Just a quick acknowledgment to the SCOTUS for foisting Bush on us and chaos throughout the world.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

I blame them, I really do. Their one-time-only anointment coupon to Bush was the inception of all the madness.

Who knows if 9/11 would have been avoided if the July 10th meeting had been given to people who cared and paid attention and had their minds on things besides brush cutting vacations and plotting to obtain Iraq's oil at the first opportune moment?

How many people in New Orleans and the gulf coast would be alive today if a caring and competent President had deployed the country's resources to save human life at the earliest possible moments?

How many Iraqis would still be alive?

Do you think Al Gore would have been an advocate of torture and the shredding of American rights and liberties?

Would we have a deficit like we do today?

Would the dollar be dropping like a stone?



The state of the world today is their lasting legacy.

[Kellyiswise]

1. Hear, hear! All rise. (and moon)

[JPZenger]

2. If all the votes had been counted in Florida, Gore Would Have Won

It didn't receive much attention at the time, but after the US Supreme Court stopped the recount in Florida, a group of news organizations did their own recount. They found that by any measure, if all of the votes had been counted in Florida, Gore would have clearly won.

It is true that if only the 3 or 4 disputed counties would have been counted, that Gore would have lost. Gore's people made a mistake in not seeking a statewide recount. If the State Supreme Court had taken the case immediately and set standards for the recount, then things might have been very different.

In addition, remember that thousands of elderly largely-Jewish voters accidentally voted for Pat Buchanan because of the confusing layout of the ballot in one county. Also, thousands of people, primarily African-American, were denied their right to vote because they were mistakenly categorized as felons. Florida officials knew the list of felons was inaccurate, but they did nothing about it.

[still_one]

5. Gore's advisors should have immediately requested a recount of the whole state

Not just a few hand picked counties

If they had done that, there would be NOTHING the supreme court could have done

[Kadie]

29. I never understood why they didn't do that.

Did they ever give a reason for the hand picked counties re-count?

[still_one]

39. not that I know, but then again I like to look forward

we have won BOTH houses of Congress, it looks excellent for us to win the Senate in 2008 because quite a few republicans will be up for reelection

Pelosi is going to surprise a lot of people. She is no pushover. What is funny is how the criticism against the Democrats is already being propagated by the MSM, and they haven't even taken over

What the country has gone through the last six years has taught some very important lessons among which are voting will NEVER be taken for granted again

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

6. a different slant published by Slate

http://www.slate.com/?id=2058603

Everything the New York Times Thinks About the Florida Recount Is Wrong!
It turns out the U.S. Supreme Court really did cast the deciding vote ...
By Mickey Kaus
Posted Tuesday, Nov. 13, 2001, at 4:18 AM ET

skip

But the Sentinel had the wit to call up Leon County Circuit Court Judge Terry Lewis, who was actually supervising the real-life recount on Saturday, Dec. 9, 2000, when the U.S. Supreme Court stopped it. Lewis told the Sentinel that "he would not have ignored the overvote ballots."

Though he stopped short of saying he definitely would have expanded the recount to include overvotes, Lewis emphasized 'I'd be open to that.'

"If that had happened," the Sentinel notes, "it would have amounted to a statewide hand recount. And it could have given the election to Gore," since salvaging the valid overvotes turns out to have been "Gore's only path to victory." Lewis had apparently planned a hearing for later that Saturday, at which the overvote issue was going to be discussed.

Why is this significant? Because the comforting, widely publicized, Bush-ratifying spin given to the recent media recount by the New York Times(and the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post) has been that—as the Times' lede confidently put it—"George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward." (The Times' front-page headline was "Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote.")

[elehhhhna]

7. Those recount numbers started to hit the media just before 9/11

How convenient. 9/11 really DID change everything.

[petgoat]

26. The story was postponed because of 9/11. It didn't get widely

publicized until November, and by then Bush was the WarPrez with 90% approvals,
anthrax was mailing around, and nobody cared about hanging chads any more.

All the papers put a heavy spin on the story--I remember being fooled when I
rad it in the NYT at the time. They all said "If the limited recounts Gore
asked for were done, Bush still would won." They put the fact that Gore got
more votes way down in the bottom and made it seem irrelevant.

(WaPo put it in the second paragraph--god bless Dan Keating!--but still had
a spun headline.)

Another story pre-empted by 9/11 was Rummy's admission that the Pentagon could
not account for $2.3 TTTTTTTrillion dollars in expenditures.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml

[peace13]

3. Very well put! n/t

[still_one]

4. There are a lot of people to blame

nader, the media, the dismal voting turnout in 2000, scotus, espcially justice O'conner, the ineptness of the Democrats to fight the voting irregularities that occurred in Florida. All they had to do was request a RECOUNT OF THE ENTIRE STATE, which was their right under Florida law, instead of wasting time by recounting a few counties, and there would NOT have been a thing the supreme court could have done

Sometimes people have to lose something before they realize what they had. Unfortunately, this is as close as it comes, and there is no second chance in the next two years.

