Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Dead at 79

[Bells]

Joepistole

And you are celebrating someone's death because you disagreed with what you determine to be his politics.

I think that is disgraceful.

Then again, I am not surprised you are reacting as you are.

Police officers are also probably celebrating his death. Why? Because Scalia has always come down hard on illegal searches conducted by LEO's. In fact, he has always been scathing of the actions of police when they would conduct illegal searches without warrants based on a mere belief of possible wrongdoing. And you have always been so supportive of what police officers do, even when it results in illegal searches and seizures, and at times, deaths of citizens. And you don't think he was an originalist? He went against the right in being so scathing about the Fourth Amendment. In fact, he sided with the liberal judges in doing so.

You think stacking the court with liberals is the key? You are no better than what you accuse Scalia of being and that is political right wing shill. Only in your case, it is left wing shill.

You are certainly free to celebrate as you wish. But consider what that says about you as a person.

The irony is that you accuse him of lacking in morals and being a bad person. And here you are praising all the powers that be because he died. What does that make you? Where are your morals? Do you even have any?

As I said, I am left wing. But I don't celebrate people dying because I disagree with their politics. You do. So what does that say about you, Joe? No, tell me, what does that say about you, as a person?

If Scalia was an originalist, he never would have taken Bush v. Gore. Because according to tradition (i.e. originalism) Baby Bush didn't have legal standing to bring a law suit.

Right..

Are you aware that Justices Breyer and Souter also saw the extended recount as being unconstitutional because it did not conform to the Equal Protection requirements, even in their dissent - ie they employed an originalist interpretation of the Constitution?

And Bush did have a legal standing. This dealt directly with the Fourteenth Amendment. This was a Constitutional matter. Just because we don't like the end result does not mean it was not.

Now, Justices Breyer and Souter are both liberal judges. Very much so. Ironic, isn't it, when you consider your comments here.

And frankly, had the Supreme Court had a majority of liberal judges, the decision would have gone to Gore. But we would not be having this discussion because your personal choice would have won and you would see nothing about the partisanship of the Justices, would you? Again, irony.

In celebrating his death, Joe, you have become what you repeatedly complain about.

Partisan shill.

Of the worst kind.

 

[joepistole]

On (1) Why? It would be a life time appointment to a very powerful position, not an uncertain chance to become POTUS during a very difficult time (global recession). She could still run for POTUS while current Republican Senate delays confirmation. They certainly will and will not confirm any other Obama nominee.

What makes you think they would confirm Hillary? Within minutes of the announcement of Scalia's death, Republican congressional leaders were saying they wouldn't even hold hearings on any Obama nominee. Aside from the fact Hillary has no interest in becoming a Supreme Court justice at this time, she would first have to give up her campaign for POTUS and face a very partisan nomination process in a Senate controlled by a party that has publicly stated it will not confirm any Obama Supreme Court nominee. It would be a fools bet, and I don't think Hillary is a fool.

On (2) If polls indicate Hillary would beat any Republican candidate, especially Trump, the current Republican Senate would very likely confirm her into the Supreme Court so the Republican candidate for POTUS (Trump?) gets to run against SOCIALIST Bernie. (or independent Bloomberg).

Those polls include Democrats, Republicans, and Independents with Independents being the swing vote who cause elections to be won or lost. There aren't any Independents in the Senate. Republicans control the Senate. Hillary has long wanted to become POTUS. This is her second shot at the job. So why would she give up when the polls show she her leading? If she did, she could never run for POTUS again. Additionally, the trend has been to appoint younger judges to the court and doing so preserve that spot on the court for decades to come. Hillary is a bit long in the tooth for a Supreme Court justice appointment.

The Republican candidate will mention that Bernie is a long time socialist in ever other sentence of his campaign, and that Bernie wants to make a revolution in the US. Thus I think the Republicans will realize that confirming Hillary into the Supreme Court is a guaranteed ticket for some Republican becoming POTUS. Then, in control of the White House, they can pack the court to make it more to their liking.

