I hate you the most, scarecrow
Jun. 27th, 2008 11:48 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lapsedmodernistJustice Antonin Scalia: Al Gore to blame for 2000 US election mess
The 2000 presidential election debacle was the fault of Al Gore, who should have followed Richard Nixon's 1960 example and conceded without legal action, according to the Supreme Court's leading conservative judge.
"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," Justice Antonin Scalia told The Telegraph.
"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.
"I didn't bring it into the courts. Mr Gore brought it into the courts.
"So if you don't like the courts getting involved talk to Mr Gore."
Justice Scalia insisted that his controversial decision, along with four other justices, to stop votes being recounted in Florida because the method was unconstitutional and it was too late to consider other options was "absolutely right".
I don't get it--are SCOTUS cases not named in Plaintiff vs. Defendant format? Or is Scalia just in the throes of Orwellian lying? I know that Gore filed a petition for county recounts, as per Florida law, but that it was Bush (and his brother and the secretary of state) that pressured him into a state-wide recount, and BUSH not Gore was the one who took it to the federal courts?
Also in 1960 the Republicans totally challenged results in 11 states, with court cases that dragged on into the following year.
I just want to understand exactly how Scalia is lying and abusing history here. Why can't he get impeached, again? Why can't ANYONE in this fucking corrupt, murderous, illegal clusterfuck get impeached? My head is gonna 'splode.
The 2000 presidential election debacle was the fault of Al Gore, who should have followed Richard Nixon's 1960 example and conceded without legal action, according to the Supreme Court's leading conservative judge.
"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," Justice Antonin Scalia told The Telegraph.
"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.
"I didn't bring it into the courts. Mr Gore brought it into the courts.
"So if you don't like the courts getting involved talk to Mr Gore."
Justice Scalia insisted that his controversial decision, along with four other justices, to stop votes being recounted in Florida because the method was unconstitutional and it was too late to consider other options was "absolutely right".
I don't get it--are SCOTUS cases not named in Plaintiff vs. Defendant format? Or is Scalia just in the throes of Orwellian lying? I know that Gore filed a petition for county recounts, as per Florida law, but that it was Bush (and his brother and the secretary of state) that pressured him into a state-wide recount, and BUSH not Gore was the one who took it to the federal courts?
Also in 1960 the Republicans totally challenged results in 11 states, with court cases that dragged on into the following year.
I just want to understand exactly how Scalia is lying and abusing history here. Why can't he get impeached, again? Why can't ANYONE in this fucking corrupt, murderous, illegal clusterfuck get impeached? My head is gonna 'splode.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-06-28 04:00 am (UTC)And tulip bulbs. We can eat those, right?
no subject
Date: 2008-06-28 01:58 pm (UTC)Nixon didn't challenge Illinois, because there were questions of Republican misbehavior in Southern Illinois. This would have had to be investigated had he questioned Chicago.
Is Scalia really using Nixon as a paragon of election ethics?
no subject
Date: 2008-06-28 06:23 pm (UTC)oh my god, he totally is. And Chicago nothwithstanding, I am guessing RNC wouldn't have mounted legal challenges in 11 states if Nixon wasn't endorsing/seeking that.
no subject
Date: 2008-06-28 01:25 pm (UTC)they are not only not going to be removed, but, as can be seen with the telecom retroactive immunity bill, the right wing of the democratic party is going out of its way to kiss their asses.
no subject
Date: 2008-06-28 02:15 pm (UTC)http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080628/ap_on_re_eu/netherlands_smoking_ban
no subject
Date: 2008-06-28 06:21 pm (UTC)In any case, you are going back to China just a few weeks after we leave! I wish you guys could come visit the Netherlands.