In fact, he didn’t.
From Wikipedia: “Following the election, recounts conducted by various United States news media organizations indicated that Bush would have won the most probable recount methods (including the one favored by Gore at the time of the Supreme Court decision)”
The 2000 election was simply an example of what has always been possible, and had happened before, at least three times. A candidate wins the popular vote, and loses the election. That’s the reality of the electoral college, which has never worked as envisioned. If you’d like to back an amendment to modify or abolish it, good luck. Been tried. Lots. Failed so far.
Will probably happen again, too. And you’ll have to find another whipping boy.
Smile when you say “lifetime appointment.”
GMC
You do have a point here.
Scalia and his ilk are pretty strict constitutionalist. That oh so revered Constitution was written mostly to the intersts of rich, white, men.
Amendments to the small betterment it remains a document that serves the interests of rich, white, men.
So in this case and in his general judicial manner, Scalia I guess is doing his job. Protecting the interests of rich, white, men.
Not a man I respect. Not a Constitution I respect a whole lot either.
Lifetime appointments for the zealot of choice of the current “elected” leader.What a sham.
You could find few defendants that would not love to go hunting with a judge that was going to rule on their case!This supreme court sacrificed the integrity of the office when they clearly showed their partainship in 2001.No one could now consider appointing Bush to the presidency a ‘high point’!
JR -
And I quote:
“Not a Constitution I respect a whole lot either.”
That, my friend, says it all.
Just remember it is that same constitution which protects your right to voice that opinion here. No one is knocking on your door to take you off to a gulag for insulting the leadership. And that is as it should be. You owe thanks to that constitution and millions of us who believe in its principles for that, even as you enjoy the privilege protected by the document you so despise.
So I’ll say what has been said before: I disagree (deeply and vehemently!) with what you say, but defend your right to say it.
I note at one point in another thread you wrote that although you were born and raised a Kansan, you have no great love for the place (though I am sure those are not your exact words).
You’re welcome to leave. Don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out.
Good advice gmc since kansas is bleeding population.
But of course, we as a state could never ask ourselves WHY people are leaving here in droves. We just tell them if they dont drink the koolaide, they can get the hell out.
How is that working for us in ks?
I still say put up a big fence and make this the republican national refuge. Leave gmc and his ilk to do as they wish with this state and see how THAT works.
Oh wait, we have already been doing that for… how many years?
Once again, how is that working for us?
GMC’s kansas state motto:
“We suck but we sure are proud of it.”
or the alternate
“Love it or leave it so we can SUCK MORE without you!”
Ramen
Steve:
Have you read Bush v. Gore? Follow its rationale? Or is this just parroting the party line?
It is looking at how the judges voted straight down party lines. Not interested in reading rationalizations.
If you didn’t notice, it was a bipartisan comment. Had some Dems sided with Bush and some Repubs. sided with Gore, I’d have more respect for them. The biggest threat to our govt. is that both Congress and the Supreme court put party over their institutions.
GMC?
Don’t call me friend. It makes me look bad. Association ya’ know.
I said I did not particuarly respect the Constitution. I did not say I despised it.
If I have to be the first to say it I will. We need a new Constitutional convention.The basics of the old document are fine. But it is 200 + years old, and written for another time.
The founders could NEVER have foreseen the deep political divides of these times. Too, they never imagined that an appointed Justice might remain on the bench for 40+ years. They were creating a new government that while based on sound stable principles in law, allowed for dynamism and change. Enshrining idealogues of choice for the elected executive of the day to judge matters for an open ended era was not I think their intent.
Nor I think was it their intent for Justices to consort with those they are called upon to judge. Re: Scalia and his hunting buddies.
GMC70,
Have YOU read Bush v. Gore? Then kindly explain to me how ‘equal protection’ is invoked and defended to aborgate the rights of a state to decide the conditions under which elections are to be held.
Explain to me also, please, how the Supreme Court’s insistence on a literalist reading of ‘one man, one vote’ supersedes all the remedies available at the state level to the problem of different acceptability standards for ballots. And explain to me also, please, how the Court’s decision to stop the vote counting in Florida did not run afoul of the very criterion–one man, one vote–that it used to stop the counting of the votes.
From a legal, moral, and logical standpoint, the Supreme Court’s decision was a word salad: a bunch of words, connected by no underlying meaning. From a partisan political standpoint, it makes perfect sense.