Well that is certainly what Republicans would want, but it would cost them a seat and their majority on the Supreme Court. Hillary is 67, she could hold that position for 2 decades. Bernie may be the easiest Democrat to for Republicans to compete against in the general election, but I don't think its a sure bet. It's far from a sure bet. I wouldn't be surprised to see Bernie beat the Republicans in the general election not because Bernie is that great but because Republicans are that weak. Republicans have manged to alienate several key voting groups in this country and their base, old white people, are quickly dying off. So I'm not as certain as you are that Republicans would confirm Hillary. Why would they? She would first have to surrender her campaign. She would have to disappoint and betray her supporters and financial backers, undergo hours of hearings, and hope Senate Republicans would confirm her. And why would Senate Republicans confirm her at that point? She would have already given up her campaign and chances of ever becoming POTUS. It's basically unilateral disarmament.

 

[joepistole]

Joepistole

And you are celebrating someone's death because you disagreed with what you determine to be his politics.

I think that is disgraceful.

Then again, I am not surprised you are reacting as you are.

Police officers are also probably celebrating his death. Why? Because Scalia has always come down hard on illegal searches conducted by LEO's. In fact, he has always been scathing of the actions of police when they would conduct illegal searches without warrants based on a mere belief of possible wrongdoing. And you have always been so supportive of what police officers do, even when it results in illegal searches and seizures, and at times, deaths of citizens. And you don't think he was an originalist? He went against the right in being so scathing about the Fourth Amendment. In fact, he sided with the liberal judges in doing so.

You think stacking the court with liberals is the key? You are no better than what you accuse Scalia of being and that is political right wing shill. Only in your case, it is left wing shill.

You are certainly free to celebrate as you wish. But consider what that says about you as a person.

The irony is that you accuse him of lacking in morals and being a bad person. And here you are praising all the powers that be because he died. What does that make you? Where are your morals? Do you even have any?

As I said, I am left wing. But I don't celebrate people dying because I disagree with their politics. You do. So what does that say about you, Joe? No, tell me, what does that say about you, as a person?



Right..

Are you aware that Justices Breyer and Souter also saw the extended recount as being unconstitutional because it did not conform to the Equal Protection requirements, even in their dissent - ie they employed an originalist interpretation of the Constitution?

And Bush did have a legal standing. This dealt directly with the Fourteenth Amendment. This was a Constitutional matter. Just because we don't like the end result does not mean it was not.

Now, Justices Breyer and Souter are both liberal judges. Very much so. Ironic, isn't it, when you consider your comments here.

And frankly, had the Supreme Court had a majority of liberal judges, the decision would have gone to Gore. But we would not be having this discussion because your personal choice would have won and you would see nothing about the partisanship of the Justices, would you? Again, irony.

In celebrating his death, Joe, you have become what you repeatedly complain about.

Partisan shill.

Of the worst kind.

LOL

 

[pjdude1219]

LOL

Could you at least pretend to have some fucking decency

 

[joepistole]

Congressional Republicans and all of the Republican presidential candidates have stated they don't think the Senate should even consider any Obama nominee for the vacancy created by Scalia's death. That being the case, and if Republicans follow through with their threats, it empowers the lower courts at the expense of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court term ends in June. If the Republicans in the US Senate refuse to confirm an Obama nominee as they have threatened, it will likely be 2 years before Scalia is replaced, leaving the Supreme Court short by one justice. There are many justices who are very old, and it's not inconceivable that one or more of them could die in the coming year. Justice Kennedy is 80 years old. Justice Thomas is 68 years old. Both are Republicans and part of the "Republican faction" of the court. So while there is balance now on the Supreme Court, it may not last.

 

[PhysBang]

And you are celebrating someone's death because you disagreed with what you determine to be his politics.

No, he is celebrating his death because Scalia was doing a great deal of harm in the position that he could only be removed from with his death. I also celebrate this death.

 

[Bells]

No, he is celebrating his death because Scalia was doing a great deal of harm in the position that he could only be removed from with his death. I also celebrate this death.

And the same is said by the right of the liberal judges.

The tragedy of the political divide is that people lose their humanity and decency and this thread is a prime example of that. It makes Joe and others celebrating his death no better than the arseholes in the Westboro Baptist Church who sing and dance when soldiers and others die.

