Posted on 10/28/2004 6:54:15 PM PDT by wagglebee
LAWRENCE, Kan. - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said Thursday he would prefer not to face another election-related lawsuit, but defended the high court's decision to get involved in the contentious dispute over the 2000 presidential vote in Florida.
"What are you supposed to do when somebody brings a lawsuit?" Thomas asked University of Kansas law students. "You hear people say the Supreme Court jumped into the last election. I find it very ironic that the very people saying judges are interfering are bringing lawsuits."
"What do you think? Donald Duck is going to decide it?"
When asked about the prospect of more litigation over the 2004 vote, Thomas said, "I would prefer not to have to decide it, but that joins a long list of things," adding: "It's my job."
Appointed to the court in 1991 by President George H.W. Bush, Thomas was part of a 5-4 Supreme Court majority that ended a recount in Florida in 2000, allowing Republican George W. Bush to claim the White House instead of Democrat Al Gore.
Thomas made his comments during a question-and-answer session with about 90 students. He declined to be interviewed afterward; no audio or video recording devices were permitted.
Thomas expressed confidence about his ability to remain impartial, responding to a question about the role religion plays in his work by saying, "You do ask for strength and wisdom to live up to your oath.
"It's because of your religion that you don't do things that are skewed, because it's not right," Thomas said. "You took an oath to be impartial. That's when you ought to leave the court - when you can't look at yourself and say, 'I was impartial.' When I can't, I'll leave."
Thomas acknowledged he was uncomfortable discussing even general legal issues, comparing public discussion of the court's internal discussions about the 2000 election lawsuit to a priest violating the confidentiality of the confessional.
"I think you really have to have a big ego to think that what you have to say is so important that something that is so critically important to the operation of the court can be violated," Thomas said. "I have lots of stuff I could tell you about Bush v. Gore, but I'm not going to tell you."
Thomas did remark on a June ruling in which the high court said prisoners seized as potential terrorists and held at Guantanamo Bay may challenge their captivity; he was one of three dissenters.
Asked if he thought national security could be affected, he replied: "I think we'll see in short order. Some of the people now out of Guantanamo Bay are now fighting against the U.S."
I would like to see the State Governing bodies step up and claim their constitutional power. If Florida had done that in 2000, just let the "counting" go till Gore claimed victory and then voted to send the correct electors, it would have ended up in the House of Reps where it was constitutionally supposed to be.
Anywho, the Fla. Supremes caused the mess.
Wasn't it 7-2 with several justices writing concurring opinions?
Yes, the main issue of Bush v Gore was decided 7-2
The election was not decided by Clarence Thomas.
It was not decided by a 7-2 majority.
It was not decided by a 5-4 majority.
The election was decided by the voters of Florida and the other 49 states.
ho-hum... 5-4 decision did not decide the vote... repeating the big LIE... poor 'ol Newsmax
No, because Donald Duck is on Florida's Supreme Court!
Actually, NewsMax is just publishing an AP story.
Pardon moi, but wasn't the Supreme Court's decision all about whether or not to continue allowing the endless counting of ballots with dangling chads, even after said ballots had been counted over & over & over?
I think electors are going to be appointed as directed by the Legislatures of the several States, and that their votes are going to be counted in a special joint session of the new Congress on January 3, 2005, and that any disputes will be resolved in that session by the political process designed by the founders for that purpose.
The appointment of electors is a nonjusticeable political question, which we have institutions purpose-built to address.
It was a disastrous overreach of the Court to even hear, much less to decide, Bush v. Gore, and they should never, ever do it again.
The body appointed to count the electoral votes, Mr. Justice Thomas, is not the Supreme Court-and the Congress of the United States in joint session is not Donald Duck.
Clarence Thomas would make a great chief justice.
he didn't decide the last one! Is Thomas trying to increase the scotus powers also now?
I think if Bush wins next week Thomas (or possibly Scalia) will be elevated to Chief Justice in the spring.
The court has no place in the elections. Plain and simple.
Absolutely correct. The fact that it saw the light of day in SCOTUS will forever scar us.
Brilliant deduction! CC you're on the cutting edge, too!
The PROCESS would have worked, but somebody took it too the wrong body, due to impatience and the pressure of media hype!!! Fear of the PROCESS breaking down was also a huge factor. So they broke the PROCESS, in order to save order.
The very constitution they all swore to uphold was treated like a "living, breathing, document," and Al Gore won a victory of sorts, proving that statement of his opinion of the constitution, if not the Presidency.
Oh well... Stuff Happens!!!
1. Either the Supreme Court would bow down to their attempted election theft.
2. Or they would have to be sacrificed to their false god of liberalism by malevolent aspersions and wanton deception.
The many divisive tentacles of the liberalist are slowly ripping us apart...From the politicization of the Supreme Court, to slandering a sitting President in wartime, to attempting to divide the military with lies and doubt, to dividing friend from friend, husband from wife, family member from family member.
I suppose Satan (the father of lies) is snickering as the Democrat party does his bidding..."A house (or country) divided against itself WILL fall."
Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord.
The Founders didn't design any process for resolving disputed appointments of presidential electors.
The someone who took it to the wrong body was named George W. Bush.
They trusted judges and lawyers, and feared the People acting through their representatives in Congress assembled. They did not fear the process breaking down-it could not break down. What they feared, and still do fear, is a sovereign People acting in their own interest and exercising the awesome power they are granted by the Constitution.
As they fear the People in matters pertaining to religion, race, criminal justice, family law, immigration and nationality, and a million other things.
In the middle ages, they said "lex orandi, lex credendi" - the law of speech is the law of belief.
Our elites, including President Bush, speak to the courts when they should speak to the People.
Bush v. Gore was an unmitigated disaster, not in its result but in the fact that it was brought, and then heard.
its actual effects have not yet been manifested, but by December 1 of this year, they will be all too clear.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.