And as the modern GOP, embodied in its Supreme jurist, Antonin Scalia, has so amply demonstrated time and again, politics is the only standpoint that matters. The idea that any ‘principle’ underlies his judicial positions is laughable and deserving of total scorn. Scalia is a hack and a thug.
Here’s a nice paper by Lawrence Tribe that makes precisely these points.
http://www.law.gmu.edu/faculty/papers/wpDetail.php?wpID=169
The RW is all for States Rights, as long as they are exercised in what the RW believe in. Same Same re. activist judges.
The supreme court has enshrined the right to murder the unborn, it has given us the evils of desegregation, forced busing and affirmative blacktion, etc but you leftists are still whining! What more do you coconuts want for Christ’s sake?
Viva la Revolucion Blanco!!!
Read Bush v. Gore? Yes. Again. Today. Along with the concurrences and dissents.
As to Lawrence Tribe as support:
I think the words you used in attacking were “hack” and “thug.” While I won’t lower Mr. Tribe to “thug,” “hack” fits perfectly. He articulates the “living constitution” orthodoxy very well. But there’s not much original there, and there is much that is troubling to those of us who truly treasure limited government.
I won’t debate the finer points of the Bush v. Gore. That would be pointless, the opinions speak for themselves. A majority of the SC held that the Florida SC did not follow Florida law in its decision, and in doing so endorsed a patchwork of standards which lacked any consistency or fairness. Such inconsistency undercut the equal protection of millions of Florida voters who managed to vote, following the clear instructions in the voting booth. It’s not hard. The problem is clear – what you object to, CF, is not the rationale, but the outcome. Let let it go by saying I disagree with you and the esteemed hack Mr. Tribe. Further, as noted above, in all likelihood had the recounts gone forward, the result would not have been any different. It is, however, a close case, and one reasonable people can disagree with.
That in Scalia’s decisions “politics is the only standpoint that matters” is true only for those who view every decision only though that purely partisan lens. Is it surprising that a conservative jurist takes positions that are generally (but not always, and sometimes in surprising ways) conservative? Not to me. The fact of the matter, again, is that the left often finds itself unable to take on Scalia’s positions intellectually, so they are attacked as “partisan.” See the personal and partisan attacks on this string.
Now – on to other matters.
So – a new constitutional convention? In these times? Do you truly believe we could do a better job? I can’t imagine a worse idea. I can’t imagine coming up with a better document than the one we have. Does that mean I think the one we have is perfect? No, I suspect all of us could point to problems in the current constitutional system, some obvious, some less so. But on the whole, it’s worked well, and far better than anything we would get today. If it ain’t broke . . .
And read a little history before we begin decrying the “deep divisions” in this country too much. For all our disagreements (and they are many) we disagree mostly around the edges. Even for us (ksfarmgrrl and JR) there is much more we agree on than disagree. The founders were indeed as deeply divided as we are; that division nearly ended the Constitution before it began. Our political life has been far more rancorous before than now. We managed through. The sky did not fall. It will not fall now.
Those who decry those divisions seem to go most out of their way to exacerbate them. This string is no exception. It is truly amazing to me that JR attacks the court as political and then proposes, in the next sentence, electing justices. There is a reason the appointments are lifetime, JR. It is just this reason. Tell me, in Bush v. Gore, just how the nasty old GOP strong-armed five SC justices with life tenure? Just what do you believe they were enticed by or threatened with? Isn’t it possible (gasp) that a majority of the Court (sit down, now, I know this is hard to take) disagree with your position? Reading the majority opinion in Bush v. Gore, can you truly say, with a straight face, that NO reasonable jurist could possibly take that position? Five DID – but I guess that just proves that all five are hacks. That argument’s a bit circular, isn’t it?
It’s clear from your posts, JR, over several threads that ANYONE who disagrees with you (and frankly, your very active little “progressive” circle jerk) is variously described as stupid, “scum,” “slime,” etc. What satisfaction to be the repository of all true knowledge. It must be difficult to imagine how millions of Americans could possibly disagree with you. Obviously, we’re all stupid, slime, scum, etc., etc.
Next you’ll tell me that I’ve undercut my remaining credibility with you. Perhaps you’ll call me a wingnut next. Or start in with the faux King James. That was helpful. Ksfarmgrrl will come up with another Kansas . . . line. Ow. Oh please, not that.
I don’t care. It is indeed tiresome to see the same half-dozen or so self-rightous progressives continue to trot out the same tiresome labels and endless bitternesss on thread after thread. If that gives me the “wingnut” label, so be it.
