Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Supreme Court Justices Should Stay If They're Able To Work

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Some liberals have recently called on Ruth Bader Ginsburg to retire so that President Barack Obama can choose her replacement. At 80, she is the oldest justice on the court. Some fear that if she chooses to stay, a Republican succesor to Obama might nominate another A. Scalia. God help us! But Justice Ginsburg believes that Supreme Court justices should not be influenced by political assessments of a party's future prospects with respect to the court.

One of Ginsburg's shining moments came with the dubious ascension of one George W. BUsh to the White House. With respect to Bush v Gore, Ginsberg's decision was the best, better even than those who agreed with her. Scalia's decision was poorly written, his conclusions wrong and wrong-headed.
Not only that --Ginsberg was, I believe, outraged that the case had been "dumped" on SCOTUS. At the end of her decsion, she wrote simply: I DISSENT --not "I respectfully dissent" as is normally the practice.

Rarely has this Court rejected outright an interpretation of state law by a state high court. ...The extraordinary setting of this case has obscured the ordinary principle that dictates its proper resolution: Federal courts defer to state high courts' interpretations of their state's own law. This principle reflects the core of federalism, on which all agree. ...Notably, the Florida Supreme Court has produced two substantial opinions within 29 hours of oral argument. In sum, the Court's conclusion that a constitutionally adequate recount is impractical is a prophecy the Court's own judgment will not allow to be tested. Such an untested prophecy should not decide the Presidency of the United States.I dissent.

--Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Justice, U.S. Supreme Court (Bush v Gore)

---

Jim Hightower: 'A Black-Robed' Coup d'Etat'

by Jim Hightower

Last September, I wrote The Hightower Lowdown about how the Roberts' Court could throw out over 100 years of campaign finance law.

Remember their names: Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas.

Yesterday, from within the dark isolation of the Supreme Court, these five men pulled off a black-robed coup against the American people's democratic authority. In an unprecedented perversion of judicial power, this court cabal has decreed that corporations have a free-speech "right" to dip into their corporate coffers and spend unlimited sums of money to elect or defeat candidates of their choosing.

Corporate interests already had too much money power over our political system. No other group in America comes anywhere near the spending clout that this relatively small clutch of wealthy special interests wields over our elections and government. So it's ludicrous for anyone – much less Supreme Court judges – to argue that the corporate voice is a victim of political "censorship." This is not merely judicial activism, it is judicial radicalism.

Thomas Jefferson warned about the dangerous rise of corporate power, declaring that must "crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations." Today, I'm sure that founding patriots like Jefferson are not simply spinning in their graves at the Supreme Court's surrender to this aristocracy – they're trying to claw their way out of their graves to throttle all five of the traitors.

We MUST fight back. Many good groups are working on this issue, and we all have to get involved to fight against this corporate take over of our political system. Public Citizen has a petition we can sign. Common Cause is asking us to contact your congressperson and make sure they have signed on to the Fair Elections Now Act. I mentioned other good groups that are working on this issue. Get in touch with them. Let's fight the good fight... and win! Onward!

petition we can sign. Common Cause is asking us to contact your congressperson and make sure they have signed on to the Fair Elections Now Act. I mentioned other good groups that are working on t<

---

---

The Loss of American Democracy

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

A primary focus of the Mexican revolution of 1910 was the thirty-one year Presidency of Porfirio Diaz. It was during Diaz's presidency, that power and wealth concentrated in the hands of a ruling elite just as power and wealth was concentrated in the hands of a ruling elite in the U.S. with the ascension of Ronald Reagan. In Mexico, some 100 years ago, the 'common people' were effectively disenfranchised, suffering injustices and deprivation throughout the countryside and in the cities.

Today, in the United States, as in Mexico 100 years ago, just one percent of the entire population owns more than about 95 percent of the rest of us combined. This 'ruling elite' is the result and sole beneficiary of Ronald Reagan's infamous tax cut of 1982. The upward flow of wealth was reversed briefly in Clinton's second term but resumed with additional tax cuts under Bush. It is believed wrongly that tax cuts stimulate investment and thus employment. That is called 'Trickle Down Theory'. In fact, investment in American enterprise has declined following every GOP tax cut and, as a result, employment has likewise declined. The official numbers that prove my assertions may be found at the Census Bureau, the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the U.S. Commerce Dept-Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Reagan's tax cut of 1982, for example, was followed by a depression of some two years in which millions lost their jobs. Residents in 'boomtown' Houston were forced to live in tent cities when their homes were foreclosed upon. Others lived under bridges within view of the gleaming skyscrapers of glittering, corporate Houston. The official stats at the Bureau of Labor Statistics will reveal Reagan to have been among the very worst post World War II Presidents in terms of GDP and job growth. Jimmy Carter, reviled by Reagan-heads, is, in fact, among the best US Presidents, second in terms of both GDP and job growth. In those categories, Carter outperforms all GOP Presidents since World War II.

