U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says the high court did not inject itself into the 2000 presidential election.

Speaking at the Time Warner Center last night, Scalia said: "The election was dragged into the courts by the Gore people. We did not go looking for trouble."

But he said the court had to take the case.

"The issue was whether Florida's Supreme Court or the United States Supreme Court What did you expect us to do? Turn the case down because it wasn't important enough?"

(snip)

He also pointed out that studies by news organizations after the election showed Bush still would have won a Florida recount.

more…
http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/58101.htm

seems like we have more here

WTF?

Scalia is just toeing the party line, as always. I thought he was a big believer in states' rights, but that didn't stop him from walking all over Florida's rights in BvG, did it?

Seriously, I know it can't happen until we retake the house, but can't he be impeached?

I mean, jeeezus, the fucking case was only 5 years ago and he can't remember the basic facts of it? The Bush v. Gore title doesn't give it away?

What a fuckup.

By several methods (9 different criteria were applied) Gore won. Only by using the most ridiculous criteria (e.g. discard all questionable Gore votes, keep all questionable Bush votes) did Bush win.

Words don't do justice to this evil evil troll of a Man

A true instrument of the devil

http://www.petitiononline.com/1776imp/petition.html

"Dirtbag" is the most respectful term I can think of for Scalia.

;)

More of their well thought out and reasoned comments.

I wonder if they really care if we are going down the tubes...nah, they are too stupid to care.
Anyhow, I hope they scrub them out soon.

or does the average freeper have the reasoning ability of a 4th grade bully?

and i didn't notice it until after i signed.

i'm pissed that i didn't check the signatures BEFORE signing.

No point in signing these things unless the signatures are good.

to see what I'm referring to...check out that last group of signatures and you'll see Justice Ruth Ginsberg, Hillary Robbem Clinton, Bill Clinton and many more with classic lunacy of the freepterds.. I didn't even bother looking at any other group of signatures, so i have no idea how many of these sigs are worthless.

court to stop hand counts in selected counties.

Scalia is so full of shit he stinks.

trying to justify his actions, all the way up to and including, on his death bed.

It's easy when you have no conscience.

She would know, too.

:argh:

moron.

Bush sued

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/supremecourt/00-949_dec12.fdf

Sheeps tomorrow. I live in IL so I only get to play at family events, like well thanksgiving.

and thrown under the freakin' jailhouse.

:argh:

:banghead:

He is a monster and does not deserve to be able to walk the streets of this country in freedom.

:nuke:

in all types of statewide recounts that included review of both "over" and "under" votes.

The Florida State Sup Ct called for a statewide recount. That was the recount that Scalia stopped.

He did not stop the partial state - select a few counties - recounts that the post election recount showed Bush winning a share of.

Only the Statewide recount is at issue - and GORE WON ALL VARIATIONS.



I LOVE HAVING A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE THAT LIES.

Wonder how well Alito will do in dealing with truth?

What was the response when he said this? Does anyone know? Did they just sit by and nod their wee little heads or what?

Alito must be filibustered!

I noticed articles appearing for Alito today. eg: the ABA is giving him the highest recommendation. Oh please. Ugghh.

FILIBUSTER!

history...

what rubbish Scalia is spewing.

GEORGE W. BUSH, et al., PETITIONERS v.
ALBERT GORE, Jr., et al.

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

Even if he is referring to their prior intervention, he is still LYING:

( Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd.)

so the stuff Scalia sees all stats with
Gore as petiotioner in the lowest Fl court.

Gore pretty much got what he asked for,
as far as matters the legislature had
written into law.

I've said many times, that Gore should have asked for the only reasonable thing, to manually recount the whole state and abide by the results. Bush couldn't have fought that. Instead, he cherry-picked the counties he thought would give him the best shot to win.

The fact that a statewide manual recount favored Gore has not escaped me, nor, I imagine, has it escaped Gore. He blew it.

Gore acted in the only way allowed by law. That is why it took a ruling of Florida Supreme Court to get a Statewide recount. Gore could not by law request one.......

He could petition every individual county, I thought. I know Bush asked for some, and Gore asked for his four. I'm of the impression he could have asked for all of them.

There was a DEADLINE--& they were too late. Bush asked for no recounts. (Wikipedia can't always be trusted--but these facts are documented.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore#fn_1

I seem to recall that Gore could NOT just ask for a state-wide recount. That's two impressions against one. Perhaps you have a link that indicates otherwise?