Any damage he did on the bench is no worse or less than the damage that people have done to themselves all based on party lines. You have already lost the battle by celebrating his death. Nothing he could have said or done could ever give you any moral high ground.

 

[PhysBang]

And the same is said by the right of the liberal judges.

Yes. But they are wrong.

The tragedy of the political divide is that people lose their humanity and decency

No, the tragedy is people like Scalia who literally strip the decency from humans.

Any damage he did on the bench is no worse or less than the damage that people have done to themselves all based on party lines.

That is simply factually incorrect.

You can't have the moral high ground by ignoring the facts.

 

[Billy T]

What makes you think they would confirm Hillary?

I have stated why, twice:
To stop her from becoming POTUS, and let their candidate run against SOCIALIST, REVOLUTIONARY, Bernie instead of her.

... she would first have to give up her campaign for POTUS ...

No, not until she is confirmed as Supreme Court justice, which you state she would not be by the current Repubican Senate. - Ignoring the fact that Republicans doing so, would make it almost a certainity that a Republican becomes the next POTUS.

...
Well that is certainly what Republicans would want, but it would cost them a seat and their majority on the Supreme Court. Hillary is 67, she could hold that position for 2 decades. Bernie may be the easiest Democrat to for Republicans to compete against in the general election, but I don't think its a sure bet. ... So I'm not as certain as you are that Republicans would confirm Hillary. Why would they?

First reply above is the third time I have told you why.

She would first have to surrender her campaign.

Your false assertion. Not any law. Until confirmed, she can campaign for POTUS. An interesting alternative at the convention, is she could name Bernie as her VP and then if later confirmed, refuse the democratic nomination to let Bernie head the ticket. Having Bernie first as VP and later a head of the ticket would bring a mass of young voters to support that ticket, and if not confirmed, she could be more certain of becoming POTUS.

 

[joepistole]

I have stated why, twice:
To stop her from becoming POTUS, and let their candidate run against SOCIALIST, REVOLUTIONARY, Bernie instead of her.No, not until she is confirmed as Supreme Court justice, which you state she would not be by the current Repubican Senate. - Ignoring the fact that Republicans doing so, would make it almost a certainity that a Republican becomes the next POTUS. First reply above is the third time I have told you why.

Bernie may be a socialist, but he isn't a revolutionary. Bernie's a pretty good campaigner. I wouldn't write him off as the next POTUS. In fact, I think he is a better campaigner than Hillary. Bernie has surprised me. I didn't expect him to do as well as he has.

As I previously wrote, just the consideration of the Supreme Court position would disqualify her in the eyes of her supporters and donors. Why should voters take her seriously knowing that she really wanted to become a Supreme Court justice? Why should campaign donors take her seriously knowing she might decide to become a Supreme Court justice? I have donated money to her campaign. If she indicated she was now interested in the Supreme Court justice position, I would never again give her even a single red cent.

Hillary doesn't need a job. She doesn't need the money or the security afforded by being a Supreme Court justice. She is already very wealthy. Hillary earns more in one speech than she would earn in a year as a Supreme Court justice. And there is nothing uniquely qualifying Hillary as a Supreme Court justice. Others could easily do the job at least as well and probably better than Hillary.

I have hired a number of people over the years. I wouldn't hire someone for a job if I knew they were looking for another position and might not be with me in a few months. Why would voters vote for Hillary knowing she really didn't want to be POTUS? Why would financial donors donate money to her campaign knowing her heart really isn't in it?

Your false assertion. Not any law. Until confirmed, she can campaign for POTUS. An interesting alternative at the convention, is she could name Bernie as her VP and then if later confirmed, refuse the democratic nomination to let Bernie head the ticket. Having Bernie first as VP and later a head of the ticket would bring a mass of young voters to support that ticket, and if not confirmed, she could be more certain of becoming POTUS.

Did I say she was constrained by law? No I didn't. As I previously mentioned, if Hillary considered exchanging her presidential campaign for a position on the US Supreme Court, it would be a very clear signal to her followers and financial sponsors that she really wasn't serious about her presidential campaign. Why would any of her volunteers volunteer their time for her campaign when in a few weeks or a few months she intends to drop the campaign and become a Supreme Court justice? Why should anyone contribute money to her campaign knowing that she is trying out for another job? They wouldn't. That's why I said, if she attempted to become a Supreme Court justice now, it would effectively end her chances at ever becoming POTUS.