Back to Mexico, where a new generation hoped that a new election, called for in the Mexican Constitution, would usher in a progressive, more egalitarian era. They were disappointed when the Díaz machine chose to exercise their power indefinitely. Madero demanded that Diaz renounce his power and step down. Madero formed the ''Anti-reeleccionista'' Party and campaigned against Diaz throughout Mexico.

Madero supported democracy and a 'rule of law', in other words, holding a freely elected government to account within the 'strict limits of the law'. Naturally, his success and popularity represented a threat to the entrenched government, the base, elite support behind Porfirio Diaz. Marero dared declare himself the rightful president until new elections could be held. Madero promised a return of lands confiscated by Diaz; he supported universal suffrage, and just one term for the office of President. Madero's call for an uprising on November 20th, 1910, marked the beginning of the Mexican Revolution.

It is at this point that Mexican history and US history diverge. In the United States, the entrenched powers were momentarily threatened by the election of 2000. Florida was Bush territory and the fix was supposed to have been in thanks to Florida Governor Jeb Bush and his ghoulish Secretary of State. How embarrassing it might have been had 'his' state cast its 'electoral votes' for Al Gore --a (gasp) Democrat. A 'White Riot' of GOP brownshirts were bussed to Florida, a trip paid for by the Bush Jr campaign. Their assignment: stop the recount while Bush was still ahead. As the GOP filed suit to stop the re-counters from doing the work legally assigned to them, a sitting Supreme Court justice would issue one of the most absurd if not stupid statements in American history:

Count first and rule upon legality afterwards is not a recipe for producing election results that have the public acceptance that democratic stability requires.

--Antonin Scalia

Excuse me! Elections are the purview of 'states' and the Florida Supreme Court had, in fact, heard the case and had, in fact, ruled upon its legality. What right had SCOTUS to rule upon what is, in fact, a state election to begin with? Scalia's idiocy if not his manhood was appropriately vivisected by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

I might join The Chief Justice were it my commission to interpret Florida law. But disagreement with the Florida court's interpretation of its own State's law does not warrant the conclusion that the justices of that court have legislated. There is no cause here to believe that the members of Florida's high court have done less than "their mortal best to discharge their oath of office," Sumner v. Mata, 449 U. S. 539, 549 (1981), and no cause to upset their reasoned interpretation of Florida law.

...

In sum, the Court's conclusion that a constitutionally adequate recount is impractical is a prophecy the Court's own judgment will not allow to be tested. Such an untested prophecy should not decide the Presidency of the United States.

I dissent.

--GEORGE W. BUSH, et al., PETITIONERS v. ALBERT GORE, Jr., et al. on writ of certiorari to the florida supreme court, [December 12, 2000]; Justice Ginsburg, with whom Justice Stevens joins, and with whom Justice Souter and Justice Breyer join as to Part I, dissenting.

Clearly, SCOTUS had no standing, no right under law, to rule upon any decision by the Florida Supreme Court with respect to its own state laws and the conduct of its own elections.

Surely, if all the votes had been counted, Gore would have won and the nation spared the loss of republic, the wars of naked aggression, oil theft, capital war crimes and atrocities that followed upon Bush's assumption of the 'throne'.

Indeed, a revolution was fought in America and the enemies of Democracy, the treasonous enemies of the American republic, won! GOP brownshirts and 'white rioters' carried the day on behalf of the illegitimate regime of George W. Bush. It would properly be described as a coup d'etat! And the wrong side won! The men in 'white shirts' were neo-Nazis employed by the George W. Bush campaign!

Our fears were justified. Bush represented the interests of just one percent of the nation as Diaz had represented just one percent of the Mexican population in 1910. As might be expected, Bush paid for his support with tax cuts benefiting only the very rich ruling elite. Today, as a result of his policies and payoff, just one percent of the nation owns more than about 95 percent of the rest of us combined. This, likewise, describes the conditions in Mexico just prior to the Revolution of 1910. Things worked out a little differently in Mexico some 100 years ago.

On November 14th, in Cuchillo Parado in the state of Chihuahua, Toribio Ortega and a small group of followers took up arms. On the 18th in Puebla, Diaz's authorities uncovered preparations for an uprising in the home of the brothers Maximo and Aquiles Serdán, who where made to pay with their lives. Back in Chihuahua, Madero was able to persuade Pascual Orozco and Francisco ("Pancho") Villa to join the revolution. Though they had no military experience, Orozco and Villa proved to be excellent strategists, and they earned the allegiance of the people of northern Mexico, who were particularly unhappy about the abusive ranchers and landlords who ran the North.