Anyway, the Consortium proved that Gore should have won. Their report was initially scheduled for September 11th. By the time it was released, nobody wanted to make much noise about the Leader in the War Against Terror.

...according to the FL Sup. Ct. ruling.

And that ruling was never reversed, simply superceded by circumstances.

However, her judicially-determined unlawful actions were also never prosecuted.

Perhaps there is no statute of limitations on election fraud and they still could be. Someone in FL should look into that.

----
www.january6th.org

And Gore let the deadline pass, which I never really understood.

I seem to remember Bush quietly requesting and getting recounts in some counties, but it not being well publicized, but can't find any evidence of it. I guess maybe it didn't happen.

Am I the only one that this "coincidence" of dates bothers.

There is a small part of me that has always felt there were too many things that were brought together for this administration and their corporate cronies by the actions of 9/11. This just adds to the "splinter" that makes me think that we were bamboozled in some way regarding what really took place on 9/11 and why.

Is there anyone else out there who has felt this way? I'm not ready to absolve Al-Queda, but the coincidence here is too blatant to ignore.

He needed a rationale for asking a judge to hear a contest motion.

They chose the counties where there was reason to suspect errors. Something tangible to go to a court with.

The Euphemedia spun it otherwise. Like most of what happened there.

---
www.january6th.org

The only way this could occur would be (1) via a court order; (2) through permission of the Governor (and we remember who that was, right?).

It really upsets me when people keep saying Gore should have requested a statewide recount because there was no provision to do so under Florida law at that time. "Florida Law" is defined as the legislative portion of election law penned by the legislature -- as dictated it must be by the Constitution.

What do you mean, and how is "starting the matter" the same thing as dragging it into the courts?

Please explain.

recount of the entire state. Much like in Ohio, when a recount is ordered it is only necessary to recount 3% of the ballots and if those numbers are off, a full recount is required. Gore wanted to recount the entire county because of the many discrepancies in the way the ballots were being counted. The State of Florida agreed that there was merit to Gore's arguement but BushCo lobbied the Supreme Court for a hearing to stop the recount. The SCOTUS ruled that the Florida Supreme Court was incorrect in thier judgement and overruled them. As a result, the elections results were certified in favor of Bushitler and then Jesus wept. So yes, Gore started the lawsuit that the SCOTUS overruled but it was Bush that petitioned the SCOTUS for a hearing. So technically, he's not a liar but he's still a liar and a fat cock-sucker. (Meaning no disrepect to anyone else whose fat and well.. you know)

I didn't know it was a lawsuit that started the first recount.

(And re: your "and well... you know", I hope you're including straight women in that group as well :P)

Everything in that article is wrong--all the recounts showed a Gore win if all the damn ballots were counted. For crying out loud, DRUDGE got the story right!

That seems to be a bad word for the dark side these days.

First we get Cheney moran telling us that Saddam had the burden of proof. Now we have this Supreme moran telling us that Gore brought the case in Bush v Gore.

We are not like your effing stupid base, morans.

Did anybody really pay attention in Law School? Or were you just too busy trying to screw your way to the top?

Bastards.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010205/bugliosi


Ill be looking forward to your response.

somehow I think I needed to read that again.

This is crazy - the Supreme Court is not supposed to participate in politics. When they overturned the election, they were at least trying to keep up the pretense that they were a-political.

I was going to post the same link. Anyone who has any doubts that the Supreme Court stole the 2000 election need only read that article and Bugliosi's book of the same title for even more evidence. They're corrupt and treasonous. They had the ability to install Bush into the White House and that's exactly what they did.

Scalia actually said that the Constitution does not guarantee the people the right to suffrage. He is a warped evil man with power, very dangerous.

Bush sued, Scalia is a liar, but we knew that already.

the felonious five stepped in to thwart the will of the people. Scalia and company will be judged by history and I'm guessing that future historians and legal scholars will see them as partisan hacks that usurped the democracy in America and installed the most corrupt and destructive administration in American history.

Scalito to join this asshole.

:grr:

partisan. You are an immaculate citizen.

demenia and is suffering from delusional thinking.

Sadly there is obviously a handful of illiterate RW idiots who will, as usual, not check the facts and reality and buy into Scalia's delusional fantasy.

recusing hisself from installing his GOOD BUDDY in the office of the vice presidency! Surely, you're mistaken. So Scalia has joined the revisionist history movement. Color me surprised.

on American history. If Lynn Cheney didn't cover it in her books, then it didn't happen. This will become law one day, no doubt.

