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

[Seawytch]

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

I say this because Thomas is incapable. He has repeatedly shown that he is incapable of anything more than parroting Scalia.

 

[Sallow]

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

I say this because Thomas is incapable. He has repeatedly shown that he is incapable of anything more than parroting Scalia.

From what I understand..he's one of the most disinterested Judges in history. He rarely reads anything and goes along with the conservatives almost every time.

 

[Full-Auto]

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

We realize your pea sized brain can not grasp the different portions of the ruling.

Ah never mind there would be no point in explanation.

Did the guy screw up? Who cares democrats were caught cheating and the court had to stop them.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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're a perfect tool.

I offered the same challenge to the Progressive "lawyer" on here and she never took it:

Post the Thomas opinion you feel makes him look stupid

You'd have to learn how to read first so I don't expect a response

 

[Liability]

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.

pointing to the 5-4 PART of the overall decision doesn't detract from the inaccuracy of the OP's alarmism.

The relevant part was the 7 -2 vote.

And everybody sees as much.

Justice Scalia did not rewrite anything. He was correct.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

I say this because Thomas is incapable. He has repeatedly shown that he is incapable of anything more than parroting Scalia.

From what I understand..he's one of the most disinterested Judges in history. He rarely reads anything and goes along with the conservatives almost every time.

You don't know dick about Thomas, that's apparent

 

[Liability]

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

I say this because Thomas is incapable. He has repeatedly shown that he is incapable of anything more than parroting Scalia.

From what I understand..he's one of the most disinterested Judges in history. He rarely reads anything and goes along with the conservatives almost every time.

Source it.

It may be true that he doesn't see much value in the oral arguments.

But that's not even akin to not reading anything.

The converse is true.

He reads the briefs and the cited cases because that's what he considers important. Well, that and the Constitution itself.

 

[J.E.D]

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

Not to mention Scalia's and Thomas' participation in conservative fundraising events.

Scalia and Thomas dine with healthcare law challengers as court takes case - Los Angeles Times

Clarence Thomas speech draws new criticism - Kenneth P. Vogel - POLITICO.com

 

[Sallow]

I say this because Thomas is incapable. He has repeatedly shown that he is incapable of anything more than parroting Scalia.

From what I understand..he's one of the most disinterested Judges in history. He rarely reads anything and goes along with the conservatives almost every time.

You don't know dick about Thomas, that's apparent

Seems that Thomas likes to make fun of dick hair on coke cans.

That's apparent.

 

[Sallow]

I say this because Thomas is incapable. He has repeatedly shown that he is incapable of anything more than parroting Scalia.

From what I understand..he's one of the most disinterested Judges in history. He rarely reads anything and goes along with the conservatives almost every time.

Source it.

It may be true that he doesn't see much value in the oral arguments.

But that's not even akin to not reading anything.

The converse is true.

He reads the briefs and the cited cases because that's what he considers important. Well, that and the Constitution itself.

He might want to pick up a history book every once in a while.

Two members of the Court did not see things that way. They would have supported both the two-faced prosecutor and the quick-draw trial judge. One of these Justices was Clarence Thomas, just the second black person to sit on Court. Despite the obvious scheme devised by the prosecutor - and endorsed by the trial judge - Justice Thomas declared that it was not the province of the Supreme Court to "second-guess" such judges when they make decisions about jury selection in capital cases.
The Book Of Clarence Thomas - CBS News

Even his own decision in the Bush v. Gore case "second guesses" judges.

 

[The Rabbi]

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

I say this because Thomas is incapable. He has repeatedly shown that he is incapable of anything more than parroting Scalia.

I just proved you wrong.
You are incapable of anything other than parroting yourself. Between parroting Scalia and parroting Seabytch, I'd take Scalia any day.

 

[Seawytch]

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

I say this because Thomas is incapable. He has repeatedly shown that he is incapable of anything more than parroting Scalia.

