Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Scalia: Gore to blame for 2000 decision

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
RamboLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 07:07 PM
Original message
Scalia: Gore to blame for 2000 decision
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has claimed, in a recent interview with the UK newspaper Telegraph, that then Vice President Al Gore was to blame for George W. Bush being declared the victor of the 2000 presidential election.

"Richard Nixon, when he lost to Kennedy thought that the election had been stolen in Chicago, which was very likely true with the system at the time," said Scalia. "But he did not even think about bringing a court challenge. That was his prerogative. So you know if you don't like it, don't blame it on me."

Recently, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean claimed the 2000 election was stolen by 'five intellectually bankrupt judges.' Sclia, on the other hand, argued that if a critic wanted "to look for partisan decisions," the Florida supreme court's ruling on the 2000 elections would be a prime candidate.

Scalia continued, claiming that 'of course' he regretted the Supreme Court becoming involved with the 2000 presidential election. "But I don't know how we could have avoided it," he said. "Could we have declined to accept the case on the basis that it wasn't important enough? ... I think our decision in the case was absolutely right. But if you ask me 'Am I sorry it all happened?' Of course I am sorry it happened, there was no way that we were going to come out of it smelling like a rose."

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Scalia_Gore_to_blame_for_2000_0626.html

Scalia you're a fat bastard!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bunkerbuster1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 07:09 PM
Response to Original message
1. Could you please die soon, Scalia?
Maybe, say, first week of February?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 07:10 PM
Response to Original message
2. I would suggest for anyone to read post 9 on this thread, Bush was the first one
in going to any court. Once again impeachment deprived Scalia is wrong.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3370226



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. That is 100% correct
Fugg Scalia. He is lying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asjr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 07:12 PM
Response to Original message
3. I wonder if he is a direct
descendant of Al Capone?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ET Awful Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 07:13 PM
Response to Original message
4. Hey Scalia, just in case you forgot, the title of the case you're discussing was
BUSH v. Gore, not the other way around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZ Criminal JD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. You apparently are not aware of the federal courts
In a Supreme Court case the first party named is the petitioner and the second party is the person who was successful at the lower level. Gore when to the Florida state courts first and then it was appealed into the federal system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Runcible Spoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 07:15 PM
Response to Original message
5. oh what the fuck is that marinated cadaver fucking spewing now?
God I hate that man. I really really do. This has me seething!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drunken Irishman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 07:15 PM
Response to Original message
6. How many fucking times does it need to be said: NIXON DID NOT LOSE THE ELECTION BECAUSE OF CHICAGO!
Edited on Thu Jun-26-08 07:16 PM by Drunken Irishman
Had he received enough votes to win Illinois, he still would have lost the electoral college!

In 1960, Kennedy needed 269 electoral votes to win the presidency. He won the electoral college with 303 electoral votes to Nixon's 219. Even if you take away Illinois' 27 votes, Kennedy still wins the presidency with 276 EV votes -- 6 more than the 269 needed to claim victory.

Of course, this also ignores the fact down-state saw a lot of vote rigging, as much as up-state and so it probably was a wash, anyway, in Illinois.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mohinoaklawnillinois Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. Exactly, the ballot boxes were being stuffed in Cook County for
Kennedy, meanwhile, the Pukes downstate stuffed them for Nixon. I agree, it was a wash.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZ Criminal JD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-27-08 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #6
14. There were two states in issue in 1960
Illinois and Texas. There were allegations of vote fraud in both states. Johnson made sure Texas went to JFK.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ColbertWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 07:26 PM
Response to Original message
9. My message to Scalia...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 07:34 PM
Response to Original message
10. "there was no way that we were going to come out of it smelling like a rose"
Edited on Thu Jun-26-08 07:36 PM by Oregone
Come on now...thats 100% true.

Scalia is an ass, but some of these statements are the least controversial/shitty things he is responsible for. His friend Dick would of just told the interviewer to fuck off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bean fidhleir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 07:37 PM
Response to Original message
11. Every time he opens his mouth, he gives new evidence of mental disorder
I'm just amazed. It makes me wonder whether he isn't intentionally baiting us to show how dull and cowardly we are, as GHWBush once did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-26-08 07:42 PM
Response to Original message
13. 1. JFK won by more than the Ill. electoral college votes 2. They rejected the main principle...
of judicial review that is that it must be precedent. This is a safe guard (an assurance of a CONSERVATIVE decision) that halts the process. And you can't say "the law is X for this guy by Y for this guy (or everyone else)" which is exactly what they did in stating that the Bush v. Gore decision was a one-timer and could not be precedent.

Christ can I be a Justice now EVEN I KNOW THIS MUCH

but then Scalia is a whack job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-27-08 02:56 PM
Response to Original message
15. Scalia is a shit-stain on the fabric of America
What a self-righteous blowhard - he's so easy to despise since he has no scruples.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 06:51 PM
Response to Original message
16. Did Scalia mention Nader?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 10:47 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC