Scalia Rewrites History, Claims 5-4 Bush v. Gore Decision ‘Wasn’t Even Close’

[Lakhota]

By Ian Millhiser

During a speech at Wesleyan University last night, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia offered a strange revision of the time he joined with four of his conservative colleagues to make George W. Bush president:

At the end of the speech, Scalia took questions from the audience. One person asked about the Bush-Gore case, where the Supreme Court had to determine the winner of the election.

“Get over it,” Scalia said of the controversy surrounding it, to laughter from the audience.“

Scalia reminded the audience it was Gore who took the election to court, and the election was going to be decided in a court anyway—either the Florida Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court.

It was a long time ago, people forget…It was a 7-2 decision. It wasn’t even close,” he said.​

Bush v. Gore was not a 7-2 decision — and indeed, Scalia could tell this is true by counting all four of the dissenting opinions in that case. Although it is true that the four dissenters divided on how the Florida recount should proceed — two believed there should be a statewide recount of all Florida voters while two others believed a narrower recount would be acceptable — not one of the Court’s four moderates agreed with Scalia that the winner of the 2000 presidential election should effectively be chosen by five most conservative members of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Scalia Rewrites History, Claims 5-4 Bush v. Gore Decision 'Wasn't Even Close'

Scalia Lies About Bush V. Gore – Tells Crowd To ‘Get Over It’ | Addicting Info

Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia speaks at Wesleyan - The Middletown Press : Serving Middletown, CT

Gore Won Florida

 

[Godboy]

That sucks. I mean first Bush gets illegally elected, then Obama gets illegally elected with a fake birth certificate. At least you and i know the REAL truth.

 

[Political Junky]

Lots of rewriting going on at the GOP.

 

[Godboy]

Lots of rewriting going on at the GOP.

Its easy for us to walk over your party. We are just THAT good.

 

[The Rabbi]

Why is this coming up now? Is Obama planning to steal Florida, which is the only way he'll win it?

 

[Old Rocks]

Hey Rabid, not going to steal just Florida.

 

[The Rabbi]

Hey Rabid, not going to steal just Florida.

Yeah. There's IL and Ohio too. Remember how Daley stole the 1960 election for Kennedy? Now it's Rahmbo.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The decision that Bush was right WAS 7 - 2. The only revision is claiming otherwise, the only 5- 4 was on how to handle the recount after the decision was made it was currently being handled wrongly.

Geeze do you guys lie much or what?

 

[paperview]

Ahem:

BUSH v. GORE

See those 4 dissent blocks up there?

Here, Bush v Gore for Dummies:

"In a 7-2 opinion, the court ordered that a ballot recount then being conducted in certain counties in Florida was to be stopped due to lacking a consistent standard. The court further declared, in a 5-4 vote, that there was insufficient time to establish standards for a new recount that would meet Florida's deadline for certifying electors. The ruling in effect awarded Bush the presidency."

Bush v. Gore

 

[Douger]

The entire history of the US of Empire is based on lies. Why screw up "success" ?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Bush had more votes than Gore on every recount.

Dems the facts

And it was 7-2.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Ahem:

BUSH v. GORE

See those 4 dissent blocks up there?

Here, Bush v Gore for Dummies:

"In a 7-2 opinion, the court ordered that a ballot recount then being conducted in certain counties in Florida was to be stopped due to lacking a consistent standard. The court further declared, in a 5-4 vote, that there was insufficient time to establish standards for a new recount that would meet Florida's deadline for certifying electors. The ruling in effect awarded Bush the presidency."

Bush v. Gore

Do you read what you post?

I highlight the "7-2" part so you will see it was not a 5-4 decision

 

[paperview]

http://www.4lawschool.com/conlaw/bg.shtml

Do you read what you post?

I highlight the "7-2" part so you will see it was not a 5-4 decision

I know actually clicking a link to the actual case is a bit much for you, Frankie, so I've provided the easy part for you here, with a big red arrow to show you how the pertinent part was decided. I even circled the dissents. Now, can you count? That's the question.

 

[PredFan]

Another attempt by lefties to take the focus off obama and his failed presidency.

 

[The Rabbi]

Exactly what it is.
Sets the stage for Obama to steal the election and then claim "BOOOSHHH" did it too.

 

[Seawytch]

By Ian Millhiser

During a speech at Wesleyan University last night, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia offered a strange revision of the time he joined with four of his conservative colleagues to make George W. Bush president:

At the end of the speech, Scalia took questions from the audience. One person asked about the Bush-Gore case, where the Supreme Court had to determine the winner of the election.

“Get over it,” Scalia said of the controversy surrounding it, to laughter from the audience.“

Scalia reminded the audience it was Gore who took the election to court, and the election was going to be decided in a court anyway—either the Florida Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court.