I just proved you wrong.
You are incapable of anything other than parroting yourself. Between parroting Scalia and parroting Seabytch, I'd take Scalia any day.

How long has he been on the bench and that was all you could come up with?

Thanks for bringing the comedy Rabbi!

 

[snakedoc]

First the 2000 election is over ten years old now so yes get over it please second despite the popular myth Florida did not cost gore the election Gore losing his home State of Tennessee is what cost him.The final electoral total was Bush 271 Gore 266 take Tennessee's 11 electoral votes out of bush's column and he is at 260 put them in Gore's and he is at 277 and wins and Florida does not even matter.Gore lost because the people of his home State the one's he knew him best went against him.

 

[Sallow]

First the 2000 election is over ten years old now so yes get over it please second despite the popular myth Florida did not cost gore the election Gore losing his home State of Tennessee is what cost him.The final electoral total was Bush 271 Gore 266 take Tennessee's 11 electoral votes out of bush's column and he is at 260 put them in Gore's and he is at 277 and wins and Florida does not even matter.Gore lost because the people of his home State the one's he knew him best went against him.

Bush lost by close to a million votes in the popular election. Florida was a state where his brother was Governor and the Secretary of State, charged with certifying the vote, was the head of Bush's campaign for election in Florida.

Nothing to see here, right?

 

[The Rabbi]

I say this because Thomas is incapable. He has repeatedly shown that he is incapable of anything more than parroting Scalia.

I just proved you wrong.
You are incapable of anything other than parroting yourself. Between parroting Scalia and parroting Seabytch, I'd take Scalia any day.

How long has he been on the bench and that was all you could come up with?

Thanks for bringing the comedy Rabbi!

That was an obvious one.
And all I needed was one to prove you wrong.
Moving goalposts much?

 

[Liability]

From what I understand..he's one of the most disinterested Judges in history. He rarely reads anything and goes along with the conservatives almost every time.

Source it.

It may be true that he doesn't see much value in the oral arguments.

But that's not even akin to not reading anything.

The converse is true.

He reads the briefs and the cited cases because that's what he considers important. Well, that and the Constitution itself.

He might want to pick up a history book every once in a while.

Two members of the Court did not see things that way. They would have supported both the two-faced prosecutor and the quick-draw trial judge. One of these Justices was Clarence Thomas, just the second black person to sit on Court. Despite the obvious scheme devised by the prosecutor - and endorsed by the trial judge - Justice Thomas declared that it was not the province of the Supreme Court to "second-guess" such judges when they make decisions about jury selection in capital cases.
The Book Of Clarence Thomas - CBS News

Even his own decision in the Bush v. Gore case "second guesses" judges.

You are not making sense. When reviewing a lower court case for a Constitutional-level violation in the voir dire (jury selection) process, the reviewing judges or justices take many factors into account and weigh them. That you and I might agree with the majority in that particular case (and thus disagree with Justice Thomas) establishes exactly NOTHING about the matter under discussion. It doesn't address your out-of-the-blue commentary about reading a "history book" (which has nothing to do with the judicial review of the lower court's determination). And it doesn't inform anybody about the proposition that Justice Thomas doesn't care to read the briefs and papers. If anything, the fact that he was invoking a legal doctrine of deference toward the determinations of a lower court kind of establishes that he had read the material.

He came to a different conclusion. He might not have been "right" in our view on that call. But that is completely beside the point of the discussion about HOW he goes about his job.

Bottom line? You have failed to support your claim.

 

[Sallow]

Source it.

It may be true that he doesn't see much value in the oral arguments.

But that's not even akin to not reading anything.

The converse is true.

He reads the briefs and the cited cases because that's what he considers important. Well, that and the Constitution itself.

He might want to pick up a history book every once in a while.

Two members of the Court did not see things that way. They would have supported both the two-faced prosecutor and the quick-draw trial judge. One of these Justices was Clarence Thomas, just the second black person to sit on Court. Despite the obvious scheme devised by the prosecutor - and endorsed by the trial judge - Justice Thomas declared that it was not the province of the Supreme Court to "second-guess" such judges when they make decisions about jury selection in capital cases.
The Book Of Clarence Thomas - CBS News

Even his own decision in the Bush v. Gore case "second guesses" judges.