 

[Billy T]

Bernie may be a socialist, but he isn't a revolutionary. Bernie's a pretty good campaigner. I wouldn't write him off as the next POTUS.

He says, often in answer to Clinton's explicit or implied charge he can't achieve his plans, that he can and will by a democratic revolution - millions of new young voters no longer willing to let big money buy the elections and destroy their future.

I don't "write him off" - In fact long before others thought highly of him, I started the thread about him being the alternative to Clinton. I have had at least 10 trips to Norway and been to all the Scandinavian countries - I want US to be more like them – I want his revolution - US could have their free, quality education (thru Ph. D. level if you can and want) and free quality health care FOR ALL, NOT JUST THE RICH as in USA.

... just the consideration of the Supreme Court position would disqualify her in the eyes of her supporters and donors. Why should voters take her seriously knowing that she really wanted to become a Supreme Court justice? ...

She would not mention any interest in a seat on the high bench now* and not even if Obama nominated her; she would still campaign for POTUS, noting that nomination is not the same as confirmation, but an up hill battle in the current Republican Senate, which as you noted, immediately said they were not going to confirm any nomination by Obama in his last year.

SUMMARY: until she is BOTH nominated and CONFIRMED, Hillary will continue full force efforts to beat off Bernie's rapid rise. If BOTH happen, then she has a choice to make. If I were her, and wanted to help the US advance, as I am sure she does, I would take the seat on the high court's bench and give the US 20 or so more years of the same quality service she has already given it. It is an assured path for doing that and does not require further campaign efforts. She likes Bernie and his goals; she just doubts he can achieve them as they do require a "democratic political revolution" to achieve - to break the current control of government by the rich and powerful few.

* In fact the best way to get a high court seat, is for Hillary to proclaim after Obama nominates her, that she wants to be POTUS, not a justice, as that will make Republicans in the Senate anxious to confirm her, rather than have their candate run againsts her for POTUS. They said they would not confirm any Obama noninee - but times change and people adjust - The Republican know that she could also reverse her statememts about not wanting a high court seat but to be POTUS.

 

[joepistole]

Bush v. Gore

As painful as it might be to some, it’s worth reviewing — in the context of Scalia’s statement — how the Bush v. Gore ruling came to pass.

The behind-the-scenes court drama began on Dec. 8, 2000. Bush was clinging to an official lead of only a few hundred votes out of six million cast in Florida when the Bush forces were dealt a crushing blow. A divided Florida Supreme Court ordered a statewide review of ballots that had been kicked out by antiquated counting machines.

The recount began on the morning of Dec. 9. Immediately, the canvassers began finding scores of legitimate votes that the machines had rejected.

Despite a supposed reverence for states’ rights and a disdain for federal interference, Bush’s lawyers raced to the U.S. Appeals Court in Atlanta to stop the count. Though dominated by Republican conservatives, the appeals court held to established precedents and refused to intervene to stop the recount.

A frantic Bush then turned to the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington. There, in the late afternoon, the high court took the unprecedented step of issuing an injunction to stop the counting of votes cast by American citizens.

In the injunction, Justice Scalia made clear that the purpose of the court’s action was to prevent Bush from falling behind in the tally and thus raising questions about his legitimacy should the Supreme Court later declare him the winner.

That outcome would “cast a cloud” over the “legitimacy” of an eventual Bush presidency, explained Scalia. “Count first, and rule upon the legality afterwards, is not a recipe for producing election results that have the public acceptance democratic stability requires,” Scalia wrote.

Trusting the Law

Nevertheless, on Dec. 11, 2000, Gore and his lawyers voiced confidence that the rule of law would prevail – that the U.S. Supreme Court would rise above any partisan concerns and would insist that the votes be counted and the will of the voters be respected.

Gore was particularly confident that Justice O’Connor would reject partisanship and apply the law fairly. However, on that same day,reporter Mollie Dickenson wrote for Consortiumnews.comthat O’Connor, a supposed “swing vote” was “firmly on board for George W. Bush’s victory.”

