Here's my salute to you Rehnquist......

[jmcon007]

I wish I could have the court decision below framed and have it propped up at the end of your death bed for you to read over and over until you croak.
When you die many of us will gag on the Fox regurgitation of your "jurisprudence". But, all I'm going to think about are the tens of thousands of people who would be yet alive today if you hadn't stolen the election from Gore and given it to Bush.

My last words to you are:

LINGER LONGER ASSHOLE!


Supreme Court Decision
The 2000 election will go down in history, not only for the gridlock in Florida, but also for the way in which it split the Supreme Court, which had never before stepped in to rule on a federal election. The court divided 5–4 on partisan lines in its decision to reverse the Florida Supreme Court, which had ordered manual recounts in certain counties, saying the recount was not treating all ballots equally, and was thus a violation of the Constitution's equal protection and due process guarantees. The Supreme Court essentially ruled that the Supreme Court of Florida would need to set up new voting standards and carry them out in a recount, but also mandated that this process and the recount take place by midnight, Dec. 12, 2000, the official deadline for certifying electoral college votes. Since the Court made its ruling just hours before the deadline, it in effect ensured that it was too late for a recount. In the end, tens of thousands of undervotes—votes that were never tallied by voting machines for a number of reasons—remained uncounted, casting doubt on who actually won the election. As the Dec. 16th edition of The Economist put it, “by remanding the decision to the Florida court with instructions to do something it knew to be impossible, the court ended the election but laid itself open to charges of intellectual dishonesty.” In a scathing dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said, “Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.”

[bahrbearian]

1. Here's Mine....

[Wapsie B]

2. Two dates in history we will never forget:

9/11/01 & 12/12/00

[noamnety]

3. This is distasteful

He's a man who is seriously ill. Rejoice that he's leaving the court. But don't rejoice in his death. It's hateful and serves no purpose.

peace

[napi21]

5. Thanks for trying to put a little sense here tonight.

I don't like him either, but it's wrong to try to destroy him when he's so sick.

Save your anger for his replacement who could, and probably will be worse!

[whistle]

4. First O'Connor, soon Rehnquist, so who will Bush select to fill...

...their places? My prediction will be three very hardliner conservatives. Justice Scalia will become the chief justice taking Rehnquist's position. Bush will appoint his pal Gonzalez as a replacement for O'Connor and, are you ready for this, Reagan's first choice to fill a vacancy back in 1987, Robert H. Bork, who was rejected by a democratically controlled Senate at the time 58-42. His name will again surface and be proposed because he represents exactly what George Bush and his backers want on the bench to create the firestorm of reactionary legislation and court rulings for the next three years.

Here is a little background for those of you who may have been a little young when the Bork nomination was brought before congress.

http://www.cqpress.com/incontext/SupremeCourt/bork_confirmation.htm

[TreasonousBastard]

6. Locking--

We doubt that any of us has any particular love for the Chief Justice, but we do not wish pain and suffering on anyone here.