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

[The Rabbi]

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.

They did, dumbshit. What do you think the Supreme Court was doing there?
Thanks for answering all the libs' objections that the Supremes shouldn't have gotten involved.

 

[Sallow]

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.

They did, dumbshit. What do you think the Supreme Court was doing there?
Thanks for answering all the libs' objections that the Supremes shouldn't have gotten involved.

They only got "involved" after the Bush team made all sorts of appeals that they do so. The involvement should have been at the congressional level. The vote in Florida should have been declared null. The whole case stinks of nepotism and dynastic rule.

Dumbshit.

 

[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?

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

All elections are state elections. There is no mechanism that allows the federal government to do this.

So, I ask again:
What part of the FL election code allowed for such a thing?

 

[JoeB131]

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

He doesn't have to steal it.


The GOP is running Romney. He'll lose states the GOP hasn't lost in years.

 

[Liability]

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

He doesn't have to steal it.


The GOP is running Romney. He'll lose states the GOP hasn't lost in years.

It is far from certain yet tht GOP will run Romney. They might. It might even be fair to say that it's leaning that way.

But it's far from a lock.

And President Obama's re-election prospects are dim. Getting dimmer, too.

$5.00/gal gas? And he has (and his Administration has) endorsed higher priced gas as a good thing in order to wean the American people off of their dependency on foreign oil.

Yeah. Like we have so much in the way of viable alternatives.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

This is the problem with getting your facts from politicians and the news, you miss out on a lot of the details. Wikipedia sucks, but they got the facts right here. Turns out that the people who are rewriting history are the ones you are listening to, but they forgot to rewrite Wiki.

In brief, the breakdown of the decisions was:

• 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.

Bush v. Gore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

The problem with which is that the FLSC doesnt set election standards, the FL legilsture does, as the FL legislature hasp plenary authority in this regard. The legislation to that effect was tossed out 7-2, and so there not only was no legal standard for evaluating the ballots, but there could be no legal standard for evaluating the ballots.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

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.

How? What law, what constitutional provision gives them that authority?

 

[snakedoc]

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.

I will explain this one more time you need 270 electoral votes to win a Presidential election if Gore had won his home state and taken those 11 electoral votes he would have won there would have been no recounts court challenges or Supreme Court rulings over Florida the only thing Florida would have decided at that point would have been how big Gore's margin of victory was it really is just this simple.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

How? What law, what constitutional provision gives them that authority?

This is an election where a Democrat lost!
Silly little things like the legitimate exercise of power do not matter!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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

They did, dumbshit. What do you think the Supreme Court was doing there?
Thanks for answering all the libs' objections that the Supremes shouldn't have gotten involved.

They only got "involved" after the Bush team made all sorts of appeals that they do so. The involvement should have been at the congressional level. The vote in Florida should have been declared null. The whole case stinks of nepotism and dynastic rule.

Dumbshit.

That was Gore's intent all along, to nullify an entire States votes so he could illegally win the Presidency. There was absolutely no reason to do so. Bush won EVERY recount ever conducted. That you support this is proof of just how partisan you are. The decision that Bush was right on the illegality of the recount is that that decision was 7-2. 2 of the liberals actually acknowledged that Bush had it right.

They then decided that somehow a recount could occur in less then 2 days. That was the deadline for federal recognition of the State vote for the Electoral College, missing that date would have nullified Florida's vote.

 

[M14 Shooter]

They did, dumbshit. What do you think the Supreme Court was doing there?
Thanks for answering all the libs' objections that the Supremes shouldn't have gotten involved.

They only got "involved" after the Bush team made all sorts of appeals that they do so. The involvement should have been at the congressional level. The vote in Florida should have been declared null. The whole case stinks of nepotism and dynastic rule.

Dumbshit.

That was Gore's intent all along, to nullify an entire States votes so he could illegally win the Presidency. There was absolutely no reason to do so. Bush won EVERY recount ever conducted.

Most importantly, Bush won all of the counts that were conducted under the standards of the law. No other standard need apply; no other standard has any meaning.

 

[9thIDdoc]

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 lost the election because he didn't get enough votes to win. That was true then and remains trure now. The only diference is that now an even larger majority of Americans know what a serious loser he truly is.

 

[bripat9643]

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 didn't quote anything Thomas said. You quoted what some left-wing hack journalist said about him. Yeah, that's a source we can trust!

 

[bripat9643]

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?

We've heard this bullshit 10 million times already.

There's nothing new. It's still just as wrong now as when all you libturds whined about it in 2000.

 

[Lakhota]

Gore Won Florida

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Gore Won Florida

LOL, ya I can link to partisan sites to prove all kinda things about Kerry, Gore and Obama. Doesn't make them true.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Gore Won Florida

Bush won all of the counts that were conducted under the standards of the law.
No other standard need apply, and no other standard has any meaning.

 

[Truthmatters]

keeping legal American voters from voting means nothing to you?

 

[Conservative]

keeping legal American voters from voting means nothing to you?

proving they are legal voters means nothing to you?