Dickenson wrote that “according to a knowledgeable source, O’Connor was visibly upset – indeed furious – when the networks called Florida for Vice President Al Gore on Election Night. ‘This is terrible,’ she said, giving the impression that she desperately wanted Bush to win.

“Some have heard that one reason why O’Connor was so upset was that the O’Connors want to retire home to Arizona, but will not do so if Gore wins. In that case, O’Connor will remain on the court to deny Gore the opportunity to replace her.” (As it turned out, O’Connor did retire with Bush in office, enabling him to appoint right-wing Justice Samuel Alito, who became part of Scalia’s faction on the court.)

Yet, the Gore team apparently went before the court not knowing that whatever they argued, the five Republican partisans were determined to make Bush the next president.

The evidence is now clear that the five Republican partisans decided on the outcome first and worked out the rationale second. Indeed, their legal logic flipped from the start of their deliberations to the end, but their pro-Bush verdict remained steadfast.

USA Todaydisclosed this inside story in an article about the strains that the Bush v. Gore ruling created within the court. Though the article was sympathetic to the pro-Bush justices, it disclosed an important fact: that the five were planning to rule for Bush after oral arguments on Dec. 11. The court even sent out for Chinese food for the clerks, so work could be completed that night. [USA Today, Jan. 22, 2001]

At that point, the legal rationale for stopping the Florida recount was to have been that the Florida Supreme Court had made “new law” when it referenced the state constitution in an initial recount decision – rather than simply interpreting state statutes.

Even though this basis for giving Bush the White House was highly technical, the rationale at least conformed with conservative principles, which are supposedly hostile to judicial “activism.” But the Florida Supreme Court threw a wrench into the plan.

On the evening of Dec. 11, the state court submitted a revised ruling that deleted the passing reference to the state constitution. The revised ruling based its reasoning entirely on state statutes, which permitted recounts in close elections.

This modified state ruling opened a split among the five conservatives. Justices O’Connor and Kennedy no longer felt they could agree with the “new law” rationale for blocking the recount, though Justices Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas were prepared to stick with the old thinking even though its foundation had been removed.

Finding a Reason

The plans for finishing up the formal opinion on the evening of Dec. 11 were scrapped as O’Connor and Kennedy veered off in a very different direction.

Through the day on Dec. 12, they worked on an opinion arguing that the Florida Supreme Court had failed to set consistent standards for the recount and that the disparate county-by-county standards constituted a violation of the “equal protection” rules of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The logic of this argument was quite thin and Kennedy reportedly had trouble committing it to writing. To anyone who had followed the Florida election, it was obvious that varied standards already had been applied throughout the state.

Wealthier precincts benefited from optical voting machines that were simple to use and eliminated nearly all errors, while poorer precincts with many African-Americans and retired Jews were stuck with outmoded punch-card systems with far higher error rates. Some counties had conducted manual recounts, too, and those totals already were part of the tallies giving Bush a tiny lead.

The statewide recount – ordered by the Florida Supreme Court – was designed to reduce those disparities and thus bring the results closer to equality. Applying the “equal protection” provision, as planned by O’Connor and Kennedy, turned the Fourteenth Amendment on its head, guaranteeing less equality than would have occurred by letting the recount go forward.

Indeed, if one were to follow the “logic” of the O’Connor-Kennedy position, the only “fair” conclusion would have been to throw out Florida’s presidential election in total. After all, the U.S. Supreme Court was effectively judging Florida’s disparate standards to be unconstitutional. But that would have left Gore with a majority of the remaining electoral votes.

Or, more rationally, the U.S. Supreme Court could have given Florida more time to conduct the fuller recount that the O’Connor-Kennedy position envisioned, bringing in not only so-called “under-votes” in which a choice was hard to detect but “over-votes” in which citizens both punched the hole for their choice and wrote his name in.

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/02/14/justice-scalias-originalist-hypocrisy/

 

[joepistole]

However, Gore stood to benefit from either approach and that went against the pre-determined outcome to put Bush in the White House, whatever the legal excuse had to be.

Even more telling than the stretched logic of the O’Connor-Kennedy faction was the readiness of Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas to sign on to a ruling that was almost completely at odds with their initial legal rationale for blocking the recount — and in violation of their supposedly “strict constructionist” beliefs.