And given the vehemence of the language routinely used by the progressive circle, I find it most amazing that you fear me (ME!), who has never used that kind of inflamatory labeling. At least, not that I can remember. Given the nastiness and personal attacks of the language you routinely use, I (!!) am to be feared carring a concealed weapon. Amazing. Read our posts, and tell me who is most likely to fly off the handle.
Ah, the progressive circle. Moonbats all.
GMC,
You’re a parody of yourself.
First you decree the nasty personal attacks of the left-wing (cue the violins) and as soon as you get done doing that, you call your opposition “moonbats.”
Well, I guess that’s better than “terrorist lover,” “troop hater,” “fag,” “degenerate,” and “liberal swamp” or “liberal plantation” but not by much.
Name-calling is par for the course. Both sides do it. If you can’t take it, start your own blog. It’s not an issue to anyone but the thin-skinned right who are running out of arguments apparently. Nobody bothers to comment on it anymore except you. Get over it.
“Tell me, in Bush v. Gore, just how the nasty old GOP strong-armed five SC justices with life tenure? Just what do you believe they were enticed by or threatened with?”
They were threatened with Gore winning the election . . . duh. All five who voted in favor of Bush were life-long hard-core conservatives of the most virulent kind. They didn’t have to be “threatened” to support Bush–they already supported him and everything he stands for.
Interestingly, even the juror who was appointed by Bush’s father voted with the minority, Souter.
Not only was the decision the worst one the Supreme Court has made since Plessy v Ferguson, but they don’t even have jurisdiction. The so-called conservatives like Scalia proudly walk around with the 10th amendment in their pockets (state’s rights), but nothing is more of a state’s rights issue than voting.
Nevertheless, Scalia et al. pitched all their conservative rhetoric about state’s rights right out the window when they saw that their guy Bush needed help shutting down the recount.
A sad day for our country.
And you’re right, justices serve for life. But they can be impeached just like any other gov’t employee.
Not decree, decry . . . oops.
Ack. I just spent a half hour writing a reply to GMC70, and erased my own message. Damn.
Quick version: nice job not answerings my questions, originalism = ‘whatever happens to agree with the outcome I’m after,’ and Scalia is as big an activist as anyone.
http://jointstrikeweasel.blogspot.com/2006/03/scalia-supports-living-constitution.html
Oh, the shame.
CF:
Never claimed to be an originalist. Neither does Scalia.
Point still stands. Your complaint is about result, not rationale. Again – can you say, with a straight face, that NO reasonable jurist could come to that conclusion?
And you’re gonna tell me, again with a straight face, that there is no jurisdiction in a federal election issue? Please.
I’m not gonna tell you that the decision reached is the only one which could have been reached. As I noted, it’s a close call. And it’s not a case which calls for an originalist approach. But let’s be blunt – your complaint is about the result, not the rationale.
Feel the shame yourself. I got none, thanks.
GMC70,
So, Scalia isn’t an ‘originalist’? Funny–he said he was. You may want to ask him about that.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa022701a.htm
‘States Rights’ when it serves Scalia’s interest, ‘Federal jurisdiction’ every other time. Uh-huh. THERE’s some consistency for you.
As for Bush v. Gore, yes, GMC70, let’s do be blunt: you’re misrepresenting my position. My beef is with the non-counting of votes in a Federal election, and with the Supreme Court then deciding which ones do and don’t count ex post facto, after they’ve already been cast. That’s a process objection, GMC70, not a results objection. Just count all the damn votes.
What kind of Supreme Court decides that counting all the votes violates equal protection, and then steps in to say which ones do and don’t count? Sure doesn’t sound like ‘judicial restraint’ to me, which, in any case, is a studied and disingenuous label for a Scalia-type approach that absolutely is every bit as prone to choosing results and cherry picking rationales to get there as any other ‘judicial philosophy.’
On factual and substantive grounds, GMC70, points don’t stand. You may want to get that underperforming shame gland checked; its symptoms mirror those hypothyroidism.
Megadittos, CF, as always.
“Your complaint is about the result, not the rationale.” Thanks for reminding me about that point, GMC. That’s exactly the essential point–who could imagine that the Supreme Court would have stepped in and stopped the recount if GORE were “ahead” in the official count by 300 votes and BUSH wanted a recount?
Can you say with a straight-face that arch-conservatives Scalia, Thomas, Rheinquist and their fellow travellers Kennedy and O’Connor would have ruled the same way for GORE as they did for BUSH?
