Posted on 01/24/2007 11:26:25 PM PST by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - Three of the five Supreme Court justices who handed the presidency to George W. Bush in 2000 say they had no choice but to intervene in the Florida recount.
Comments from Justice Anthony Kennedy and retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor are in a new book that was published this week. Justice Antonin Scalia made his remarks Tuesday at Iona College in New York.
Scalia, answering questions after a speech, also said that critics of the 5-4 ruling in Bush v. Gore need to move on six years after the electoral drama of December 2000, when it seemed the whole nation hung by a chad awaiting the outcome of the presidential election.
"It's water over the deck — get over it," Scalia said, drawing laughs from his audience. His remarks were reported in the Gannett Co.'s Journal-News.
The court's decision to halt the recount of Florida's disputed election results, thus giving Bush the state's electoral votes, has been heavily criticized as an example of the court overstepping its bounds and, worse, being driven by politics.
Rather than let the recount take place and leave state officials and possibly Congress to determine the outcome of the election, the court's five conservative justices decided to intervene.
They eventually overturned a ruling of the Florida Supreme Court and halted the recount of the state's disputed election results 36 days after the voting. The decision effectively gave Bush Florida's electoral votes — and the presidency — by 537 votes.
"A no-brainer! A state court deciding a federal constitutional issue about the presidential election? Of course you take the case," Kennedy told ABC News correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg in her new book, "Supreme Conflict."
Kennedy said the justices didn't ask for the case to come their way. Then-Vice President Al Gore's legal team involved the courts in the election by asking a state court to order a recount, Kennedy said.
Legal scholars and the four dissenting justices have said the Supreme Court should have declined to jump into the case in the first place.
In a decision made public on the evening of Dec. 12, 2000, the court said the recount violated the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause because Florida counties were allowed to set their own standard for determining whether to count a vote.
"Counting somebody else's dimpled chad and not counting my dimpled chad is not giving equal protection of the law," Scalia said at Iona. Justice Clarence Thomas and the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who died in 2005, also were part of the majority.
O'Connor said the Florida court was "off on a trip of its own."
She acknowledged, however, that the justices probably could have done a better job with the opinion if they hadn't been rushed.
Still, O'Connor said the outcome of the election would have been the same even if the court had not intervened.
She was referring to studies that suggest Bush would have won a recount limited to counties that Gore initially contested, although other studies said Gore might have prevailed in a statewide recount.
I'm more taken with the above article editorializing "...handed the presidency to..., ...example of court overstepping it's bounds...," - and my favorite; "... FIVE conservative judges..."!
ahhh, These AP marxists, gotta hand it to them, they give credit for Alito & Roberts imposing conservative presence - years before they were even selected.
CGVet58
An AP story that starts out like this is a good indication of bias. I'll read further....
Gore was recounting votes in democrat districts he had already won. I live in Broward County. It was an embarrassment to our country to watch our local democrat commissioners on t.v. examining hanging chads and giving additional votes to gore. As I recall, that's why the U.S. Supreme Court was appealed to and stepped in. Gore was being allowed to overule Florida's election laws with his selective hand counts.
I'll never forget that debacle, and I hope that nobody else does either.
He also selected districts that had enough crooked democRAT commissioners that he would likely get several votes drawn from thin air. You're right - it was the selective recounting that was highly questionable. Remember when one canvassing group tried to lock out republicans?
Yep, pretty obvious. Only those who are trying to re-write history believe differently.
I had not heard that there were four votes not to hear the case.
They were of course correct.
The chusing of electors for President and Vice-President from Florida was and is a nonjusticeable political question (if it isn't, then there are no political questions at all).
Our Constitution provides clear and unambiguous methods for resolving disputes of this kind, which should have been used.
Yes, but he had a lot of help from the Supreme Court.
The Congress could have and would have restored what Gore took away, had they not been pre-empted by the Court's foolish decision to rule on a political question.
The political question created by the FLA Supremes would have had a political resolution, and, at the very worst, Joe Lieberman would have been VP instead of Cheney.
When the USSC enters and attempts to resolve political questions (Roe v. Wade being the best example in our time, Scott v. Sanford the best of all time), disaster follows, as it did here.
It was in a Dade County district (Miami) where they were keeping the Republicans out of the recount.
In Palm Beach County, a democrat member of the commission was discovered to have a voting machine (of the famous punch card variety) in the trunk of his car during the recounts. Lets talk about the party of corruption.
That's the wrong way to say it.
Two branches of the Florida government, both elected by the People, were at war and trying to produce opposite results.
Fortunately for Bush, the branch on his side had sole Federal Constitutional authority in the matter, and, also fortunately for Bush, his party had a large majority of State delegations in the House of Representatives.
There was no possible way for Al Gore to become President, regardless of the illegal actions of the Florida Supreme Court (unless Bush and the GOP agreed). At the worst, the President of the Senate (Mr.Gore) would have received two envelopes from Tallahassee for counting, and would have placed the matter before a joint session of Congress, where he would have been (politically, legally, and definitively) defeated.
I didn't read it. I don't care what they say, the SC has no authority to tell states how to conduct elections. We need to impeach those jerks and get them off the bench.
The article is completely wrong. By a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court found that subjecting some ballots to a higher degree of scrutiny than the rest violated the 14th Amendment. Ginsberg and Bryer (Clinton/Gore appointees) dissented.
By a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the Florida Supreme Court (all Democrats) could not arbitrarily alter the state's election laws.
whatever do you mean?
Al Gore would not have won the recount inspite of what the dems screamed.
She is right. But what she didn't say is al gore would have gamed or cheated on the recount. A fair one would have given florida to Bush.
I am suffering some brain fade on this, but I thought that the count on the Supremes was something like 7-2 to stop the recount, 5-4 on what to do about it.
I agree with every word you said.
There is a disgust with Al Gore and his attempt to turn this country's electiion into a banana republic lookalike that I just can't get over.
When I look at him I see a child who never could play by the rules, an impossible entitled spoiled spoil sport whose parents raised him like a little Fauntleroy, a boy who other boys detested,,,all grown up trying to pervert the electoral system of the greatest republic ever known. And almost succeeding.
Thank God for the Supreme Court in this case.
"The Congress could have and would have restored what Gore took away, had they not been pre-empted by the Court's foolish decision to rule on a political question."
How in the world do you consider Gore and the Florida Supreme Court decisions overriding Florida's Election LAWS in the MIDDLE OF AN ELECTION a "POLITICAL" question????? Gore was violating the Florida Election Laws with his lawyers and the Florida Supreme Court was changing Florida Election Law, which is not their job. It's the Florida Legislature which writes or changes law, and not in the middle of an eleciton count. POLITICAL?????
Not to mention how very long righting that Fla supreme court would have taken. And not to forget, we were less than ayear away from a terrorist attack.
I shudder to think of what might have happened had that public travesty gone forward. It would have torn this country to bits.
Lookiing back, I am still in shock at that election. Nixon, who refused to contest his loss to Kennedy, did the right thing in my mind.
Gore is beyond contempt, beyond the pale. I cannot think of any better way to describe that most unmanly of men. Unmanly is the best advective I can think of for him.
The US Supreme Court stopped the disregard and rewriting of Florida's Elections laws during the election count by Gore and his attorneys and the rulings of the FL Supreme Court. The Florida Supreme Court overstepped its bounds. The Supreme Court wasn't telling states "how to conduct elections". The US Supreme Court was telling Florida it had the right to conduct the election according to it's EXISTING Election LAWS.
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.