You are not making sense. When reviewing a lower court case for a Constitutional-level violation in the voir dire (jury selection) process, the reviewing judges or justices take many factors into account and weigh them. That you and I might agree with the majority in that particular case (and thus disagree with Justice Thomas) establishes exactly NOTHING about the matter under discussion. It doesn't address your out-of-the-blue commentary about reading a "history book" (which has nothing to do with the judicial review of the lower court's determination). And it doesn't inform anybody about the proposition that Justice Thomas doesn't care to read the briefs and papers. If anything, the fact that he was invoking a legal doctrine of deference toward the determinations of a lower court kind of establishes that he had read the material.

He came to a different conclusion. He might not have been "right" in our view on that call. But that is completely beside the point of the discussion about HOW he goes about his job.

Bottom line? You have failed to support your claim.

No I didn't. His decision here falls under the mantra of "Judicial Activism". It's more political then one of case law. But even under this scope other decisions he's made has expressed that he's not as pure with that ideology as he purports. Heller and Citizen's United being most germane to that argument.

 

[snakedoc]

First the 2000 election is over ten years old now so yes get over it please second despite the popular myth Florida did not cost gore the election Gore losing his home State of Tennessee is what cost him.The final electoral total was Bush 271 Gore 266 take Tennessee's 11 electoral votes out of bush's column and he is at 260 put them in Gore's and he is at 277 and wins and Florida does not even matter.Gore lost because the people of his home State the one's he knew him best went against him.

Bush lost by close to a million votes in the popular election. Florida was a state where his brother was Governor and the Secretary of State, charged with certifying the vote, was the head of Bush's campaign for election in Florida.

Nothing to see here, right?

Go do the math yourself Tennessee was called before Florida put those 11 electoral votes in Gores column he wins and Florida is nothing more than a footnote. You can whine about Florida till the end of day's but it will not change the fact losing his home State to Bush is what cost Gore the election

 

[mudwhistle]

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

Seven justices (the five Justice majority plus Breyer and Souter) agreed that there was an Equal Protection Clause violation in using different standards of counting in different counties.[30]
Five justices agreed that December 12 (the date of the decision) was the deadline Florida had established for recounts (Kennedy, O'Connor, Rehnquist,[31] Scalia and Thomas in support; Breyer,[32] Ginsburg, Souter[33] and Stevens opposed). Justices Breyer and Souter wanted to remand the case to the Florida Supreme Court to permit that court to establish uniform standards of what constituted a legal vote and then manually recount all ballots using those standards.
Three justices (Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas) argued that the Florida Supreme Court had acted contrary to the intent of the Florida legislature. However, four justices (Breyer, Souter, Ginsburg, and Stevens) specifically disputed this in their dissenting opinions, and the remaining two Justices (Kennedy and O'Connor) declined to join Rehnquist's concurrence on the matter.

Seven justices agreed that the recount was a violation of the equal protection clause by using different standards in different counties.

That is what the case was about.

5 justices agreed to halt the recount.

It was up to the Gore camp to press a total recount of the state.

 

[Seawytch]

I just proved you wrong.
You are incapable of anything other than parroting yourself. Between parroting Scalia and parroting Seabytch, I'd take Scalia any day.

How long has he been on the bench and that was all you could come up with?

Thanks for bringing the comedy Rabbi!

That was an obvious one.
And all I needed was one to prove you wrong.
Moving goalposts much?

Great work. I'll wait for more than one out of how many decisions in his years on the bench? How many opinions has he written? How many questions has he asked from the bench?

It really is a shame that these tools get a lifetime appointment. If anyone deserves to lose his job, it is Thomas. Let his lobbyist wife support him without his decisions that just happen to be favorable to her.