It is exactly the RATIONALE that I complain about–not the result. What’s clear is that the SCOTUS used any rationale they could seize upon, even if it meant a direct conflict of their so-called conservative values, to get the result they wanted.
And, btw, I’m never getting over it. Bush stole the election in 2000, and as long as I’m a citizen of the United States of America, I’m going to do whatever I can to see that justice is done.
What’s shameful is that some Americans like you, because they wanted Bush in office, are willing to sell Democracy down the river.
Damn well said C F and Tru
TRU,
So you think Kennedy and that wretched O’Connor woman are “arch-conservatives”? You should go take another hit off of your bong, skippy. lmosrfao
Viva La Raza Blanco!!!
“Can you say with a straight-face that arch-conservatives Scalia, Thomas, Rheinquist and their fellow travellers Kennedy and O’Connor would have ruled the same way for GORE as they did for BUSH?”
Yes. Straight or otherwise.
I’ll not take back one word. Close case, true, but one where a rational jurist could take that position. You’re entitled to disagree with it; you can question its rationale (though, again, that is not your complaint; rather, it is result you take issue with).
But serious charges (”who could imagine that the Supreme Court would have stepped in and stopped the recount if GORE were “ahead” in the official count by 300 votes and BUSH wanted a recount”), that the court “threw” the election, require serious proof. You’ve none. Just conclusions.
“Just count all the damn votes”
That was the problem, wasn’t it? Just how do we decide what was a vote? Was there any consistency and reliability in the vote-counting methods? NO. Are millions of voters entitled to consistency and reliability in vote-counting methods? Surely.
I’d also remind you that the post-election counts determined that, even using the method Gore’s people wanted, would have put Bush winning Florida.
Get over it.
As to the other. Pleeease.
I got no beef with liberals. I would just like to discuss issues. With adults. Like adults. Treating other’s opinions with respect, even as you disagree. That too much to ask? It’s clear that even one “name” (moonbat, a pretty mild one) sticks in the craw.
My issues with the “progressive circle” here is not their positions- rather it is the lack of them. Generally, not always, labeling and virulence take the place of debate. I don’t wonder that many conservatives don’t post here; there are other places where we can discuss issues, even with those who disagree with us, and talk to adults. Unlike, often, here.
What passes for liberal here, BTW, is not generally liberal at all, as much as it is Bush hatred. As a conservative, I’m probably just as disgusted with this administration as you are, though perhaps for different reasons. I’m damn tired of him governing like a democrat (veto a spending bill, just once, for God’s sake!)
The point is, again, Scalia is intellectually the bright soul on the bench. And he generally refers to himself as a “texturalist,” not an originalist. There is a difference. See Georgia v. Randolf, recently, for one example. And yes, I tend to agree with him, usually.
The court is a better court for him. The left wing needs him. Just as conservatives like me need liberals to remind us of our better natures. And liberals need conservatives to remind them of what is realistic.
Okay, fine. If you truly believe that SCOTUS would have stopped the recount if Bush had been demanding it and Gore wanted it stopped, then there’s no point in discussing it further. You’ve proven that you’re willing to ignore, discount and explain away tons of good evidence and cling to the straws of bad evidence in this case.
I’d be interested in how you define “conservative” and how Bush has lived up to that definition of conservative.
I went back and re-read The Majority opinion of Bush v Gore.
What a piece of embarrassing hash this is. No wonder Scalia et al. ordered that it be a “unique” decision, that is it could establish no precedent for any other decision, despite Scalia’s earlier pronouncement that the SCOTUS should never make “unique” rulings.
Here’s a few highlights which I have commented on. I’m not a lawyer, just an average guy who can smell bullshit when it’s been thrown at me. The highlights from the decision are in quotes. My comment follows.
*****
“A “legal vote,” as determined by the Florida Supreme Court, is “one in which there is a ‘clear indication of the intent of the voter. ‘ “
COMMENT–This is the statement that the SCOTUS said was “impossible to implement.”
“The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States . . . “
COMMENT–Woah, that’s rather counter-intuitive, isn’t it? We have no constitutional right to vote, but if we vote we have a constitutional right that our vote will be treated the same as everyone else’s vote? Why should it be treated one way or the other if we don’t even have a right to do it?
“Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person’s vote over that of another.”
COMMENT–That’s indeed an odd statement to make since the electoral college as it is currently set up does exactly that. If only one person lived in Wyoming say, her vote would be worth two electoral votes. My vote in Kansas is only worth .00003 of an electoral vote. And someone’s vote in a large state like New York or California is worth even less toward the final outcome.
