Posted on 04/24/2008 3:04:19 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
People who believe the U.S. Supreme Court’s 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 Stahl’s observation that people say the Supreme Court’s decision in Gore v. Bush was based on politics and not justice. "Get over it. It’s 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 wasn’t even close. The vote was seven to two," he says, referring to the Supreme Court’s decision that the Supreme Court of Florida’s 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 didn’t 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 don’t 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 you’re against that?" asks Stahl. "Of course. There’s 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 don’t attack people, and some very good people have some very bad ideas," he tells Stahl. "And if you can’t separate the two, you got to get another day job. You don’t want to be a judge, at least not a judge on a multi-member panel."
Don’t worry, libs will never get over it.
Roe v. Wade was a seven to two decision, too. Should we get over that as well?
Not only that, but if the Florida Supreme Court had done their job according the Florida Law, it would have never gone to the SCOTUS
Scalia is great but I doubt Stahl understood what he was telling her.
Note to GWB: “This is how a man with a spine talks”
she was just diggin’ up the past. Nothing else to do.
WE didn’t have the judges THEN and we do NOW. Although they wont try to repeal it, I believe that IF is came up now it would not pass.
I think she reflects most of the Democrats mindset now. They cannot get over past losses, or that their agenda is horrible for the country.
I still get new articles from Democrats complaining about weapons of mass destruction and removal of Hussein in Iraq. They really are mentally disturbed, IMHO.
If I remember correctly, wasn’t it Bush campaign who first brought up the case to the court, not Gore? Hence Bush v. Gore?
Paul Begala STILL mentions the Supreme Court “appointing George Bush president” every chance he gets. He did it again on CNN Tuesday night. I know he is one guy who will never get over it!
cc: J.McCain
The Florida controversy was a nonjusticeable political question, which could have and should have been decided by a joint session of Congress on January 3, 2001 as provided for by the Constitution.
WHY DO YOU SUPPOSE the Constitution specifies that the electoral votes are to be opened and counted in the presence of the full Senate and the full House? Because they have nothing better to do?
The founders knew very well that the process was fundamentally political, was subject to mischief, and provided a measured and appropriate political mechanism to deal with problems.
The last time this happened, in 1877, no one, least of all the Supreme Court, would have imagined a role for the courts in the process.
It is a measure of the degradation of republican values that no one gave running to the courts in 2001 a second thought.
HUH !?
One ruling was Constitutional, so that makes it easy to ‘get over it’. The other ruling was unConstitutional unless one comes up with mumbo-jumbo like penumbras of the Bill of Rights to manufacture an inherent right to privacy.
They’d rather hang onto the past than to move into a brighter future. But, that’s what their party is based upon. Gloom and doom. Dark outlooks. So that they can tell the people just like the witch is doing now that they will FIGHT for them. What in the hell is there to FIGHT for? They are sooooooooooo old hat. Their politics are that of the older, staler, 60’s generations that can’t think for themselves. Not all mind you but...a lot. So, they are LED instead of being LEADERS and THINKING and DOING for themselves. They would rather have the Government do everything for them. Speaks volumes about them. I’d rather do with less and know I have what I have because of what I did to EARN it.
They’d rather hang onto the past than to move into a brighter future. But, that’s what their party is based upon. Gloom and doom. Dark outlooks. So that they can tell the people just like the witch is doing now that they will FIGHT for them. What in the hell is there to FIGHT for? They are sooooooooooo old hat. Their politics are that of the older, staler, 60’s generations that can’t think for themselves. Not all mind you but...a lot. So, they are LED instead of being LEADERS and THINKING and DOING for themselves. They would rather have the Government do everything for them. Speaks volumes about them. I’d rather do with less and know I have what I have because of what I did to EARN it.
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.