On the night of Dec. 11, that trio was ready to bar the recount because the Florida Supreme Court had created “new law.” On Dec. 12, the same three justices were voting to block the recount because the Florida Supreme Court had not created “new law” – by establishing precise statewide recount standards.

The five conservatives had devised their own Catch-22. If the Florida Supreme Court set clearer standards, that would be struck down as creating “new law.” If the state court didn’t set clearer standards, that would be struck down as violating the “equal protection” principle. Heads Bush wins; tails Gore loses.

There was one other clever twist to the conservative majority’s maneuvering. When the ruling was issued at around 10 p.m. on Dec. 12, the Republican majority’s rationale asserted that the Fourteenth Amendment required a recount with equal standards applied statewide, but then gave Florida only two hours to complete the process before a deadline of midnight.

Because this two-hour window was absurdly unrealistic, the result of the ruling was to give Bush the White House based on a 537-vote lead in the “official” Florida results, as overseen by the state administration of his brother, Gov. Jeb Bush.

Denying Politics

After the court’s ruling and Gore’s gracious-but-pained concession speech the next day, Justice Thomas told a group of high school students that partisan considerations played “zero” part in the court’s decisions. Later, asked whether Thomas’s assessment was accurate, Rehnquist answered, “Absolutely.”

In later comments about the court’s role in the case, Rehnquist seemed unfazed by the inconsistency of the court’s logic. His overriding rationale seemed to be that he viewed Bush’s election as good for the country – whether most voters thought so or not.

In a speech on Jan. 7, 2001, Rehnquist said sometimes the U.S. Supreme Court needed to intervene in politics to extricate the nation from a crisis. His remarks were made in the context of the Hayes-Tilden race in 1876, when another popular vote loser, Rutherford B. Hayes, was awarded the presidency after justices participated in a special election commission.

“The political processes of the country had worked, admittedly in a rather unusual way, to avoid a serious crisis,” Rehnquist said. Scholars interpreted Rehnquist’s remarks as shedding light on his thinking during the Bush v. Gore case as well.

“He’s making a rather clear statement of what he thought the primary job of our governmental process was,” said Michael Les Benedict, a history professor at Ohio State University. “That was to make sure the conflict is resolved peacefully, with no violence.” [Washington Post, Jan. 19, 2001]

But where were the threats of violence and acts of disruption in the 2000 election? Gore had reined in his supporters, urging them to avoid confrontations and to trust in the “rule of law.” The only violence had come from the Bush side, when the Bush campaign flew protesters from Washington to Miami to put pressure on local election boards.

On Nov. 22, 2000, as the Miami-Dade canvassing board was preparing to examine ballots, a well-dressed mob of Republican operatives charged the office, roughed up some Democrats and pounded on the walls. The canvassing board promptly reversed itself and decided to forego the recount.

The next night, the Bush-Cheney campaign feted the rioters at a hotel party in Fort Lauderdale. Starring at the event was crooner Wayne Newton singing “Danke Schoen,” but the highlight for the operatives was a thank-you call from George W. Bush and his running mate, Dick Cheney, both of whom joked about the Miami-Dade incident, the Wall Street Journal reported.

The Journal noted that “behind the rowdy rallies in South Florida this past weekend was a well-organized effort by Republican operatives to entice supporters to South Florida,” with House Majority Whip Tom DeLay’s Capitol Hill office taking charge of the recruitment. [WSJ, Nov. 27, 2000. For more details, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Bush’s Conspiracy to Riot.”]

Republican Defiance

In other less violent ways, Bush-Cheney operatives signaled that they would not accept an unfavorable vote total in Florida. In the chance that Gore pulled ahead, the Republican-controlled state legislature was preparing to void the results. In Washington, the Republican congressional leadership also was threatening to force a constitutional crisis if Gore prevailed in Florida.

If one takes Rehnquist’s “good-for-the-country” rationale seriously, that means the U.S. Supreme Court was ready to award the presidency to the side most willing to use violence and other anti-democratic means to overturn the will of the voters.

Rehnquist’s approach suggested that since Gore and his supporters were less likely to resort to violence – while Bush and his backers were ready to provoke a crisis if they didn’t get their way – that the high court should give the presidency to the side most committed to disruption.