Will the LYING ever stop?
:crazy:

Prepare yourself for your master SATAN. :evilgrin:

Seriously, can a teacher or someone with kids check for us? I'm sure there have been new editions printed since 2000.

Please click on link and read full article to appreciate the truth.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/Print/111201a.html

Gore won even if one doesn’t count the 15,000-25,000 votes that USA Today estimated Gore lost because of illegally designed “butterfly ballots,” or the hundreds of predominantly African-American voters who were falsely identified by the state as felons and turned away from the polls.

Gore won even if there’s no adjustment for George W. Bush’s windfall of about 290 votes from improperly counted military absentee ballots where lax standards were applied to Republican counties and strict standards to Democratic ones, a violation of fairness reported earlier by the Washington Post and the New York Times.

Put differently, George W. Bush was not the choice of Florida’s voters anymore than he was the choice of the American people who cast a half million more ballots for Gore than Bush nationwide.

<snip>

The Washington Post recalled that Gore "did at one point call on Bush to join him in asking for a statewide recount" and accepting the results without further legal challenge, but that Bush rejected the proposal as "a public relations gesture."

whoops

Scalia is just another un-American justice in the US Supreme Court like William Rehnquist was. Scalia cannot defend our constitution, cannot defend the legitimacy of the U.S. presidency, and cannot remember who sued whom just by looking at the case name.

There is no doubt that Scalia's assertion that Gore brought the suit first is a lie, but the heart of the matter is not Scalia's dishonesty. It is the vast right wing's sense of lack of legitimacy in George W. Bush's presidency. This is why conservatives say too many stupid things about Bush v. Gore.

Remember, the coup de tat on the night of December 12, 2000, could not have been possible without the accomplices in the Hillary Clinton faction of the Democrats, aka DLCers. They have kept Al Gore in exile so Hillary can run for president in 2008.

Trust me, Hillary Clinton will be as equally dangerous as George W. Bush. To mask the lack of legitimacy, illegitimate leaders who stole the power from the legitimately elected head of state/chief executive often resort to war and terrorism to instill fear amongst people so they blindedly rely on them without questioning the legitimacy. In doing so, they will even invent crises so that people blindedly trust them. And that is why so many Senate Democrats vehemently oppose John Murtha's call for withdrawal from Iraq. These corrupt Democrats also want the continued US troops' presence in Iraq so they can continue to use war to instill fear and hide their illegitimacy.

We have to re-elect Al Gore in 2008 to restore the presidential legitimacy. Only the legitimately elected president can serve the nation without resorting to war and terrorism for power and control. And the only person in America to do that is AL GORE.

Remember how he played his hand before considering the evidence with that phrase "would deny George Bush equal protection under the law"?

This from a state where:

The repug counties had super duper second chance voting machines.
Katherine Harris threatened democratic counties conducting a recount.
Military repug votes were counted yet stapled together!
In some counties upwards of several thousand repug votes were allowed to stand despite biased registration problems.
Racial profiling on election day.
Movement of voting precincts without informing the constituency.
NAACP dramatically televising footage of two ballot boxes not even counted from african american districts, about 3,000 votes total.
Purge of Democratic files if names coincided in small degree with felons.

Greg Palast states that over 200,000 lost their right to vote for Gore that day in Florida.

And Scalia can only talk about denying Bush equal protection.

Here's something he has also forgotten. Article VI. #3 of our Constitution «no religious test shall ever be required to any office or public trust under the United States.» Seems the fundies have long since violated this aspect.

"The election was dragged into the courts by the Gore people. We did not go looking for trouble."

Shouldn't you have recused yourself from YOUR argument?

and four others decided to go along partisan lines and give * the vote?

Shove it, scalion. You're a partisan pansy and nothing more. You're as supreme as the mold growing under the kitchen sink.

Even today you can do nothing but distort and spin. You showed us nothing that suggested you gave a damn about equality.

A deep case, yes, but you ignored the popular vote amongst other valid issues and the fact * was voted in by what is a gross case of partisan preference is disgusting.

So don't blame Gore for the state of today. Blame yourself. Your feeble spin does not fly.

And other organizations had said the same for Gore winning in 2000. Gore's call for involvement was not unfair. Trying to piss on one candidate while saying "That person said he would have lost anyway" is just as unfair (not to mention CHILDISH, and coming from a member of the Supreme Court no less?!!).

Here's the "Prosecution's Brief" for Impeachment of the Felonious Five.

What we ALL need to do is to commit to accomplishing this impeachment/removal. NO MATTER HOW LONG IT TAKES.