In March of 1911, Emiliano Zapata led the uprising of the peasants of Morelos to claim their rights over local land and water. At the same time, armed revolt began in many other parts of the country. The "Maderista" troops, and the national anger which inspired them, defeated the army of Diaz within six months. The decisive victory of the Mexican Revolution was the capture of Ciudad Juarez, just across the river from El Paso, by Orozco and Villa. Porfirio Diaz then resigned as President and fled to exile in France, where he died in 1915.

With the collapse of the Díaz regime, the Mexican Congress elected Francisco León de la Barra as President Pro-Temp and called for national popular elections, which resulted in the victory of Francisco I. Madero as President and José María Pino Suárez as Vice-President.

The Mexican Revolution 1910

Abba: Fernando

Why I moderate comments

• SPAM: 'comments' that link to junk, 'get rich' schemes, scams, and nonsense! These are the worst offenders.
• Ad hominem attacks: 'name calling' and 'labeling'. That includes the ad hominem: 'truther' or variations!

Also see:

• A Spiritual Mind Movie
• How the US Became a Vassal State of China
  
• Terrorism is Worse Under GOP Regimes
  
• The US Army Document That Proves the US is the World's Number One Sponsor of World Terrorism
• Dissecting the Scrambled Brains of the GOP
  
• Why the CIA is the World's Number One Terrorist Organization
  [w/LINKS]
• Why the CIA is the World's Number One Terrorist Organization [PDF]
• How the GOP Pays Off its 'Base' of Elites
  

Published Articles on Buzzflash.net

---

Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership, Global Issues, Updated: January 02, 2009

Subscribe

Add to Google

Add Cowboy Videos to Google

Tea Bagger Bigotry Exposed

The GOP has either allied themselves with the bigot-based 'tea bagger' movement or it is the instigator of it. Just when I had come to believe that the GOP could not possibly sink lower, it is now clear to me that this endemically bigoted party is positioned to exceed all previous lies, idiocy and hate talk spewed on that party's behalf by Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly and a legion of venom filled wannabes. Indeed, the GOP --apres Bush --is a deluge, a jack-booted army of right wing hate mongers.

Now --let's clear up another issue. A heavily-trafficked site [What Really Happened] which often links to my articles has referenced my article with the following lines:

Yeah, they are really desperate to sell this idea that anyone unhappy with the government must be a racist. [emphasis mine, LH]

Let me make this clear: NO ONE TELLS ME WHAT TO WRITE! There is no 'they' who dictated any content to me whatsoever! There is no 'they' and I resent the implication that my thoughts and my opinions were dictated to me in any way whatsoever by some mysterious and unidentified 'they' !!

Is that clear?

No one else is responsible for the content of this blog and no one tells me what I can post and what I cannot! I reserve the right to cite sources, quote other writers and/or politicians and analysts as well as numerous official, government sources.

More than three decades later we have Sherri Goforth, an aide to a Republican state senator in Tennessee sending out a mass e-mail of a cartoon showing dignified portraits of the first 43 presidents, and then representing the 44th — President Obama — as a spook, a cartoonish pair of white eyes against a black background.

When a gorilla escaped from a zoo in Columbia, S.C., a longtime Republican activist, Rusty DePass, described it on his Facebook page as one of Michelle Obama’s ancestors.

Among the posters at last weekend’s gathering of conservative protesters in Washington was one that said, “The zoo has an African lion and the White House has a lyin’ African.”

These are bits and pieces of an increasingly unrestrained manifestation of racism directed toward Mr. Obama that is being fed by hate-mongers on talk radio and is widely tolerated, if not encouraged, by Republican Party leaders. It’s disgusting, and it’s dangerous. But it’s the same old filthy racism that has been there all along and that has been exploited by the G.O.P. since the 1960s.

I have no patience with those who want to pretend that racism is not an out-and-out big deal in the United States, as it always has been. We may have made progress, and we may have a black president, but the scourge is still with us. And if you needed Jimmy Carter to remind you of that, then you’ve been wandering around with your eyes closed.

Glenn Beck, one of the moronic maestros of right-wing radio and TV, assures us that President Obama “has a deep-seated hatred for white people.” Some years ago, as the watchdog group Media Matters for America points out on its Web site, Beck said he’d like to beat Representative Charles Rangel “to death with a shovel.”

--The Scourge Persists, Bob Herbert, New York Times

The conclusions stated on this blog are mine and mine alone. And there is no denying --except by idiots and/or bigots --that bigotry underlies much of the criticism that is leveled by the right wing fanatics inside the 'tea bagger' movement.

Another racist photo [seen above right] showing Obama as a witch doctor is making the rounds with Tea Party activists.

