Posted on 04/24/2008 3:04:19 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
People who believe the U.S. Supreme Courts decision giving the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush was politically motivated should just get over it, says Justice Antonin Scalia.
Scalia denies that the controversial decision was political and discusses other aspects of his public and private life in a remarkably candid interview with 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl, this Sunday, April 27, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
"I say nonsense," Scalia responds to Stahls observation that people say the Supreme Courts decision in Gore v. Bush was based on politics and not justice. "Get over it. Its so old by now. The principal issue in the case, whether the scheme that the Florida Supreme Court had put together violated the federal Constitution, that wasnt even close. The vote was seven to two," he says, referring to the Supreme Courts decision that the Supreme Court of Floridas method for recounting ballots was unconstitutional.
Furthermore, says the outspoken conservative justice, it was Al Gore who ultimately put the issue into the courts. "It was Al Gore who made it a judicial question . We didnt go looking for trouble. It was he who said, 'I want this to be decided by the courts,'" says Scalia. "What are we supposed to say -- 'Not important enough?'" he jokes.
Call him conservative, just dont call him biased on issues before the Supreme Court, including abortion, he says. "I am a law-and-order guy. I mean, I confess to being a social conservative, but it does not affect my views on cases," he tells Stahl. "On the abortion thing, for example, if indeed I were trying to impose my own views, I would not only be opposed to Roe versus Wade, I would be in favor of the opposite view, which the anti-abortion people would like to see adopted, which is to interpret the Constitution to mean that a state must prohibit abortion." "And youre against that?" asks Stahl. "Of course. Theres nothing [in the Constitution to support that view]."
Scalia also denies there is anything personal in his decisions or comments, which can often be biting. Stahl asks how he can be a close friend of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, his liberal bench mate, despite the fact that they oftentimes disagree. "I attack ideas, I dont attack people, and some very good people have some very bad ideas," he tells Stahl. "And if you cant separate the two, you got to get another day job. You dont want to be a judge, at least not a judge on a multi-member panel."
Just like the impeachment process is supposed to be a political remedy but has turned into a partisan event.
Democrats appeal to emotions, not logic. They “appear” to have momentum because they keep claiming it’s happening. That works for the mindless but Republicans are probably working at the time and don’t realize what Democrats are doing.
Democrats really do believe if they say something often enough and long enough that most people will believe it. Hey, it’s worked for global warming, right?
Libs always forget that Al Gore brought the case. They also forget, or never knew that it was Justice Breyer who asked the question about the inherent denial of inherent protection in Gore’s argument. Gore’s chief lawyer, David Boies, had to admit the equal protection issue. The case was decided 7-2.
I was in the bookstore yesterday and saw some movie made in 2004 w/ Danny Glover in it bitching about the 2000 election.
Almost bought it for the humor value, but saved the $$.
All the Drive By Media went down to recount all of the ballots themselves. Guess what? Bush still won.
MEMO to the Libs: STFU and get over it.
Both rulings were from the same organization, the U.S. Supreme Court. By definition both rulings were constitutional.
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.