We need do it posthumously if necessary (yep, not even Bully Bill is off the hook). The same for the election thief squatting in the People's House, wreaking int'l havok without ever having garnered the consent of the governed.

This is the ONLY way to Redeem our National Soul.

And don't forget, the book length version of the case against Scalia and the Stalinist* Snakes makes a great Xmas Gift. At only ten bucks, buy in bulk for stuffing stockings.

*Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything. - Josef Stalin (echoed by Scalia, Baker, bushes, Rhenquist, Blackwell, Harris, etc...)

---
www.january6th.org

What the fuck is wrong with that fucking fuck?

scalia sounds like he knows he's guilty

scalia sounds like he knows he's guilty

Just that they should have ruled on it honestly and objectively. The fact that they made it a "one time only" decision has always been the smoking gun that shows it was in the bag for Bush. Why deny the age old legal principle of precedent, if you think your ruling is fair and impartial?

Divide and conquer don't work when your using your own one sided malice

Respect for you, Mr Scalia, and that court you represent dwindles. That once venerable institution is being reduced to just some more swine in the wallow. Justice and upholding the law requires many things but nursing ones partisan leanings while one is in that final court of record is contempt upon itself. This contempt for the bench, the bench millions of people that depend on, the bench that one is sworn to uphold, is being played with like it's one of your personal toys.

Respect is a two way street when a independent and free thinking people are involved with it.

this man has no morals, puts party and right wing ideology over country, this man should just shut up and continue being a tool

He was talking to Leno and said something about "when Bush was elected in 2000" and then paused and corrected himself, saying "When Bush was elected by the Supreme Court in 2000".

It was great.

DID YOU ALSO NOTICE THAT LENO PERSISTS IN SAYING THE DEMOCRATS VOTED "FOR THE WAR". I AM REALLY GETTING PRETTY F____-ING TIRED OF THIS SHIT. SOMEBODY (MAYBE EVERYONE ON DU) SHOULD TELL LENO TO STOP PAROTTING THE PARTY LINE FROM CHENEY AND ROVE. THE DEMS DID NOT VOTE FOR THE WAR . THEY VOTED FOR A RESOLUTION GIVING BUSH THE AUTHORITY TO USE MILITARY OPTION ONLY IF ALL DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS TO GET HUSSEIN TO LET IN UN WEAPONS INSPECTORS BACK INTO IRAQ. BUSH HIMSELF SAID THAT A VOTE FOR THE RESOLUTION WAS NOT A DEFACTO VOTE FOR WAR. THE DEMOCRATS (AND NO DOUBT MANY REPUBLICANS) EXPECTED BUSH TO MAKE A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO GET DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS TO WORK. THEY VOTED FOR THIS RESOLUTION BECAUSE THEY KNEW WITHOUT THE THREAT OF MILITARY ACTION ANY DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS WITH HUSSEIN WERE LIKELY TO FAIL - AS THEY HAD SO FAR. TO VOTE AGAINST THE RESOLUTION WOULD HAVE TIED THE PRESIDENT'S HANDS AND LIKELY DOOMED ANY NEGOTIATED RESOLUTION OF THE SITUATION TO FAILURE.

LENO PERSISTS IN REPEATING THE ADMINISTRATION'S BIG LIES. I DON'T KNOW IF HE IS JUST AN IDIOT OR IF HE IS WILLFULY TRYING TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONFUSION OF THE ELECTORATE WHICH THIS ADMINISTRATION IS SO COMMITTED TO.

I PLAN ON TRYING TO STRAIGHTEN THIS IDIOT OUT. I HOPE OTHERS FROM DU, WHO BELIEVE A HEALTHY, INFORMED DEBATE OF ISSUES IS ESSENTIAL TO MAINTAINING OUR DEMOCRACY AND THAT DISINFORMATION IS A PERNICIOUS INFLUENCE ON THIS DEBATE, WILL ALSO EMAIL THE LESS THAN BRILLIANT LENO TO TELL HIM TO EITHER GET INFORMED OR SHUT UP ON THIS MATTER. OR HE COULD JUST SAY AT THE OUT-SET THAT HE IS THE ADMINISTRATION'S BOY AND HE PERFORMS TO PLEASE THEM.

Couldn't take his operation as another loud right-wing mouth another night. Not one minute more.

Surely Leno is getting paid by the Republicans in some way. He has been a non-stop propaganda machine for ages.

He needs to sober up and see how unpleasant he really is. If it weren't for the propaganda, people could just say he lacks color and personality and inteligence.

