(thanks to Clint N. Suhks)
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.
Surely you're not suggesting that such matters are ENTIRELY political questions, no matter the constitutional issue. Do you seriously believe, for example, that a state could have a rule where electors were decided by race?
(thanks to Clint N. Suhks)
No, I don't, at least not after XV.
However, this is not at all analogous.
I didn't say it was analogous. I was trying to get you to clarify your position that "The chusing of electors for President and Vice-President from Florida was and is a nonjusticeable political question".
I disagree with your feelings on Bush v. Gore, but after having read your reply to me and your other replies on this thread, I understand your position on the issue more clearly.
So this is what Mark Levin was talking about last night?
Yep, but I pinged to thank you for the Al Gore graphic.
Google "The Unbearable Wrongness of Bush vs. Gore" and read Part II.
It might change your mind.
I guess the article neglects to mention that the DEMS were the ones who initially appealed for help, if you delete the sentence in the article that reads "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."
Excellent post!!
That is true. Assuming everyone wanted an honest process.
That was simply not true, not true at all. This would have been a horrible chapter no matter what. That is why Nixon did not challenge the 60 election.
No patriot would have done what Gore did. And Gore would have done anything short of murder to have stolen that election. Will willing accomplices.
They're not my feelings.
They're my reasoned opinions.
My feelings would get me arrested.
Yeah, the Miami Herald. I knew there was a FL paper, but I couldn't remember the name.
There was no egg on their faces because they didn't tell the public what they found and take their medicine .. like honorable people would have done.
I actually never heard what the overseas ballots amounted to, or if they actually ever got counted.
You are exactly correct .. and that's a great point.
The court ruling was 7-2 to stop the ILLEGAL COUNTING which the FL Supreme Court allowed .. and which the USSC had already told the FL court to fix .. and they didn't .. they just continued counting.
James Baker was very instrumental in getting this victory for Bush .. but aside from that I don't have any confidence in his other abilities.
The complete lack of any journalistic integrity by the author of this piece is not a surprise, but it is still amazing how people who are supposed to be objective don't even try to be. Absolutely no mention of the fact that Gore lost at the trial court level on both cases that went before the U.S. Supreme Court. Two out of three courts sided with Bush and against Gore in both cases.
The Florida Supreme Court overstepped its authority by making up rules contrary to its own laws and the Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court corrected the Florida Supreme Court's purely political rulings.
7 out of 9 justices did agree that what the Florida Supreme Court had done was unconstitutional but only 5 of them actually ruled to stop it.
Nope! Votes were about 2 different things!
One was to stop the counting and the other was to decide if the counting was unconstitutional because of the equal treatment under the law clause. And .. if Gore had only ask for a recount of the whole state - which he was legally entitled to do .. there would have been no need for a vote.
The "unconstitutional" was the reason for the 7-2 vote (which to me was more important). It was unconstitutional because the FL Supremes CHANGED THE VOTE COUNTING RULES IN THE MIDST OF THE ELECTION - which treated the FL counties unequally.
It was 5-4 to actually stop the counting.
Please cite for me the 7-2 ruling.
The 5-4 ruling mentioned that there were 2 other justices that believed what the Florida Court did was unconstitutional but there was no "vote" or separate ruling that was 7-2. There were 4 justices dissenting in the only ruling issued and 5 in the majority.
Did these alleged studies that I've never heard of before pay any attention at all to the numerous recounts that say otherwise?
You said it exactly.
Algore's team was trying to cherry pick the counties and the Florida Supreme court was altering the rules regarding counts.
Essentially you would have one set of rules for four counties and another set of rules for the other 63 counties.
No equal protection of all votes.
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.