Republicans accuse Speaker Pelosi of inciting racism with her health care comments.

Democrats are unhappy with proposed tax in the Baucus health care bill.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Ed Schultz RIPS the Bigots

Rep. Pelosi said:

I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw this myself in the late '70s in San Francisco.

This kind of rhetoric was very frightening" and created a climate in which violence took place.

I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made.

She said some of the people hearing the message "are not as balanced as the person making the statement might assume.

Our country is great because people can say what they think and they believe.

But I also think that they have to take responsibility for any incitement that they may cause.

--Nancy Pelosi, Statement

Mob scenes are now the GOP modus operandi. Paul Krugman asks: "What's behind it?" The answer to that is as clear and present as is the danger to the American republic and every freedom loving American: the leadership of the GOP, the GOP in Congress, the GOP at large:

Some commentators have tried to play down the mob aspect of these scenes, likening the campaign against health reform to the campaign against Social Security privatization back in 2005. But there’s no comparison. I’ve gone through many news reports from 2005, and while anti-privatization activists were sometimes raucous and rude, I can’t find any examples of congressmen shouted down, congressmen hanged in effigy, congressmen surrounded and followed by taunting crowds.

And I can’t find any counterpart to the death threats at least one congressman has received.

So this is something new and ugly. What’s behind it?

Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, has compared the scenes at health care town halls to the “Brooks Brothers riot” in 2000 — the demonstration that disrupted the vote count in Miami and arguably helped send George W. Bush to the White House. Portrayed at the time as local protesters, many of the rioters were actually G.O.P. staffers flown in from Washington.

--Paul Krugman, The Town Hall Mob

Like pre-war Nazis, the American GOP exploited the mob mentality most prominently in the so-called 'White Riot' --in fact and by law a treasonous 'coup d'etat' which stole the election for George W. Bush. In fairness to mere rank and file extremists, however, it is clear that in the year 2000, it was the GOP leadership that bussed to Florida a white-shirted, button-down mob of right wing radical extremists whose purpose and assignment was to disrupt the election process, to stop the vote count while Bush was still ahead.

Typically, Antonin Scalia would issue the absurdity of the decade: "Count first and rule upon legality afterward is not a recipe for producing election results that have the public acceptance democratic stability requires." Robert Novak was just as stupid but more succinct: "The democrats are trying to steal this election by counting votes!" 'Logic' of the same fallacious form was heard even earlier from Barbara Olson who said that Gary Condit was guilty of murder not because there was evidence against him but because there was none! That, she said, was proof he covered it up!

Just words from an idiot

The 'recipe' is how every election had worked since the invention of Democracy in Ancient Greece. Voting and then counting the votes is how elections, indeed, Democracy itself, is done. Scalia is a not an intellectual. Scalia is a dumb-ass who has learned a 'trick'. The American west was peopled with itinerant 'snake oil salesmen' who had learned a few big words and how to impress the yokels with them.

GOP mob mentality was again in vogue when Sarah 'Wolf Murderer' Palin purposefully appealed to a 'base' which revealed itself to be most responsive to messages of hate and prejudice.

Democrats have a right NOT to be intimidated!

Certainly, the GOP has resorted to form --exploiting ugly mobs, encouraging them to disrupt legal democratic town hall meetings. I urge that legal town hall meetings be defended by arms and armor. Enough is enough. The Democrats have a right to meet and they have a right to defend themselves against felony violence. They have a right to oppose and defend against a gang of would-be felons!

Why do Republicans make such good l'il Nazis?

The answer lies in research that shows how GOP-types are naturally inclined to conspiracies. That's why they would prefer you believe that conspiracies don't exist. Read Carl Jung and some of the more recent research surveyed in John Dean's book "Conservatives Without Consciences". Conservatives are 'authoritarian' types and tend to sort themselves into strong leaders (fuhrers) and eager, non-questioning followers (good l'il Nazis).

Liberals and progressives are often independent, creative, original. An 'ENTP' type is one of several types identified by the Jung Personality Test, similar to the Myers/Brigg test. ENTP, specifically, is described thus: "Inventor". Enthusiastic interest in everything and always sensitive to possibilities. Non-conformist and innovative."

This kind of personality does not make good, unquestioning follower-conspirators! This kind of person does NOT make a good LI'L NAZI. The GOP, by contrast, is over run by good li'l Nazis.

The 'tea bagger' movement is the 'enemy within', the anti-democratic, pro-fascist brownshirts who may have already destroyed the US ideal of a free and democratic republic --something that we have most certainly NOT seen since the rise of Ronald Reagan.

MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann, however, came to Carter’s defense on Wednesday. “Jimmy Carter tells the truth about some, not all, but some of the rabid rage against President Obama,” Olbermann stated, “and is thus the recipient of the automatic blowback from those whose livelihoods depend on enabling the ragers to tell themselves it is not racism that they feel.”