Be prepared for the media to attack everything Pelosi does. Only difference this time is that the people are NOT as stupid as they were in 2000

[unpossibles]

9. While I agree it would have changed the outcome, I do NOT blame

Nader in the least.

Gore won (barely) without the Nader votes, and frankly if people want to vote for whomever they feel represents them, let them as long as it is an well-informed decision. Granted, I bet a lot of nader voters are now wishing they had not voted for him, if only to not make it so close and to not have this jackass hack in the White House, but that is neither here nor there. I blame misinformed Bush voters and the SCOTUS and media far more.

[The Count]

11. Nader helped muddy the waters. Knowingly. In 2004 as well.

They were including him in all polls in 2004, in spite of the fact that he was clearly irrelevant, wasn't even a candidate in all states and there were more 3rd candidates taking W's base in better standing. Pollsters were using him to muddy waters then too, and he was all but too happy to oblige.
Ah, and one more thing: there was nothing narrow about Gore's victory. 6 million votes were spoiled nation wide. And we don't have the number of the people stopped from voting.

[Occulus]

30. .

:popcorn:

[still_one]

40. when nader said there was no difference between Gore and bush that was a lie

[The Count]

10. No dear, recount of entire state was NOT an OPTION before certification

I had watched the debacle unfold. Gore exercised his only option at the time - even publicly asked bush to wave his objection and have a state wide at that point (the only possible way for that to occur).* refused, obviously.
I would add though Janet Reno's failure to investigate the massive law breaking in Florida at the time (Georgia, Tennesee too)

[bvar22]

28. I remember differently.

IIRC, the Florida Supreme Court was on the verge of ordering a statewide recount when Renquist, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and O'Conner stepped into STATE business and called off any recount.

This quote from JP Stevens dissent seems to support my memory.



"Finally, neither in this case, nor in its earlier opinion in Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, 2000 WL 1725434 (Fla., Nov. 21, 2000), did the Florida Supreme Court make any substantive change in Florida electoral law.6 Its decisions were rooted in long-established precedent and were consistent with the relevant statutory provisions, taken as a whole. It did what courts do7–it decided the case before it in light of the legislature’s intent to leave no legally cast vote uncounted. In so doing, it relied on the sufficiency of the general “intent of the voter” standard articulated by the state legislature, coupled with a procedure for ultimate review by an impartial judge, to resolve the concern about disparate evaluations of contested ballots." JP Stevens, Bush v Gore


http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZD.html

[The Count]

32. Your memory is also correct - it happened AFTER CERTIFICATION

So, th first time around, state wide recount wasn't allowed by law (pre-certification), the second time around - post certification - was intrerrupted by Scalia at bush's request.
No fault of Gore here.

[The Count]

8. Adding Scalia's quote to this:

"My first response to that question always is, it's six years ago. Get over it!"
Scalia on Bush vs Gore

[JudyM]

33. Scalia is the lowest class of human, IMO.

His 'intellectual' rants disguised as objective opinions don't even pretend to be humble or balanced. It's as if he believes he is omniscient. He defers to the Bible with big showy flourishes but misses its main messages of compassion and fairness.

:puke:

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

12. This link is the BEST and the most succinct explanation of the decision I have ever read

and I just stumbled across it today.

http://hometown.aol.com/marklevineesq/myhomepage/election.html
THE "GORE EXCEPTION":
A Layman's Guide to the United States Supreme Court Decision in Bush v. Gore

written by Mark H. Levine

In a very readable Q&A format. This one really jumped out at me


Q: A single judge? I thought the standards were different. I thought that was the whole point of the Supreme Court opinion.


A: Judge Terry Lewis, who received the case upon remand from the Florida Supreme Court, had already ordered each of the counties to fax him their standards so he could be sure they were uniform. Republican activists repeatedly sent junk faxes to Lewis in order to prevent counties from submitting the standards to Lewis in a way that could justify the vote counting. That succeeded in stalling the process until Justice Scalia could stop the count.

More Republican dirty tricks like phone jamming in New Hampshire, etc. Why was this tolerated? The numbers the junk faxes were coming in from could be obtained, I would think.

[Canuckistanian]

24. It's a GREAT description

Of a Twilight Zone judgement. Bush v. Gore will live in the annals of bizarre court decisions.

[JudyM]

34. Good thought. I wonder what the statute of limitations is on a claim about that misconduct? n/t

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

35. "Republican Activists" in Florida at that time - the so-called "Brooks Brothers" Riot

If anyone has a picture of that I wish they would post it here. This is a group of Republican activists/operatives that were disrupting the recount. There is one picture of them flailing in a lobby somewhere and there are some very notable faces in that pic in light of all that has happened now.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

38. ok - here's a pic

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31074-2005Jan23.html

Miami 'Riot' Squad: Where Are They Now?

By Al Kamen
Monday, January 24, 2005; Page A13

As we begin the second Bush administration, let's take a moment to reflect upon one of the most historic episodes of the 2000 battle for the White House -- the now-legendary "Brooks Brothers Riot" at the Miami-Dade County polling headquarters.

