Clerks spill Bush v. Gore details

This article offered a whif of the fresh baked cookies, but won't let you taste. Bummer.

<snip>
“We feel that something illegitimate was done with the Court’s power, and such an extraordinary situation justifies breaking an obligation we’d otherwise honor,” one clerk told the magazine. “Our secrecy was helping to shield some of those actions.”

Most of the Bush v. Gore clerks aren’t talking to the media, even to comment on the article’s accuracy, which, as several pointed out privately, would require them to reveal confidential information. But their private comments about the leakers tend to break down along partisan lines, with conservative clerks condemning them and liberals expressing understanding, if not support.
<snip>

<snip>
Most of the criticism in the Vanity Fair piece is aimed at Justices Antonin Scalia, Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy, all of whom voted in favor of Bush. Scalia is depicted bullying Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg into watering down her dissenting opinion. O’Connor is described as emotionally fixated on stopping a recount and Kennedy as overly influenced by his right-wing clerks.

As the Vanity Fair article’s authors concede, the clerks present no document or other “smoking gun” proving that the conservative justices deliberately decided the case to suit their partisan preferences – a charge that members of the court on both sides have denied publicly.
<snip>

EDIT: suppose the details are in the Vanity Fair article.. :shrugs:

Scalia is depicted bullying Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg into watering down her dissenting opinion. O’Connor is described as emotionally fixated on stopping a recount and Kennedy as overly influenced by his right-wing clerks.

This group is more disfunctional than my family over thanksiving.

This was discussed here on Sept. 28th
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=76073

I believe there is a link to the Vanity Fair article there

and I had not caught the story originally.

But you should be ashamed of yourself for missing the story like, I suspect, quite a few of us did. :eyes:

The reason it is coming up is that the Washington Post published and "article about the article" today.

I'm not deleting or anything. It hasn't been posted in LBN.

while now. I bought a years subscription in the past week to support their efforts. I have no use for the glitzy ads and movie star stuff, but when you get articles like this, an article about Rummie's downfall, an article on separation of church and state, an article slamming Bush's false economic promises, it's worth supporting.

I agree about the ads/entertainment features, but there's a wealth of well-written information about political issues.

...they make all their dough off those insane ads, which are kind of funny if you look at them in detached fashion AND hold your nose. All of the models look bored, irritated, hungry or constipated, and the items that are featured are just so NOT REAL LIFE that they are funny (I'll just die if I do not have a purse the size of a matchbook...oh, I MUST have that UGLY watch!). If you examine the ads closely, you can see where they have lengthened legs to make people look taller and slimmer, they've airbrushed them into total vapidity, and they have cut chunks off of their bodies to get rid of unsightly fat. And the STINK! When a cat sneezes near the magazine, there's too much perfume. But I agree, there's always a good article or three in every issue, and it isn't pricy.

In one episode reported in the story, Scalia clerk Kevin Martin visited the chambers of Justice John Paul Stevens to discuss the case with Stevens' clerks. The conversation "turned nasty," Margolick reports, and Martin stormed out. Martin could not be reached for comment. On another occasion, Kennedy was said to have visited Justice Stephen Breyer's chambers, where he stated aloud that he hoped Breyer would join his opinion against continuing the recount. "We just kind of looked at him like he was crazy," a clerk is quoted as saying.

Source

And law clerks condone illegal activities?

read my post on the Texas redistricting scandal.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2508935&mesg_id=2508935

that nothing will come of this.

to JK