In introducing the segment, Olbermann claimed that he could offer “at least 37″ cases that he believes “prove President Carter to be correct.” He also noted that Rush Limbaugh had attacked Carter’s statements by saying “Jimmy Carter is the nation‘s hemorrhoid” — and retorted, “”Well, I got to defer to him here, the nation‘s asshole would know about the nation‘s hemorrhoid.”

Some of Olbermann’s examples seem fairly indisputable, like a poster used at tea party demonstrations that depicts Obama as an Africa witch doctor, or Limbaugh’s claim that Obama has made it okay for black kids to beat up a white kid on a school bus.

--Olbermann: 37 racist incidents prove Carter is right

Download video via RawReplay.com

Already losers, a now desperate GOP has made a Faustian bargain with bigots. It is significant that the so-called GOP 'leadership' has yet to issue a tepid reproach, let alone a strongly worded condemnation of a movement that is 1) un-American 2) bigoted 3) made of liars to a person!

Until the GOP leadership steps forward and condemns the 'tea bagger movement', I remain confirmed that the 'tea bagger' movement is encouraged by the highest ranking members of the GOP embittered by the legion of failures chalked up by their party since the inauguration of Ronald Reagan.

Also see:

• A Spiritual Mind Movie
• Edward R. Murruow: Why the Fairness Doctrine Must be Restored
• It's the Hypocrisy, the Financial Collapse, the War Crimes
  
• How the US Became a Vassal State of China
  
• Terrorism is Worse Under GOP Regimes
  
• The US Army Document That Proves the US is the World's Number One Sponsor of World Terrorism
• Dissecting the Scrambled Brains of the GOP
  
• Why the CIA is the World's Number One Terrorist Organization
  [w/LINKS]
• Why the CIA is the World's Number One Terrorist Organization [PDF]
• How the GOP Pays Off its 'Base' of Elites
  

Published Articles on Buzzflash.net

Subscribe

Add to Google

Add Cowboy Videos to Google

The Un-American Lies of Antonin Scalia

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

It's time the American people fired the man who thinks himself 'too smart for the (Supreme) court'. Scalia has done it again. The architect of Bush v Gore, the disingenuous decision that stuck us with Bush, has stooped to yet another low. Scalia will tell bald faced lies to prop up his bullshit 'opinions'.

To bolster his argument that the Guantanamo detainees should be denied the right to prove their innocence in federal courts, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his dissent in Boumediene v. Bush: "At least 30 of those prisoners hitherto released from Guantanamo have returned to the battlefield." It turns out that statement is false.

According to a new report by Seton Hall Law Center for Policy and Research, "The statistic was endorsed by a Senate Minority Report issued June 26, 2007, which cites a media outlet, CNN. CNN, in turn, named the DoD as its source. The '30' number, however, was corrected in a DoD press release issued in July 2007, and a DoD document submitted to the House Foreign Relations Committee on May 20, 2008 abandons the claim entirely."

--Scalia Cites False Information in Habeas Corpus Dissent

Neither logic nor the 'rule of law' is among Scalia's strong suits. How did he manage to get a law degree? Until this latest outrage, Scalia had said that the high court's decision restoring Habeas Corpus would 'almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed’. Hey! Scalia! Debate me on that one. I need fresh meat.

Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, however, is outraged. In his dissenting opinion, he devoted an entire section to “a description of the disastrous consequences of what the Court has done today,” a procedure “contrary to my usual practice,” he admitted. Scalia adopted extreme rhetoric about the impacts of the decision, calling it a “self-invited…incursion into military affairs” that would “almost certainly” kill Americans. Some lowlights:

– “America is at war with radical Islamists. … Our Armed Forces are now in the field against the enemy, in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

– “The game of bait-and-switch that today’s opinion plays upon the Nation’s Commander in Chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.”

– “Today the Court warps our Constitution.”

– “The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today.”

It is unlikely that the Supreme Court’s decision will have the impacts that Scalia claims. As Kennedy explained, “Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law.” Discussing the restoration of habeas at Guantanamo last year, Colin Powell noted:

The concern was, well, then they’ll have access to lawyers, then they’ll have access to writs of habeas corpus. So what? Let them. Isn’t that what our system’s all about? And by the way, America, unfortunately, has too many people in jail, all of whom had lawyers and access to writs of habeas corpus. And so we can handle bad people in our system.

--Scalia: Court’s Decision Restoring Habeas ‘Will Almost Certainly Cause More Americans To Be Killed’»

I am still amazed that a court whose job is to measure the nation's statutory laws against the 'supreme law' of the land could have ruled in Bush's favor on any issue. One had hoped SCOTUS would redeem itself for a bone-headed decision styled Bush v Gore, a disastrous, politically motivated decision that replaced the rule of law with political expediency.