“Florida’s basic command for the count of legally cast votes is to consider the “intent of the voter.” Gore v. Harris, ___ So. 2d, at ___ (slip op., at 39). This is unobjectionable as an abstract proposition and a starting principle. The problem inheres in the absence of specific standards to ensure its equal application. The formulation of uniform rules to determine intent based on these recurring circumstances is practicable and, we conclude, necessary.
“We relied on these principles in the context of the Presidential selection process in Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814 (1969), where we invalidated a county-based procedure that diluted the influence of citizens in larger counties in the nominating process. There we observed that “[t]he idea that one group can be granted greater voting strength than another is hostile to the one man, one vote basis of our representative government.” Id., at 819.
COMMENT—Again, a total disregard for the inherent inequality of the electoral college system itself. This is exactly what happens when somebody in New York or California votes as opposed to someone who lives in Wyoming.
“At oral argument, respondents estimated there are as many as 110,000 overvotes statewide. As a result, the citizen whose ballot was not read by a machine because he failed to vote for a candidate in a way readable by a machine may still have his vote counted in a manual recount; on the other hand, the citizen who marks two candidates in a way discernable by the machine will not have the same opportunity to have his vote count, even if a manual examination of the ballot would reveal the requisite indicia of intent. Furthermore, the citizen who marks two candidates, only one of which is discernable by the machine, will have his vote counted even though it should have been read as an invalid ballot. The State Supreme Court’s inclusion of vote counts based on these variant standards exemplifies concerns with the remedial processes that were under way.”
COMMENT—Wait a minute! Someone who punches two candidates and thus spoils his vote is in no way equivalent to the voter who punches “Al Gore” and then writes in “Al Gore.” The SCOTUS totally BEGS THE QUESTION of how a machine would throw out an over-vote that would confuse the machine but “a manual examination of the ballot would reveal the requisite indicia of intent.” It just assumes it could happen and uses that assumption to prove the assumption.
Also, it shows the court is saying that because we can’t read all of the votes in exactly the same way, we shouldn’t read ANY of the votes. Of course, optical scanners count votes in a way different from touch screens. Touch screens are different from punch cards. Ballots are different in different counties because different candidates are running. SCOTUS is saying because everything was not entirely consistent, nothing should count. Not only is this illogical on its face, it contradicts what the SCOTUS says in their conclusion as follows–
“Upon due consideration of the difficulties identified to this point, it is obvious that the recount cannot be conducted in compliance with the requirements of equal protection and due process without substantial additional work. 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.”
COMMENT—The majority report is strongly implying that a uniform standard COULD be devised, but, darn it all, there just isn’t enough time. But THAT idea is contradicted, for earlier they had written regarding recounts done to meet deadlines–
“The press of time does not diminish the constitutional concern. A desire for speed is not a general excuse for ignoring equal protection guarantees.”
COMMENT—However, that’s exactly what the SCOTUS is doing. By arguing that the deadlines are more important that counting votes, they are arguing that “a desire for speed IS a general excuse for ignoring equal protection guarantees” because the votes that were not counted represent people who had their equal protection VIOLATED.
*****
This is not a rationale. It is paper thin justification to do what they want, put Bush in office.
I almost forgot–The SCOTUS ITSELF used up some two weeks fooling around with this decision and then comes back and says, “not enough time for a recount, sorry.”
They INSURED that there would not be enough time.
Unbelievable. Just unbelievable.
GMC70,
Your aggreived tone is, well, sort of funny. Considering the massive, longstanding, and deliberate villification of liberals for the last 35 years by the right, it’s funny listening to you snivel about unfair leftists and their angry arguments, and that it’s no wonder conservatives take their balls and go home.
I provided good substantive arguments, and called you out on your inconsistencies. For this I am branded ‘not an adult’? Makes no sense to me. Do I vilify? Hell yes I do. Do I make substantive arguments? As well as anybody here. You may have noticed, GMC70–or perhaps not–that I play up and down to my opponents. If they call names, I do too. If they make substantive arguments, as you do, I respond in kind. If you can’t distinguish between the voices I employ as calibrated to the intellect of various opponents, that’s your fault and not mine.
For example, TruMad offers what I regard as devastating critiques of your positions above. If you’re man enough, you ought to respond to them.