I STOPPED WATCHING HIM LONG AGO TOO, JUST BECAUSE HE STOPPED BEING FUNNY LONG AGO (FORMULAIC HUMOR(?)), VERY IMITATIVE. BUT ONCE IN A WHILE I THINK I'LL GIVE HIM ANOTHER CHANCE. THAT'S WHEN I STARTED NOTICING THE REPETITIVE POLITICAL 'HUMOR' WHICH IS PERNICIOUS TO OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM WHICH DEPENDS ON PEOPLE NOT HAVING PRECONCEPTIONS INSINUATED INTO THEIR, ADMITTEDLY, VERY UNCRITICAL, SUGGESTABLE MINDS.


I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL HE THINKS HE IS DOING. I SUSPECT IT'S JUST A VERY EASY WAY TO GET A LAUGH (UNCRITICAL PROGRAMMED MINDS OF AUDIENCE) BUT IT IS VERY DESTRUCTIVE.

I ONLY WATCHED THAT NIGHT BECAUSE CARTER WAS ON. I WATCHED, I THINK, THE PREVIOUS NIGHT BECAUSE SEINFELD WAS ON AND LENO MADE THE SAME REMARK THAT NIGHT TOO. INTERESTINGLY, ALSO ON THAT NIGHT WAS SHELLEY BERMAN. A BRILLIANT STAND-UP FROM THE KENNEDY ERA WHO DISTINGUISHED HIMSELF FOR HIS INTELLIGENT SARDONIC POLITICAL HUMOR. HE WAS DEFINITELY NOT THE SYCOPHANT LENO THE LEMMING IS!

DID YOU ALSO NOTICE THAT LENO PERSISTS IN SAYING THE DEMOCRATS VOTED "FOR THE WAR". I AM REALLY GETTING PRETTY F____-ING TIRED OF THIS SHIT. SOMEBODY (MAYBE EVERYONE ON DU) SHOULD TELL LENO TO STOP PAROTTING THE PARTY LINE FROM CHENEY AND ROVE. THE DEMS DID NOT VOTE FOR THE WAR . THEY VOTED FOR A RESOLUTION GIVING BUSH THE AUTHORITY TO USE MILITARY OPTION ONLY IF ALL DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS TO GET HUSSEIN TO LET IN UN WEAPONS INSPECTORS BACK INTO IRAQ FAILED. BUSH HIMSELF SAID THAT A VOTE FOR THE RESOLUTION WAS NOT A DEFACTO VOTE FOR WAR. THE DEMOCRATS (AND NO DOUBT MANY REPUBLICANS) EXPECTED BUSH TO MAKE A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO GET DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS TO WORK. THEY VOTED FOR THIS RESOLUTION BECAUSE THEY KNEW WITHOUT THE THREAT OF MILITARY ACTION ANY DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS WITH HUSSEIN WERE LIKELY TO FAIL - AS THEY HAD SO FAR. TO VOTE AGAINST THE RESOLUTION WOULD HAVE TIED THE PRESIDENT'S HANDS AND LIKELY DOOMED ANY NEGOTIATED RESOLUTION OF THE SITUATION TO FAILURE.

LENO PERSISTS IN REPEATING THE ADMINISTRATION'S BIG LIES. I DON'T KNOW IF HE IS JUST AN IDIOT OR IF HE IS WILLFULY TRYING TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONFUSION OF THE ELECTORATE WHICH THIS ADMINISTRATION IS SO COMMITTED TO.

I PLAN ON TRYING TO STRAIGHTEN THIS IDIOT OUT. I HOPE OTHERS FROM DU, WHO BELIEVE A HEALTHY, INFORMED DEBATE OF ISSUES IS ESSENTIAL TO MAINTAINING OUR DEMOCRACY AND THAT DISINFORMATION IS A PERNICIOUS INFLUENCE ON THIS DEBATE, WILL ALSO EMAIL THE LESS THAN BRILLIANT LENO TO TELL HIM TO EITHER GET INFORMED OR SHUT UP ON THIS MATTER. OR HE COULD JUST SAY AT THE OUT-SET THAT HE IS THE ADMINISTRATION'S BOY AND HE PERFORMS TO PLEASE THEM.