Later, by ruling that habeas corpus protections apply to detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, the high court held out the promise that it might yet rise above the muck left us in Bush v Gore and by Bush's war on the Constitution!

In the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote: “We hold these petitioners do have the habeas corpus privilege”. For an administration that thought the fix was in, that it had sufficient ringers on the court, the decision must have come a shock.

Scalia's 'war on logic' is even older. In Bush v Gore, the 'decision that made no law', Scalia argued that 'continuing the recount' would be harmful to Bush. Well, I would hope so! That's the very purpose of elections. The candidate who gets the fewer number of votes is supposed to lose!

Being a disingenuous, snake oil salesmen is one thing. But telling a bald face lie in support of an argument in a decision of the high court is 'intellectual dishonesty' of the highest order.

It's time to impeach Scalia! Scalia doesn't like his job anyway. He thinks himself 'too smart' for it. Let's oblige him by firing his sorry ass.

According to news reports, Scalia, speaking to the ultra-conservative Intercollegiate Studies Institute, read from the Lawrence opinion in mocking tones. Ironic, inasmuch as the 50-year-old institute has says its mission is to "enhance the rising generation's knowledge of our nation's founding principles - limited government, individual liberty, personal responsibility, free enterprise and Judeo-Christian moral standards." The organization, like its famed speaker, draws the line at your individual liberty. They get theirs, you don't get yours if it is contrary to theirs. And there is only one Judeo-Christian moral standard--their own.

Scalia is not alone in his condemnation of his colleagues on the high court. Clarence Thomas has repeatedly talked about the cold and lonely place that is the Court. He shows his contempt for oral arguments by generally refusing to participate.

Why is it that the right, especially the religious right, represented by the likes of Scalia on the court, are so totally unaccepting of another's point of view? Do they truly believe that they have all of the answers to all legal, legislative, and social issues? This week I gave a legal seminar to attorneys in a part of Virginia where Rev. Pat Robertson seems to have a lock on "truth." A couple of religious zealots in the seminar derided other attorneys who tried to talk about life and death issues such abortion, end-of-life treatment, stem cell research, and health care for all Americans. We were supposed to be talking about legal conundrums and challenges.

--ELAINE CASSEL, Antonin Scalia's Contempus Mundi

Let's take the longer view. This government has become illegitimate by every definition of that term. Therefore, according to sound principles practiced by the Barons who forced King John to sign the Magna Carta and, more recently, the principle espoused by such disparate figures as Thomas Jefferson and Che Guevara, it is the right of the people to abolish the government.

It's time to start all over. And when we've done it, when we've plugged up the loopholes that even the disingenuous Scalia can't slither through, then a new government should give Scalia the notice that his 'services' are no longer required. He should have no complaints. After all, Scalia has said that he is 'too smart' for the court!

---

---

The Man Who Stuck Us With Bush

If historians are honest, history will record that it was Antonin Scalia who finished off the American republic by sticking us with George W. Bush, a ne'er do well who aspired to dictatorship and with Scalia's help, got one! Scalia now sweats his legacy in an unseemly manner in public. Historians will say of his bone headed efforts to bully other justices into complicity was not not based in anyway on the Constitution, law or precedent. Scalia is what happens when justices give up law for partisan politics. Scalia's scholarly retort: 'get over it'.

Lately, Scalia has blamed Gore for Bush v Gore, ignoring the fact that Gore had already won his case in the Florida Court. A recount of all the votes was, in fact, underway but stopped when Bush made of a local election a federal case. The case is styled Bush v Gore. That means Bush brought the case.

The best damning criticism of Bush v Gore is found in Bush v Gore --the opinions of the dissenting judges. Clearly --they state even better than other legal scholars the UNCONSTITUTIONALITY of the Supreme Court overturning a decision of a State court with regard to the state court's own rulings, a state's own elections!!! Scalia is trying to rewrite history. Not surprising for an idiot, a crook, a Republican.

The Constitution assigns to the States the primary responsibility for determining the manner of selecting the Presidential electors. See Art. II, §1, cl. 2. When questions arise about the meaning of state laws, including election laws, it is our settled practice to accept the opinions of the highest courts of the States as providing the final answers. On rare occasions, however, either federal statutes or the Federal Constitution may require federal judicial intervention in state elections. This is not such an occasion.

...

It hardly needs stating that Congress, pursuant to 3 U. S. C. §5, did not impose any affirmative duties upon the States that their governmental branches could "violate." Rather, §5 provides a safe harbor for States to select electors in contested elections "by judicial or other methods" established by laws prior to the election day. Section 5, like Article II, assumes the involvement of the state judiciary in interpreting state election laws and resolving election disputes under those laws. Neither §5 nor Article II grants federal judges any special authority to substitute their views for those of the state judiciary on matters of state law.