Finally, you fall back on that canard of the lazy conservative mind, ‘Bush hatred.’ Such an empty-headed, summary dismissal really is beneath you GMC70. But let me ask something: when an appointed President sets about destroying all manner of precedent for the powers of the Executive branch, claims unconstitutional powers, and fails to safeguard the well-being of an American city in a natural catastrophe, shouldn’t hatred be the appropriate response of freedom-loving Americans? Isn’t this more appropriate than say, ‘Bush worship’?
And finally finally, if YOU get to define who is and isn’t a liberal, do I get to define who is and isn’t a ‘conservative’? Great! There’s no such thing as a ‘conservative.’ Anyone who calls themselves a ‘conservative’ who favors ’smaller government’ and ‘fiscal responsibility’ is a liar, plain and simple. Because if they really DID favor such things, they would be the most vociferous Bush critics and haters of them all. The fact that ‘conservatives’ are still on board with the program–and that includes YOU, GMC70–shows that their principles are purely pragmatic and self-serving. To be a ‘conservative’ is to support the monied and reactionary political, economic, and social status quo, principles be damned.
And that’s why you so adore Scalia, GMC70; because the thread that runs through all his ‘jurisprudence’ is the effort to preserve this very status quo, principles be hanged.
CF–I was just thinking, imagine if during the Super Bowl, the two minute warning goes off in the middle of play. One side (Bush) scores a touchdown to go ahead of the other team but one point, but the defense (Gore) says they want the TD reviewed because of offensive interference.
So, the play is reviewed by the refs who say their might have been interference, they couldn’t say for sure, but since it took more than two minutes to review the play, the time is expired and the TD stands. Game over.
How the sports fans would howl! How they would scream and protest! There’d probably be a general strike that shut down the country the following Monday. Everyone would see this as a travesty of sportsmanship and fair-play.
But let the same thing happen for the office of the Presidency, and it’s “something that reasonable people can disagree about,” and we’re just supposed to “get over it.”
TruMad:
I’ll take those points, one at a time. Readers, follow along refering to cited sections above.
1. A “legal vote,” as determined by the Florida Supreme Court, is “one in which there is a ‘clear indication of the intent of the voter. ‘
COMMENT: Just the SC’s point. Just how does one measure “intent” from a piece of paper? One chad corner? Two? A dimple? Set a standard, and apply it. But this standard, fine in principle, is inapplicable in practice without a uniform standard, exactly the thing thing Florida did NOT have.
2. “The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States . . .”
COMMENT: Counter-intuitive it may be, but it is also fact. It is left to the states constitutionally to choose the method of choosing electors(Art. II, Sec. 1); if they choose to elect them (as FL and all other states do), then each vote must be regarded equal protection.
3. “Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person’s vote over that of another.”
COMMENT: Note above. You complain about the electoral college valuing votes in one state over another. Perhaps, but that was not the issue before the SC. The issue there was the value of votes in Florida, for FL electors. Votes in other states are irrelevent.
4. ““Florida’s basic command for the count of legally cast votes is to consider the “intent of the voter.” Gore v. Harris, ___ So. 2d, at ___ (slip op., at 39). This is . . . .”
COMMENT: Again, you cite the EC system. Perhaps, but that’s not the issue. It is FL votes here, not “New York or California votes as opposed to someone who lives in Wyoming.” This case is about FL electoral votes, remember?
5. ““At oral argument, respondents estimated there are as many as 110,000 overvotes statewide. As a result, the citizen whose ballot was not read by a machine . . . .”
COMMENT: That is exactly the problem. There was absolutely no consistent way to read votes, even those on similar voting systems. This was not about touch-screens or optical scanners; that’s a red herring. This is about applying a uniform test to particular votes in particular counties, using disputed hand-punched ballots and the myriad local standards to be applied. Applying different standards upon recounts, in different local areas (remember; one recount had already applied THREE different standards in the same recount!!) does not protect the equal protection rights of the disputed votes, let alone all the others case in Florida.
6. ““Upon due consideration of the difficulties identified to this point, it is obvious . . . “and associated with it:“The press of time . . . ”COMMENT: But the press of time DID matter. FLORIDA LAW required the Dec. 12 deadline, a deadline the FL SC had arbitrarily extended in violation of that law. Florida set the deadline, not the SC.
You may disagree with the rationale; that’s your right. But your criticisms of it do not undercut it. Most are irrelevent. And in fact, if I remember correctly, the SC did not set the timing of the ruling, the lower court decisions did. In fact, the ruling was remarkable for, among other things, its speed from petition to decision.