This was when dozens of "local protesters," actually mostly Republican House aides from Washington, chanted "Stop the fraud!" and "Let us in!" when the local election board tried to move the re-counting from an open conference room to a smaller space.

[H2O Man]

41. I think that Vince Bugliosi's

"The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President" is the best book about this crime. It has two wonderful forewords, by Molly Ivins and Gerry Spence.

[Jacobin]

13. I blame them too

The idiots should have known better than to try to appoint a president.

They will go down in history as tyrants and enablers of buffoons

[Hepburn]

14. One pic = 10,000 words, IMO

[Horse with no Name]

15. I wonder if this is grounds for impeaching the justices that voted to do that?

And I am serious.
They abused their position to further their political party.

[Hepburn]

16. Unfortunately, no, (IMO)

Grounds in the US Const: High crimes and misdemeanors. Being stupid Repuke party supporting neocons does not qualify. Not saying it shouldn't, tho.

[Horse with no Name]

18. It isn't a "High Crime" to circumvent the will of the people

and appoint a President of their own liking?
I think the case could be made.

[Hepburn]

20. I wish it could....

....but I highly doubt it. It is not a crime to be politically biased and a neocon. Yes, they were biased and wrong. But that goes for a lot of judges all over the USA. Unfortunately, the USSC is the last court of appeal on this issue ~~ and because they were dead wrong, that is not a crime. There was no intent to commit a crime by interpreting the election laws to support a certain bias. Immoral as all hell? Yes...but no way to get them on a crime. I wish it were different.

Besides ~~ the electoral college gets around the idea of the "will of the people" just by the fact it exists.

JMHO

[tabasco]

17. Bush v. Gore will be the object of derision in law schoools forever.

Right up there with Dred Scott.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

19. "I desent."

One of the best slapdowns EVER by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

In the desenting opinion, Ms. Ginsberg signed not with the traditional "I respectfully desent", but with the more blunt "I desent."

I could have kissed her for that!

[bvar22]

21. John Paul Stevens dissent was particularly scathing.

"Finally, neither in this case, nor in its earlier opinion in Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, 2000 WL 1725434 (Fla., Nov. 21, 2000), did the Florida Supreme Court make any substantive change in Florida electoral law.6 Its decisions were rooted in long-established precedent and were consistent with the relevant statutory provisions, taken as a whole. It did what courts do7–it decided the case before it in light of the legislature’s intent to leave no legally cast vote uncounted. In so doing, it relied on the sufficiency of the general “intent of the voter” standard articulated by the state legislature, coupled with a procedure for ultimate review by an impartial judge, to resolve the concern about disparate evaluations of contested ballots."

<snip>

"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." --JPStevens, Bush v Gore

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZD.html


Read all of the dissenting opinions here!

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

I found DU shortly after the 5 hack SC judges gave the nation to the NeoCons.
This was the first graphic I posted on DU.

[Gregorian]

22. Wow. That renews my faith.

I didn't know that sentiment existed in the supreme court.

On that note, I'm going for a walk. It's 30 degrees, an old Beatle's song is playing. My cats are sitting here looking happy. Maybe for a moment we can all forget the madness and just be.

Thanks for posting that. It brings a little light in. I don't know why I never heard that statement. Huh. Stevens. Right on.



Edit- This justifies our rage. This judicial dissent is the basis for our anger. I missed this. I'm sure those who started these forums were well aware of Steven's statement. Sheesh, I can't even go on a walk without thinking about this stuff, and coming back. :)

[leftofthedial]

23. those who installed king george committed treason

and are accomplices in crimes against humanity

[rateyes]

25. Yes. The 5 voting in the majority, anyway! nt

[bvar22]

27. NEVER FORGET!!!!

*Renquist

*O'Conner

*Scalia

*Thomas

*Kennedy


More than anyone else, it is these 5 who Sold Out America.
They KNEW better. They KNEW what they were doing was an insult to the voters, and the Constitution, and they did it anyway.

This single decision will be their legacy. Their names shall be written in the History Books.

NEVER FORGET!!!

[tblue37]

31. The man who actually WAS elected president in 2000,

Al Gore, actually did organize rescue and resources for NOLA victims, even though he was a private citizen at the time.

Imagine what he would have done if he had access as president to the nation's disaster relief resources.

[tbyg52]

36. Especially blame Sandra Day O'Connor

She was quoted in Newsweek a few years ago as saying she had qualms about voting with the majority, but she decided to because she didn't like the thought of a Democrat making a lot of judicial appointments. I'm not kidding. You could look it up.

[ms liberty]

37. I recommend anyone interested in the Bush v. Gore decision...

read "Supreme Injustice" by Alan Dershowitz. While I've not always agreed with his opinions, I cannot fault his writing in that book. It explains the backstory of the decision in a really easy to read style, and I found it almost impossible to put down. He goes into just how they treasonous 5 went against their own judicial beliefs and prior rulings in order to put Incurious George in the WH.