...

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.

--Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer join, dissenting, Bush v Gore

The Florida State Court had already ruled that the recount could continue. The case had been settled where cases involving a state's right to conduct its own elections should have been settled and that is with a decision of Florida's high court.

The Court should not have reviewed either Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd., ante, p. ___ (per curiam), or this case, and should not have stopped Florida's attempt to recount all undervote ballots

...

There are three issues: whether the State Supreme Court's interpretation of the statute providing for a contest of the state election results somehow violates 3 U. S. C. §5; whether that court's construction of the state statutory provisions governing contests impermissibly changes a state law from what the State's legislature has provided, in violation of Article II, §1, cl. 2, of the national Constitution; and whether the manner of interpreting markings on disputed ballots failing to cause machines to register votes for President (the undervote ballots) violates the equal protection or due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. None of these issues is difficult to describe or to resolve.

...

In sum, the interpretations by the Florida court raise no substantial question under Article II. That court engaged in permissible construction in determining that Gore had instituted a contest authorized by the state statute, and it proceeded to direct the trial judge to deal with that contest in the exercise of the discretionary powers generously conferred by Fla. Stat. §102.168(8) (2000), to "fashion such orders as he or she deems necessary to ensure that each allegation in the complaint is investigated, examined, or checked, to prevent or correct any alleged wrong, and to provide any relief appropriate under such circumstances." As Justice Ginsburg has persuasively explained in her own dissenting opinion, our customary respect for state interpretations of state law counsels against rejection of the Florida court's determinations in this case.

But as Justice Breyer has pointed out, no showing has been made of legal overvotes uncounted, and counsel for Gore made an uncontradicted representation to the Court that the statewide total of undervotes is about 60,000. Id., at 62. To recount these manually would be a tall order, but before this Court stayed the effort to do that the courts of Florida were ready to do their best to get that job done. There is no justification for denying the State the opportunity to try to count all disputed ballots now.

--Justice Souter, with whom Justice Breyer joins and with whom Justice Stevens and Justice Ginsburg join with regard to all but Part C, dissenting, Bush v Gore

Justice Ginsburg:

I might join The Chief Justice were it my commission to interpret Florida law. But disagreement with the Florida court's interpretation of its own State's law does not warrant the conclusion that the justices of that court have legislated. There is no cause here to believe that the members of Florida's high court have done less than "their mortal best to discharge their oath of office," Sumner v. Mata, 449 U. S. 539, 549 (1981), and no cause to upset their reasoned interpretation of Florida law.

...

As Justice Breyer convincingly explains, see post, at 5-9 (dissenting opinion), this case involves nothing close to the kind of recalcitrance by a state high court that warrants extraordinary action by this Court. The Florida Supreme Court concluded that counting every legal vote was the overriding concern of the Florida Legislature when it enacted the State's Election Code. The court surely should not be bracketed with state high courts of the Jim Crow South.

...

I agree with Justice Stevens that petitioners have not presented a substantial equal protection claim. Ideally, perfection would be the appropriate standard for judging the recount. But we live in an imperfect world, one in which thousands of votes have not been counted. I cannot agree that the recount adopted by the Florida court, flawed as it may be, would yield a result any less fair or precise than the certification that preceded that recount.

...

But no one has doubted the good faith and diligence with which Florida election officials, attorneys for all sides of this controversy, and the courts of law have performed their duties. Notably, the Florida Supreme Court has produced two substantial opinions within 29 hours of oral argument. In sum, the Court's conclusion that a constitutionally adequate recount is impractical is a prophecy the Court's own judgment will not allow to be tested. Such an untested prophecy should not decide the Presidency of the United States. I dissent.

--Justice Ginsburg, with whom Justice Stevens joins, and with whom Justice Souter and Justice Breyer join as to Part I, dissenting, Bush v Gore

From Justice Breyer:

By halting the manual recount, and thus ensuring that the uncounted legal votes will not be counted under any standard, this Court crafts a remedy out of proportion to the asserted harm.

...

The Florida Supreme Court, applying this definition, decided, on the basis of the record, that respondents had shown that the ballots undercounted by the voting machines contained enough "legal votes" to place "the results" of the election "in doubt." Since only a few hundred votes separated the candidates, and since the "undercounted" ballots numbered tens of thousands, it is difficult to see how anyone could find this conclusion unreasonable-however strict the standard used to measure the voter's "clear intent." Nor did this conclusion "strip" canvassing boards of their discretion. The boards retain their traditional discretionary authority during the protest period. And during the contest period, as the court stated, "the Canvassing Board's actions [during the protest period] may constitute evidence that a ballot does or does not qualify as a legal vote." Id., at *13. Whether a local county canvassing board's discretionary judgment during the protest period not to conduct a manual recount will be set aside during a contest period depends upon whether a candidate provides additional evidence that the rejected votes contain enough "legal votes" to place the outcome of the race in doubt. To limit the local canvassing board's discretion in this way is not to eliminate that discretion. At the least, one could reasonably so believe. ...