I think the Honorable Henry Waxman is still waiting to hear from GE's former CEO, and Trustee at Poppy Bu$h's presidential library foundation, Jack Welch (John F. Welch, Jr.) regarding election night 11.7.2000.

from Sept. 2001:

"Firing another shot in his ongoing feud with NBC, Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles) released an eight-page letter Monday detailing alleged efforts by then-corporate chief Jack Welch--a major contributor to the Republican Party--to intervene in the network's election night decision-making."
http://www.house.gov/waxman/issues/issues_other_nbc_elec_waxman_renews_9_11_01.htm

"California Democrat Henry Waxman had heard a rumor that Jack Welch, chairman of General Electric Company which owns NBC had been rooting in the newsroom for George W. Bush and even pressuring news staffers to call the close race for Bush. Waxman had further been told that there was a video tape made by NBC's promotions department capturing indicting evidence of Welch's interference. At the hearing he asked then-NBC news president Andrew Lack if such a tape existed. Lack, under oath, said if he could find such a tape he would send it to Waxman. More than 9 months later, in spite of a spate of increasingly sharp official correspondence and a not-too-veiled threat about a congressional subpoena, no tape has been delivered."
http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/transcripts_081801_bigidea.html

Windfalls of War - General Electric
http://www.publicintegrity.org/wow/bio.aspx?act=pro&ddlC=23


There's so much at stake ... the lying, covering-up, and spinning might never stop.

This is what we mean, when we say corpwhorate owned MSM.

Meaning that the BUSH people brought this before the U.S. Supreme Court in order to challenge the decision of the Florida Supreme Court.

I think we need to begin impeachment processes for Supreme Court justices who actively participate in politics. Scalia's first.

Scalia is lying, and knows Bush brought the case, or Scalia is so stupid that he doesn't know Bush was losing, and had to sue in SCOTUS to get his "victory".

Talk about REVISIONIST HISTORY.

Notwithstanding it having an official State religion and a Reich Bishop.

Scaliar has a penchant for engaging in what legal scholars refer to as...

Making shit up.


Especially when it's in furtherance of his ideological agenda.

I wouldn't have stolen your car."

How old is he, anyway? I have some experience caregiving for an Alzheimer's patient, and it scares me to think that some people in very high office never have to be tested for Alzheimer's as part of their annual physical. I hate to say it, but people above a certain age who hold positions of great authority over millions of people should be tested. I'm not trying to diss the elderly (I'm pretty close to elderly myself), but dementia doesn't just happen overnight, and many times, people who are beginning to develop dementia are very good at "covering". Those are my thoughts, anyway.

that the SC ruled on.

If the entire state of Florida was recounted, Gore won by 500 plus votes. If only certain counties were recounted Bush won. It's a matter of semantics.

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

edit: Ok, I just read thru the entire brief (I did skim over some parts) and I am just as confused.

He is mentally unfit for office.

edit: Yes you can. From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment

United States
Main article Impeachment in the United States

In the United States impeachment can occur both at the federal and state level. At the federal level, both the Executive branch and the Judiciary may be impeached, though different standards apply. For the Executive branch, only those who have allegedly committed "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" may be impeached. Although treason and bribery are obvious, the Constitution is silent on what constitutes a "high crime." Several commentators have suggested that Congress alone may decide for itself what constitutes an impeachable offense.

The standard for impeachment among the judiciary is much broader. Article III of the Constitution states that judges remain in office "during good behavior," implying that Congress may remove a judge for bad behavior.

Members of Congress themselves, however, are not subject to impeachment. However, the respective Houses of Congress have the authority to discipline their own members. This includes the authority to expel members.

Procedurally, it is a two-step process. The House of Representatives must first pass "articles of impeachment" by a simple majority. The articles of impeachment constitute the formal allegations. Upon passage, the defendant has been "impeached."

Next, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a President, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. Otherwise, the Vice President, in his capacity of President of the Senate, or the President pro tempore of the Senate presides. This would include the impeachment of the Vice President him- or herself. In order to convict the accused, a two-thirds majority of the Senators present is required.

Following conviction, the Senate may vote to punish the individual only by removing him from office, or by barring him from holding future office, or both. Alternatively, it may impose no punishment. However in the case of executive officers, removal follows automatically upon conviction. The defendant remains liable to criminal prosecution. It is possible to impeach someone even after the accused has vacated his office in order to disqualify the person from such emoluments of office as a pension.

Congress regards impeachment as a power to be used only in extreme cases; the House has initiated impeachment proceedings just 62 times since 1789 and only 16 federal officers have been impeached:

President Bill Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998 by the House of Representatives on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (by a 228-206 vote) and obstruction of justice (by a 221-212 vote). Two other articles of impeachment failed — a second count of perjury in the Jones case (by a 205-229 vote), and one accusing Clinton of abuse of power (by a 148-285 vote).
President Andrew Johnson in 1868
one cabinet officer
one Senator
one Supreme Court Justice and eleven other federal judges.