Given the unique facts of this case, I doubt that it has much precedent value anyway, and limiting cases to the facts presented is not that uncommon, Scalia’s comment notwithstanding.Note, again: Made no difference. Later counts, even by Gore’s chosen methods, would have given Florida to Bush.
You write that I’m ignoring “tons of good evidence,” but present none. Remember what you are asserting here: that the SCOTUS was complicit in a “plot” to rig a presidential election. Serious charges require serious proof. You’ve provided none. You disagree with a rationale; fine, but that rationale is legally sustainable “with a straight face.”
Let me guess – you own a well-worn copy of Stone’s JFK and buy into the shooter on the grassy knoll, too?
Finally,As noted before, I’m no great defender of Bush’s conduct as President. If you want to get into where I stand as a conservative, political philosophy will have to wait for another thread.
CF:
TruMad’s critique is not so devastating, as it turns out. And I’ll grant that perhaps you should not be painted with the broad brush of others of the progressive circle. Point taken. Doesn’t change the valid criticism of much of this blog.
And as noted above, as a conservative, I find relatively little in this administration I like; I think I already noted that. As noted above, however, detailed political philosophy will have to wait for another thread.
“Not a Constitution I respect a whole lot either.”
JR: That is one of the more radical statements that I have seen posted here. You went on then to suggest a new constituional convention. Since our country’s goverment is based upon the Constitution, I suppose that means that you do not respect this country a whole lot either?
One of the neat things built into the constitution is a process by which it can be amended. It is not an easy process, nor should it be. The framers were wise to provide a firm foundation upon which we could build. To even suggest scrapping the constitution is folly.
So, what kind of government did you have in mind for us?
1. “There was no uniform standard.”
So, pass it back to the Florida Court–which has jursidiction–and let them rule on a uniform standard.
What’s so hard about that?
2. You excuse away the huge inconsistancy of their ruling and the electoral college with the humorous observation that the were only arguing what was before them. Okay, how about limiting access to voters in some districts over others. Isn’t that treating voters differently?
Yes. So, NONE of the votes should count because access to voting varies for different people.
3. You still don’t explain how the wholly arbitrary date of Dec. 12th justifies disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of voters. The date should at least have been moved back for the legal machinations that TEAM BUSH used to their own advantage with a cynical motivation.
This is probably the most egregious example of “justice delayed is justice denied” one could ever find. This is “justice delayed so justice CAN’T BE DONE.”
As for your allegation that I’m a conspiracy theorist, I’m not. This is not a conspiracy. This is a simple collusion of interests. You don’t need a conspiracy to explain it.
And finally, Stone’s movie is crap. Oswald took a rifle to work the day Kennedy was shot. 18 ear or eye witnesses ID’ed him shooting dead Officer J. D. Tippett. When Oswald was arrested, he pulled out a pistol and tried to shoot another cop. To say he was uninvolved is absurd.
But there are still a lot of loose ends and unexplained questions. For instance, why does G. H. W. Bush continue to this day to claim that he can’t remember where he was when Kennedy was shot.
Everybody in the world remembers where they were when Kennedy was shot.
Also, you repeat the conventional wisdom that the media consortium project showed that Gore would have lost anyway. (Interesting switch of the grounds of the argument since you claim to be arguing about RATIONALE not results.)
But what the media project showed was that if one counted clear overvotes, Gore won big time. One could completely ignore the “unpunched chad” crap because the number of overvotes for Gore was massive–
From Common Dreams:
“But as the consortium found when it actually looked at the overvotes, one often could tell what the voter’s intent was. Many of the overvotes involved, for example, a voter punching the hole next to a candidate’s name, and then writing in the same candidate’s name.
“Since the intent of the voter is clear, these are clearly valid votes under Florida law. And Gore picked up enough of such votes that it almost didn’t matter what standard you used when looking at undervotes – whether you counted every dimple or insisted on a fully punched chad, the consortium found that Gore ended up the winner of virtually any full reexamination of rejected ballots.”
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1115-02.htm
Outlander?
Why do I even bother with you?
I did not use the word scrapped.
I did say and I stand by that the Constitution while good in basics is a document written for another time and could use updating.I did thus say that I did not have a great deal of repect for the Constitution.
You took the leap that I did not have a great deal of respect for the country.
You are correct sir. In its current state and direction I have almost no repect for the country. Patritotism is the refuge of scoundrels.I did post in error that it would be better for Supreme court justices to be elected. They in fact should be appointed for a limited term.