I repeat, where is the "impermissible" distortion?

--Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Stevens and Justice Ginsburg join except as to Part I-A-1, and with whom Justice Souter joins as to Part I, dissenting, Bush v Gore

Certainly, the 'majority' decision did not even address the issues that compelled the case. Justice Breyer pointed out: there was absolutely no justification for the majority's remedy, which simply reversed a decision of the lower court and had the effect of halting the recount entirely. Some remedy!

By halting the manual recount, and thus ensuring that the uncounted legal votes will not be counted under any standard, this Court crafts a remedy out of proportion to the asserted harm. And that remedy harms the very fairness interests the Court is attempting to protect.

I repeat, where is the "impermissible" distortion?

--Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Stevens and Justice Ginsburg join except as to Part I-A-1, and with whom Justice Souter joins as to Part I, dissenting, Bush v Gore

It is on this point that I have a nit to pick with Breyer who states that the 'remedy' was 'out of proportion' to the 'asserted harm'. It was, in fact, no remedy at all, not even addressing 14th issues --real, imagined, or strictly political. Stopping the recount entirely most certainly did not bring Florida into compliance with the 14th amendment even if it had not been prior. If anyone should think it does, I defy them to make the case. If any voter had been disenfranchised before Bush v Gore, they remain disenfranchised afterward. Additionally, a 'remedy' must be applicable universally, correcting wrongs wherever they occur throughout the nation. Bush v Gore, rather, applied in one case and in one case alone. It is, therefore, not a law but a decree.

Moreover, it was never proven by Bush v Gore that any voter had been disenfranchised except by practices associated with the Bush camp. Certainly, none of those instances or issues were addressed by Bush in his petition or by the decision of the high court.

First, normally in equal protection cases, the aggrieved party — in this case, the Florida voter who claims his or her vote was not counted equally — brings the action. That was not the case in Bush v. Gore, which raises the question whether Bush had standing (that is, the legal right) to sue.

Second, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the equal protection clause can only be successfully invoked if the discrimination was intentional, and in this case, an excellent case can be made that it was not. Any differences from county to county as to how intent was assessed probably were not intended to discriminate among various voters, though they may have had that effect.

Third, if the five justices were truly concerned about the voters' equal protection rights, then how could they adopt a solution that meant that those who submitted "undervotes" would not have their votes counted at all? Certainly eliminating certain voters' ballots, and not those of others, is the greatest voting inequality of all.

--Findlaw, A Review Of the Betrayal Of America

At last, it was not proven in Bush v Gore that Florida had not been in compliance. The majority opinion seems almost to concede that they had utterly failed to make 14th Amendment case law. It was, in fact, a decision that made no law! A single word sums up Bush v Gore: disingenuous!

Scalia's attempt to rewrite history is doomed to fail. It was Bush who brought the case ---not Gore. Had Gore brought the case it would have been styled "Gore v Bush". It was not. One is tempted to call Scalia a liar. But I am content to let the facts and history speak for themselves. And he knows what he is.

Secondly, Gore had no interest in pursuing the case as the Florida court had already mandated the only 'remedy' compelled by both law and common sense: count the votes! That process --underway --was halted by the high court which took the case upon a transparent pretext.

It was the partisan majority that set aside it's Constitutional responsibility to rule upon the law and only the law and ruled, instead, along partisan lines. That their decision to do so was foolhardy and ill-considered has been proven by the record of utter failure and catastrophe wrought upon this nation in the wake of this ill-considered, foolhardy, disingenuous 'decision'.

A high price continues to be paid because SCOTUS stuck its nose into an issue that had already been settled according to the law. The high court set the nation upon a path in which the rule of law no longer exists. A pox on the five majority justices who gave us the dictatorship of George W. Bush. They have, thus, ensured that their names and the decision to which their names are attached will forever live in infamy.

Scalia: "Get over it!"

Additional resources

• A GREAT CASE THAT MADE NO LAW:
  A Review of Alan Dershowitz's Book on Bush v. Gore
• New York Times: Posner v. Dershowitz
• A Review Of the Betrayal Of America
• The Legacy of Bush v Gore
• Antonin Scalia, self-made martyr
• Bush vs the Constitution

Published Articles on Buzzflash.net

Subscribe

GOP, Bush, Evil, Tyranny

Spread the word