And you took it because "Bush's interest would be damaged by the recount - his legitimacy would be questioned." (actual rationale) You were advocate for BFEE then and now - can't even disguise it.

I mean come on, that's more full of shit than Bob Novak...

to bring that up NOW.

Just when the administration's competency and credibility are being intensively challenged, he resurrects the issue of it's legitimacy.

:wtf: :grr:

make political comments. The black robe changes little, but provides undue authority for this hatchetman of the religious right.

You are a liar and a coward!

:nopity:

Scalia's sons worked for the Bush team (and are still in the Justice Department today, if I'm not mistaken), and Clarence Thomas's wife worked for the Bush transition team. Neither Scalia nor Thomas recused himself. That says a good deal about their ethical tone deafness.

Bully Bill's kickback took the form of a high-paid office for his hapless daughter Janet, which she abused to -- what else?!?

Steal Reelection for Bush

---
www.january6th.org

Can't they get disbarred for something like that? That seems a clear violation of professional ethics!

This banner headline would have surely stunned the legal world.

It is a description of the opposite of justice.

However, buried in the 49th paragraph of a report safely spiked until after the Euphemedia ceased being frightened by its own shadow, this lightning bolt was rendered more of a lightning bug.

Mickey Kaus noted it in passing:



(But even he was only strip mining for new Clinton-bashing material.)

There's no statute of limitations on High Treason. We simply need to make Impeachment over the BvG edict the second priority after we take the Congress back in 2007, or 2009, or 2011, or ...

NO MATTER HOW LONG IT TAKES

And if anyone tells you to "get over it," ask them if that's what they say to all crime victims.

----
www.january6th.org

junior won't change his mind and make you Chief Justice. You are only a tool to be used and discarded. Too bad. Perhaps Gore would have awarded you that title had you based your decisions on truth and honored the Constitution. But that ship has sailed, and your only reward will be an occasional duck hunting trip with dickless.

was to have a separate power uphold the right of the citizens to have their votes counted without doubt. Obviously, that was too much to ask from a power who, obviously again, is separate only on paper.

:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

..

to be shown in history that the Supreme court & Congress allowed the cabal to takeover America and trash the Constitution...

Gore WON!!!

(cue ominous music)

The DC press conference launch was scheduled for (you guessed it) The Evening of 9-11-01.

This was after beginning in Dec '00 with merely 15% of the public thinking something was not "fair and square" with the election result.

After 9 months, which saw the publication of books by Bugliosi, Dershowitz, and many others who disseminated truths that the DC/Euphemedia Analstocracy worked hard to suppress, the polling showing about 50% now said not "fair and square."

Thus the political will had been achieved to unravel the entire travesty, starting with the "closers" and then moving on to all who aided and abetted the Crime of the Millenium.

Truth and Justice did not triumph then. But it is up to each one of us to decide whether the ensuing events defeated or merely sidetracked the effort to put things right.

It's my opinion that this is THE ONLY way to recover our national self-respect; to redeem our national soul; to get the American People "off the hook" for this crime spree that they did not participate in nor authorize.

There is no "worse" catastrophe. Not 9-11, not lying into war, not torture, not even genocide. This was willful violaton of THE ONLY moral principle on which this once-great nation, and democracy itself, ever rests: that gov't power can only be derived from the consent of the governed.

Without that, you can slap any label on it you want: fascism, authoritarianism, totalitarianism, monarchism, theocracy, oligarchy, whatever. They're all "true enough" in that they're all less than what our children deserve to inherit.

Or we just let allow our "leaders" to continue to sweep these things under the Palace carpeting.

---
www.january6th.org

Or do they just allow his lies to stand?

It's very short - just another paragraph on background.

citizen is stupid and doesn't care. This is why they go about revising history. 9/11-Iraq. They just keep on lying knowing people don't care.

Sad pathetic man.

election in Florida and thats the law upon which Gore base his action in the state's lower and supreme court. The federal supreme court had no business taking that case on cert; and to blame the litigant for the Supreme Court's (Renquist, Scalia et al's) disregard of state sovereignty is bullsh*t. So Scalia's new standard to disregard state law and impose a federal judicial fiat is "if its important enough"; what an assclown. If you can't find a right to an abortion in the 4th amendment; then you certainly can't find that the decision of the florida supreme court to recount violates the equal protection clause of the supreme court. What a POS decision, Bush v. Gore (by the way Scalie, you jerk off, Bush was the plaintiff that brought the cert to you, not Gore).

low life, evil, scum sucking, POS. :puke: How in the hell can he look himself in the mirror of a morning! Forgive me cuz I hate his rotten, crooked, lying guts and hope he rots in hell! :mad: The unfortunate thing is there are plenty of morans that will believe it to be that way cuz they let others do their thinking for them. GAWD!!!!!!!!!!