It was a long time ago, people forget…It was a 7-2 decision. It wasn’t even close,” he said.​

Bush v. Gore was not a 7-2 decision — and indeed, Scalia could tell this is true by counting all four of the dissenting opinions in that case. Although it is true that the four dissenters divided on how the Florida recount should proceed — two believed there should be a statewide recount of all Florida voters while two others believed a narrower recount would be acceptable — not one of the Court’s four moderates agreed with Scalia that the winner of the 2000 presidential election should effectively be chosen by five most conservative members of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Scalia Rewrites History, Claims 5-4 Bush v. Gore Decision 'Wasn't Even Close'

Scalia Lies About Bush V. Gore – Tells Crowd To ‘Get Over It’ | Addicting Info

Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia speaks at Wesleyan - The Middletown Press : Serving Middletown, CT

Yeah, but what was Clarence Thomas's response? Oh wait, I know...I bet it was "What Scalia said". That seems to be the only response Thomas is capable of...

 

[The Rabbi]

By Ian Millhiser

During a speech at Wesleyan University last night, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia offered a strange revision of the time he joined with four of his conservative colleagues to make George W. Bush president:

At the end of the speech, Scalia took questions from the audience. One person asked about the Bush-Gore case, where the Supreme Court had to determine the winner of the election.

“Get over it,” Scalia said of the controversy surrounding it, to laughter from the audience.“

Scalia reminded the audience it was Gore who took the election to court, and the election was going to be decided in a court anyway—either the Florida Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court.

It was a long time ago, people forget…It was a 7-2 decision. It wasn’t even close,” he said.​

Bush v. Gore was not a 7-2 decision — and indeed, Scalia could tell this is true by counting all four of the dissenting opinions in that case. Although it is true that the four dissenters divided on how the Florida recount should proceed — two believed there should be a statewide recount of all Florida voters while two others believed a narrower recount would be acceptable — not one of the Court’s four moderates agreed with Scalia that the winner of the 2000 presidential election should effectively be chosen by five most conservative members of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Scalia Rewrites History, Claims 5-4 Bush v. Gore Decision 'Wasn't Even Close'

Scalia Lies About Bush V. Gore – Tells Crowd To ‘Get Over It’ | Addicting Info

Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia speaks at Wesleyan - The Middletown Press : Serving Middletown, CT

Yeah, but what was Clarence Thomas's response? Oh wait, I know...I bet it was "What Scalia said". That seems to be the only response Thomas is capable of...

You say this because you think blacks are incapable?
PRODOS.COM >> The dissenting opinion of Justice Clarence Thomas: A Journey into American Ideals

 

[Sallow]

By Ian Millhiser

During a speech at Wesleyan University last night, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia offered a strange revision of the time he joined with four of his conservative colleagues to make George W. Bush president:

At the end of the speech, Scalia took questions from the audience. One person asked about the Bush-Gore case, where the Supreme Court had to determine the winner of the election.

“Get over it,” Scalia said of the controversy surrounding it, to laughter from the audience.“

Scalia reminded the audience it was Gore who took the election to court, and the election was going to be decided in a court anyway—either the Florida Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court.

It was a long time ago, people forget…It was a 7-2 decision. It wasn’t even close,” he said.​

Bush v. Gore was not a 7-2 decision — and indeed, Scalia could tell this is true by counting all four of the dissenting opinions in that case. Although it is true that the four dissenters divided on how the Florida recount should proceed — two believed there should be a statewide recount of all Florida voters while two others believed a narrower recount would be acceptable — not one of the Court’s four moderates agreed with Scalia that the winner of the 2000 presidential election should effectively be chosen by five most conservative members of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Scalia Rewrites History, Claims 5-4 Bush v. Gore Decision 'Wasn't Even Close'

Scalia Lies About Bush V. Gore – Tells Crowd To ‘Get Over It’ | Addicting Info

Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia speaks at Wesleyan - The Middletown Press : Serving Middletown, CT

Scailia has said alot of odd things about this case. Like it was an "emergency" decision. And that it should not set a precedent. But he's been saying "Get over it" almost the day after the case was done. Probably because..in reality..it was such a bad decision.

 

[Douger]

Ahem:

BUSH v. GORE

See those 4 dissent blocks up there?

Here, Bush v Gore for Dummies:

"In a 7-2 opinion, the court ordered that a ballot recount then being conducted in certain counties in Florida was to be stopped due to lacking a consistent standard. The court further declared, in a 5-4 vote, that there was insufficient time to establish standards for a new recount that would meet Florida's deadline for certifying electors. The ruling in effect awarded Bush the presidency."

Bush v. Gore

Do you read what you post?

I highlight the "7-2" part so you will see it was not a 5-4 decision

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqDCsKdYs6Q]Divide by Zero: You're Doing It Wrong - or - Why You Suck at Math - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Sallow]

Scalia Rewrites History, Claims 5-4 Bush v. Gore Decision 'Wasn't Even Close'

Scalia Lies About Bush V. Gore – Tells Crowd To ‘Get Over It’ | Addicting Info

Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia speaks at Wesleyan - The Middletown Press : Serving Middletown, CT

Yeah, but what was Clarence Thomas's response? Oh wait, I know...I bet it was "What Scalia said". That seems to be the only response Thomas is capable of...

You say this because you think blacks are incapable?
PRODOS.COM >> The dissenting opinion of Justice Clarence Thomas: A Journey into American Ideals

Justice Thomas' wife was working for the Heritage foundation, a group with a financial interest in the outcome of the case.

That alone should have compelled him to recuse.

Of course..he's been hiding that fact for quite some time.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is out of order for hiding payout to wife: House Democrats - New York Daily News