Of course there is always impeachment.Get used to that word. You will be hearing more of it.
I’ll try again; like CF, I accidently wiped it out. Or I’ll blame the computer, that’s easier!
TruMad:
OK, you’re not a conspiracy nut(maybe – more on that later). You still provide no evidence other than a rationale you disagree with.
Dec. 12 was not an arbitrary date, it was – take a deep breath – be calm – a date set by FLORIDA LAW; the binding law in the case. Say it again, slowly. Florida law.
If your complaint is disparate treatment of Florida voters, it’s a valid one, but it undercuts your position; it was exactly that disparate treatment that was the problem.
If your complaint is the disparate voter impact inherent in the EC, that’s another subject, and one not before the Court in this case. The EC is anachronostic machinary, but it is the constitutional machinary. Wanna change it? Go for it.
Finally: I don’t remember where I was when JFK was shot either. So what. then, I was not quite 4.So Bush the first doesn’t remember? So what. Why does that matter. Are you implying he was on the grassy knoll? If so, WOW!! I’d have to reconsider my evaluation as “not a conspiracy nut.” (I really don’t think you’re saying that!!).
Finally. You’ll note that I don’t say that this rationale was the best one (let that stir the pot), just a defensible one. Let’s just close saying we’ll agree to disagree on this one.
I don’t want to turn this into a JFK thread, but the “conspiracy” idea around that assassination is the biggest bit of overhyped BS that ever sold a book. It’s become urban legend, and is just as much balony as any of them. The case is closed. Oswald fired the fatal shots; any competent Marine marksman (including my son) could have made that shot. Oswald did.
I suspected.
Now I’m sure.Oswald did the shoot alone? That Warren commission lie?Almost no one buys that anymore.GMC I knew you were a humorless,self important, swaggering, stodgy, functionary. Those are common traits among better educated conservatives.
Now I know you are an idiot.
Thanks, again, JR. You keep on making my point for me.
Let me guess – Castro was on the grassy knoll. Or the Mafia. Or aliens, etc. etc. were behind the fence. Or maybe JFK really isn’t dead? Or maybe the magic bullet (which isn’t) really is??
Yea, yea, yea. Whatever. Is your copy of JFK worn out, JR? Do you wear aluminum foil on your head?
Figures.
BTW, GMC,
JFK is a movie, not a book. It was based on Jim Garrison’s court case and Mark Lane’s book “Rush to Judgement.”
Both of these conspiracy theorists were attorneys–Garrison was a prosecuting attorney.
Should I make a wise-crack about how attorneys are trained to argue and not trained to think?
Nah, too easy . . .
Once again, the eminent Dan Perkins (Tom Tomorrow) nailed the essential reality of what happened (and don’t even get me started on the pretzel logic of Bush v. Gore. . .):
http://archive.salon.com/comics/tomo/2000/12/18/tomo/index.html
By the way, Dan was also prescient: Nino’s “boy” Eugene DID get a job in the Bush administration.
Actually, this attorney’s little dialogue nicely sums it up:
http://www.daveross.com/marklevine.html
Antonin Scalia is the best judge since Solomon.
Scalia did side with Larry Flynt over Jerry Falwell in fact Flynt vs Falwell the court ruled unimaous for flynt.
Pancho Villa,
Indeed. ‘Even a stopped clock’ and all that.
Crusader X,
Heh heh. Yeah, cut the damn kid in half already.
That’s a funny thing about Scalia. He’s a total perv. No wonder he sided with Flynt (besides the fact that Falwell had no case).
A couple of years ago, Scalia was giving a talk in which he said that “sex orgies help society blow off steam.”
I kid you not. Of course, the MSM couldn’t cover anything that bizarre, and since Scalia is one of theirs, the right-wing wasn’t going to make a big thing out of it.
http://www.newsmine.org/archive/cabal-elite/w-administration/judicial/scalia-thinks-americans-need-more-sex-orgies.txt
Quote–’He raised some eyebrows with a speech this week at Harvard University, however, with a comment about the number of people needed for group sex and the jest that “sexual orgies eliminate social tensions and ought to be encouraged.”
‘He made a similar remark in a speech Sept. 20 in Washington . . . ‘
I was being sarcastic of course.
TruMad
Yes, I know it’s a movie – duh. But the conspiracy nutjobs have sold a lot of books over the years.
And yes, we are trained to argue, even argue positions we may disagree with (!). Hopefully, we think too, but sometimes I wonder. . .