Jenn

That treasonous bastard. He lies. May I live to see this man get what he deserves.

Scalia would make a fine attorney for the Mafia!

rationale that they HAD TO vote for bunkerboy - not to mention how these repuke crimnals could not justify doing the same to ensure that any ruling was NOT "unfair to Vice President Gore", huh!

Fucking crimnal re-writing thugs!

don't they usually lie low ? oh, and he's lying through his teeth too.

Geez ... this is like a flashback to some horrible memory I have been trying to repress. While I now focus on our need to win so BIG that the diebold folks can not tweek the results to their liking, we get some lame-o lie like this bringing back festering memories of our days of bliss and ignorance .... Oh, what would the world be like today if only they had just counted the votes and proclaimed Al Gore the president.
Instead we get this Limbagh president and are left wondering if we can survive.

This is how history will judge you fat tony!

Incredible!!! Lying sacks of runny crap, Scalia, et. al. He is Opus Dei, a very devious and dangerous part of the Catholic cult. Lying, stealing, thieving is fine by them as long as it advances their twisted view of God.

Check out Opus Dei, The Unofficial Homepage: http://www.mond.at/opus.dei/

Along with the other four hacks (yes, even the dead one) who decided that their personal choice for President was more important than the choice of 100 million other citizens of our country.

Their decision had absolutely no basis in law. Has a USSC decision ever in our history actually noted in the decision that the decision should NOT be used as a precedent for future cases?

So Bush Did Steal the White House

By Robert Parry
November 22, 2001
...
A document, revealed by Newsweek, indicates that the Florida recount that was stopped last year by five Republicans on the U.S. Supreme Court would have taken into account so-called “overvotes” that heavily favored Gore.

If those “overvotes” were counted, as now it appears they would have been, Gore would have carried Florida regardless of what standard of chad – dimpled, hanging, punched-through – was used in counting the so-called “undervotes,” according to an examination of those ballots by a group of leading news organizations.

In other words, Bush lost not only the national popular vote by more than a half million ballots, but he would have lost the key state of Florida and thus the presidency, if Florida’s authorities had been allowed to count the votes that met the state’s legal requirement of demonstrating the clear intent of the voter.

...more
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/112101a.html


--------------

Gore's Victory

By Robert Parry
November 12, 2001 , 2001

So Al Gore was the choice of Florida’s voters -- whether one counts hanging chads or dimpled chads. That was the core finding of the eight news organizations that conducted a review of disputed Florida ballots. By any chad measure, Gore won.

Gore won even if one doesn’t count the 15,000-25,000 votes that USA Today estimated Gore lost because of illegally designed “butterfly ballots,” or the hundreds of predominantly African-American voters who were falsely identified by the state as felons and turned away from the polls.

Gore won even if there’s no adjustment for George W. Bush’s windfall of about 290 votes from improperly counted military absentee ballots where lax standards were applied to Republican counties and strict standards to Democratic ones, a violation of fairness reported earlier by the Washington Post and the New York Times.

Put differently, George W. Bush was not the choice of Florida’s voters anymore than he was the choice of the American people who cast a half million more ballots for Gore than Bush nationwide.

....more
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/111201a.html

----------

many more on the net...

Bush of course! This guy is such a scum, and Alito must not be able to join him. Also, as I remember, the count would have supported Gore under some conditions.

Please see posts 40 or 134.

THIS BASTARD HAS TO GO, SOON. THIS IS THE SMOKING GUN. WHAT A LUNATIC. HE HAS NO BUSINESS COMMENTING ON CASES LIKE THIS, ESPECIALLY ONE THAT IS STILL SIMMERING. HE IS THE VERY WORST TYPE OF HYPOCRITE.

IF I HEAR ONE MORE PERSON TALK ABOUT HIS "BRILLIANCE" I'M GOING TO THROW UP.

HE IS A SHAM, A POLITICAL OPERATIVE, AND AN ENEMY OF DEMOCRACY.

IMPEACH SCALIA NOW

this is one of our fundamental rights that are being stolen from us.

An impartial judiciary is essential for democracy to work.