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

[Liability]

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



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.

Yes. You did.

His decision does not fall anywhere NEAR the concept of "Judicial Activism."

You don't seem to grasp what judicial activism is.

The principle he endorsed in the case you referenced was that APPELLATE JUDGES are distant. They are REMOVED from the actual business going on in the trial level court. APPELLATE judges (for example) do not get to view the facial expressions and body language of prospective jurors (and witnesses for that matter). So for an appellate judge to REFRAIN from cavalierly assuming that a trial level judge was "wrong" in accepting the "excuse" offered by a litigating attorney at such a trial is an example of the kind of deference appellate judges are supposed to remember they are obliged to show.

That particular case? Yeah. I think the resort to such "deference" went too far. But my disagreement (and yours) does NOT have a single thing to do with 'activism" by the higher court.

Your fail on this one remains intact.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

It'd be nice if Lakhota could start a thread defending Obama's $16,000,000,000,000 debt, record deficits, declining US $, housing markets down 40%, 40,000,000+ unemployed, $5 gas, inflation, etc. rather than some stupid piece about an election 12 years ago.

But, I guess this is the essence of deflection.

 

[rdean]

Republicans have to rewrite history. What else do they have? What are they going to run on? Their economic policies? Their response to disasters? Their educational policies? What they do for the middle class? Foreign policy?

See? Who wants to face "real" history when it's all about "fail"?

 

[Baruch Menachem]

I know this is not really loved here, but this is Wiki on various points of discussion....

a per curiam decision (or opinion) is a ruling issued by an appellate court of multiple judges in which the decision rendered is made by the court (or at least, a majority of the court) acting collectively and anonymously.[1] In contrast to regular opinions, a per curiam does not list the individual judge responsible for authoring the decision,[1] but minority dissenting and concurring decisions are signed.[2]

In a per curiam decision, the Court ruled that the Florida Supreme Court's method for recounting ballots was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also ruled that no alternative method could be established within the time limits set by the State of Florida. Three concurring justices also asserted that the Florida Supreme Court had violated Article II, § 1, cl. 2 of the Constitution, by misinterpreting Florida election law that had been enacted by the Florida Legislature.
The decision allowed Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris's previous certification of George W. Bush as the winner of Florida's 25 electoral votes to stand. Florida's votes gave Bush, the Republican candidate, 271 electoral votes, one more than the required 270 electoral votes to win the Electoral College and defeat Democratic candidate Al Gore, who received 266 electoral votes (a District of Columbia elector abstained).
Though extremely controversial, the decision has never been cited as precedent, and if the Court had ruled in favor of Gore, he still would have lost because the specific recount he requested would not have changed the outcome of the election.[1][2]

Bush argued that recounts in Florida violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because there was no statewide standard that each county board could use to determine whether a given ballot was a legal vote. Each county used its own standard to manually recount each vote, and Bush argued that some counties would have more lax standards than other counties. Therefore, two voters could have marked their ballot in an identical manner, but one voter's ballot in one county would be counted while the other voter's ballot in a different county would be rejected, due to the varying standards used for manual recounts.[24]
Gore argued that there was indeed a statewide standard, the "intent of the voter" standard, and that this standard was sufficient under the Equal Protection Clause.[25] Furthermore, Gore argued that the consequence of ruling the Florida recount unconstitutional simply because it treated different voters differently would effectively render every state election unconstitutional[26] and that each method has a different rate of error in counting votes. A voter in a "punch-card" county has a greater chance of having his vote undercounted than a voter in an "optical scanner" county. If Bush wins, Gore argued, every state would have to have one statewide method of recording votes to be constitutional.
[edit]

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.

So in the important decision, was the case brought by Gore valid, or was Bush's defense that the whole process cockeyed, the decision was not close, it was 7-2. Gore was fundamentally wrong

The 5-4 issue was the remedy. Do we do recounts? Well, constitutionally, December 12 was the last day recounts could be done. So therefore what Gore was trying to do was have the votes of the state of Florida made invalid, as there was no way to move the count forward legally.

The 5-4 was over the issue of having the whole state recanvased. Given that by the manhandling of the voter cards this was impossible.

And finally, there is this.....

Independent recounts after the Court's decision showed that Bush would have won the election had the recount Gore requested had been allowed to continue, but a statewide recount would have made Gore the winner

but the important part of it all was

The Court ruled 5–4 that no constitutionally valid recount could be completed by a December 12 "safe harbor" deadline. The Court asserted that "the Supreme Court of Florida has said that the legislature intended the State's electors to 'participat[e] fully in the federal electoral process,' as provided in 3 U.S.C. § 5." The Court therefore effectively ended the proposed recount, because "the Florida Legislature intended to obtain the safe-harbor benefits of 3 U. S. C. §5."

In other words, if Florida does not finish the recount by Dec 12, then Florida does not vote in the electoral college at all. The Gore people didn't have faith in winning Florida, they just wanted to keep all 27 votes out of the electoral college for a guaranteed win.

 

[mudwhistle]

Republicans have to rewrite history. What else do they have? What are they going to run on? Their economic policies? Their response to disasters? Their educational policies? What they do for the middle class? Foreign policy?

See? Who wants to face "real" history when it's all about "fail"?

Equal Protection Clause

The Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion, ruled that the Florida Supreme Court's decision, calling for a statewide recount, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This ruling was by a 7-2 vote, but (as discussed more fully in the next subsection below) two of the seven disagreed with the Court's remedy for the Equal Protection violation.[30] The Court held that the Equal Protection Clause guarantees to individuals that their ballots cannot be devalued by "later arbitrary and disparate treatment". Even if the recount was fair in theory, it was unfair in practice. The record, as weighed by the Florida Supreme Court, suggested that different standards were seemingly applied to the recount from ballot to ballot, precinct to precinct, and county to county, even when identical types of ballots and machines were used.[34]

According to the Court, the statewide standard (that a "legal vote" is "one in which there is a 'clear indication of the intent of the voter'"[35]) could not guarantee that each county would count the votes in a constitutionally permissible fashion. The Court stated that the per curiam opinion's applicability was "limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."

