|
Edited on Sat Oct-09-04 10:14 AM by gottaB
Supreme Court Justices weigh in on second presidential debate between George Bush and John Kerry.
Saturday, October 9, 2004
The nine justices of the United States Supreme Court were invited to watch the presidential debate and share their opinions with the Per Curium Times. Justice Antonin Scalia, who has indicated he is strongly leaning towards Bush, was unable to attend due to a prior engagement in Kissimmee, Florida.
Both candidates scored points with the justices--and raised some eyebrows.
President Bush made his appeal directly. "I want them all voting for me," he said.
"I don't think so," said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Ginsberg, a Clinton appointee, voted for Gore in 2000. The seventy-one year old jurist leans heavily towards Kerry.
Justice Clarence Thomas, regarded by many legal scholars as a "strict constructionist," liked what Bush had to say. He was perterbed by Bush's garbling of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, but he agreed that the Constitution "doesn't speak to the equality of America." "No, it doesn't" agreed Thomas, who voted for Bush in 2000, and says he favors Bush now.
Bush's reference to the Dred Scott decision confused all of the justices. "He's making no sense," said Justice Sandra Day O'Conner, who chose Bush in 2000, but is undecided in this election. "He doesn't know the first thing about the 14th Amendment," she added.
"I want to hear all the debates before making up my mind," said Justice David Souter, a Reagan appointee who voted for Gore in 2000. Souter leans towards Kerry because of the candidate's position on fiscal discipline. "My exposure to equities isn't as great as it once was," Souter jokes, "otherwise I would definitely vote for Kerry. But seriously, I am worried about defecit spending and the burden this places on America's young people and future generations. It doesn't exactly cut into my quality of life, you know, but it just seems like a rotten thing to do. Kerry's policies auger well for the longterm prospects of the US economy."
"Bush* is a loser," chimed in Justice John Paul Stevens, a Ford appointee who voted for Gore in 2000. The eighty-four year old Stevens was blunt about his reasons for supporting Kerry. "I want to get out of here," Stevens said. "Do some travelling, enjoy life a little. When Kerry was addressing the woman in the audience, Nicky, it was like he was talking to me. That's the sort of thing that really bugs me about Bush*: the loss of respect abroad. What's so friggin hard about negotiating a global warming treaty, anyway?"
"Bush is kind of a toad," admitted Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is leaning towards Kerry but still has not made up his mind. Kennedy voted for Bush in 2000, be he has vacillated between Bush and Kerry. Kennedy was pleased with Kerry's reference to Justice Potter Stuart. "I'm not much for labels myself," said Kennedy.
Chief Justice Rehnquist supports Bush, although he felt that Kerry performed better during the debate. "Kerry was articulate, and seemed to have a grasp of the issues," said Rehnquist. "It almost makes one embarrassed to be a Republican."
Partisanship, however, was not the only reason Rehnquist cited for supporting the weaker of the two candidates. "Senator Kerry voted against my nomination," Rehnquist confided. "That's not something one easily forgets--even at my age."
Rehnquist recently turned eighty years old, becoming the oldest chief justice after Roger Taney, who retired at 87.
Justice Stephen Breyer, considered by some court watchers to be a swing voter, voted for Gore in 2000 and leans heavily towards Kerry. "These are very persuasive arguments," said Breyer, responding to Kerry's views on stem cell research.
Edited to add: This is a parody. The subtext is "let's beat Bush* soundly."
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