Bush v. Gore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Hate to bombard you with the facts.........well, actually I love to.

 

[Liability]

Republicans have to rewrite history. What else do they have? What are they going to run on? Their economic policies? Their response to disasters? Their educational policies? What they do for the middle class? Foreign policy?

See? Who wants to face "real" history when it's all about "fail"?

rderp lecturing anybody about re-writing anything when rderp can't even admit the historical record is quite funny.

Not at all persuasive, of course. But then again, this IS rderp we're talking about. So, nothing new.

 

[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?

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

There's no "whining" here. The Florida election were corrupted on many levels. From purging votes because the names were "similar" to convicted felons to the archaic "chad" system they used. Add in the fact that the people doing the certifying were either family members of Bush..or heading up his election campaign.

It was a travesty of trusted elections..the correct remedy would have been to have a special run off.

 

[Erand7899]

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

The Bush vs Gore decision was indeed a 7 -2 decision by the Supreme Court. Seven of the justices determined that the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court was unconstitutional. The 5 - 4 decision determined that the time was up, and the Florida court did not have time to fix their recount. If you doubt Scalia was telling the truth, just go to the decision and read it yourself.

 

[paperview]

Pick up a book, will yaz.

"On December 12, 2000, a controversial decision by the Supreme Court of the United States effectively ended the disputed presidential contest between George W. Bush and Albert Gore Jr. with a 5-4 ruling that revealed the court to be as bitterly divided as the electorate."

Bush v. Gore - Brookings Institution

Not that E.J. Dionne and William Kristol would know anything about it...They just wrote a book on it.

Or, you know...the actual decision itself.

"Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a remedy. See post, at 6 (Souter, J., dissenting); post, at 2, 15 (Breyer, J., dissenting). The only disagreement is as to the remedy."

BUSH v. GORE <---The actual decision.

The 5-4 was the remedy vote. It's what stopped the recounts.

 

[mudwhistle]

Pick up a book, will yaz.

"On December 12, 2000, a controversial decision by the Supreme Court of the United States effectively ended the disputed presidential contest between George W. Bush and Albert Gore Jr. with a 5-4 ruling that revealed the court to be as bitterly divided as the electorate."

Bush v. Gore - Brookings Institution

Not that E.J. Dionne and William Kristol would know anything about it...They just wrote a book on it.

Or, you know...the actual decision itself.

"Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a remedy. See post, at 6 (Souter, J., dissenting); post, at 2, 15 (Breyer, J., dissenting). The only disagreement is as to the remedy."

BUSH v. GORE <---The actual decision.

The 5-4 was the remedy vote. It's what stopped the recounts.

The court voted 7-2 on the issue.

The remedy vote was 5-4.

Yet another lie from the media.

 

[paperview]

BUSH v. GORE <---The actual decision.

 

[Conservative]

Bush v. Gore

Bush v. Gore

George W. Bush, et al. v. Albert Gore, Jr., et al. (531 U.S. 98, 121 S. Ct. 525), commonly known as Bush v. Gore, was a controversial U.S. Supreme Court case heard on December 11, 2000. The case decided the outcome of the 2000 presidential election between Texas Governor George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore.

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.

Two decisions folks.
A... the recount was flawed (7-2)
B... no time to set new standards for recount (5-4)

Scalia was correct in saying the decision that the recount was flawed was 'not even close'.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Clarence Thomas casts lone vote against Voting Rights Act - The Daily Voice - Black America's Daily News Source
Another one. How many do you want? Or until you crap out of this discussion, which is coming soon.
How many opinions has he written? Enough to fill a book:
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Supreme-Opinions-Clarence-Thomas-1991-2006/dp/0786430036]Amazon.com: Supreme Court Opinions of Clarence Thomas 1991-2006: A Conservative&#39;s Perspective (9780786430031): Henry Mark Holzer: Books[/ame]

n his fifteen years as an associate justice of the Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas has written nearly 350 opinions.

It's a shame that idiot leftists like you cannot conceive that a black conservative can be smart and thoughtful. Liberals are the true racists in our society.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Equal Proteection issue was decided 7-2.

That's what brought the election to a close, as once the laws that allowed for the hand recounts in FL were judged unconstutionmal. it was then constitutionally impoosible to continue with hand recounts. as there was no longer any law to allow such a thing.

Scalia is right, no matter how much you might disagree.

 

[The Rabbi]

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

There was never a recount done that had Gore as the winner. Long after it was decided some journalists went back and "recounted" with every disputed ballot going to Gore and he managed to squeak it out that way.

 

[Conservative]

BUSH v. GORE <---The actual decision.

from your link...

Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a remedy.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The 5-4 was the remedy vote. It's what stopped the recounts.

The fact that that there was no longer any law that allowed for manual recounts is what stopped the recounts.

 

[mudwhistle]

BUSH v. GORE <---The actual decision.

Not that this pic proves anything........but.....

.........we all know now after journalists did a recount on their own.......Bush still would have won......but that's all intentionally forgotten.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It was a travesty of trusted elections..the correct remedy would have been to have a special run off.

What part of the FL election code allowed for such a thing?

 

[Sallow]

It was a travesty of trusted elections..the correct remedy would have been to have a special run off.

What part of the FL election code allowed for such a thing?

It was a federal election. If the screw up was at a state level..the federal government should have intervened.