A far more democratic – and rational – approach would have been for the Supreme Court to accept the O’Connor-Kennedy logic and simply extend the deadline for Florida to turn in its results. The court could have ordered the fullest and fairest possible recount with the winner being whichever candidate ended up with the most votes.

However, if that had occurred, the almost certain winner would have been Gore. When a group of news organizations conducted an unofficial recount of Florida’s disputed ballots in 2001, Gore came out narrowly on top regardless of what standards were applied to the famous chads – dimpled, hanging or punched-through.

Gore’s victory would have been assured by the so-called “over-votes” in which a voter both punched through a candidate’s name and wrote it in. Under Florida law, such “over-votes” are legal and they broke heavily in Gore’s favor. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “So Bush Did Steal the White House.”]

In other words, the wrong candidate had been awarded the presidency. However, this startling fact was an unpleasant reality that the mainstream U.S. news media decided to obscure.

The tally wasn’t completed until after the terrorist attacks on 9/11 and the prevailing view among senior news executives became that it would be harmful to the nation’s need for unity if the press reported that Gore was the rightful winner of Election 2000.

So, the major newspapers and TV networks hid their own scoop when the results were published on Nov. 12, 2001. Instead of stating clearly that Florida’s legally cast votes favored Gore, the mainstream media bent over backwards to concoct hypothetical situations in which Bush might still have won the presidency, such as if the recount were limited to only a few counties or if the legal “over-votes” were excluded.
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/02/14/justice-scalias-originalist-hypocrisy/

 

[joepistole]

The discovery of Gore’s rightful victory was buried deep in the stories or relegated to charts that accompanied the articles.

Misleading the Readers

Any casual reader would have come away from reading The New York Times or The Washington Post with the conclusion that Bush really had won Florida and thus was the legitimate president after all. The Post’s headline read, “Florida Recounts Would Have Favored Bush.” The Times ran the headline: “Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote.”

Some columnists, such as the Post’s media analyst Howard Kurtz, even launched preemptive strikes against anyone who would read the fine print and spot the hidden “lede” of Gore’s victory. Kurtz labeled such people “conspiracy theorists.” [Washington Post, Nov. 12, 2001]

After reading these slanted “Bush Won” stories, I wrote an article for Consortiumnews.com noting that the obvious “lede” should have been that the recount revealed that Gore had won. I suggested that the news judgments of senior editors might have been influenced by a desire to appear patriotic only two months after 9/11. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Gore’s Victory.”]

My article had been up for only a couple of hours when I received an irate phone call from New York Times media writer Felicity Barringer, who accused me of impugning the journalistic integrity of then-Times executive editor Howell Raines. I got the impression that Barringer had been on the look-out for some deviant story that didn’t accept the pro-Bush conventional wisdom.

Today, the dominant conventional wisdom appears to be that while the Bush v. Gore decision was a case of politicized justice, it’s not something that Americans should get too upset about. There is even a school of thought that asserts that it was encouraging that U.S. citizens did not take to the streets to protest this overturning of their democratic judgment.

In a Sept. 13, 2010, interview with NBC’s Brian Williams, Justice Stephen Breyer, one of the dissenters in the Bush v. Gore ruling, said he still believed the majority was wrong, but added that he found the aftermath remarkable in a positive way.

“That remarkable thing, is even though more than half the public strongly disagreed with it [Bush v. Gore], thought it was really wrong, they followed it,” Breyer said. “And the alternative, using guns, having revolutions, is a worse alternative.

“And it’s taken quite a long time, many, many years, decades and decades for Americans to come to that understanding. And that fact — that America will follow court decisions made by fallible human beings, even when those decisions are very unpopular — has not always been true.”

In other words, Breyer believes it is preferable for Americans to accept an anti-democratic judgment made by five partisans in black robes than to rise up in outrage against a powerful institution that has usurped the role of the voters and overturned the consent of the governed.

Yet, is that acquiescence really preferable to the courageous actions by people all over the world who have staged protests and risked their lives in defense of democracy when autocratic rulers have refused to accept the results of an election?

A decade after the fateful court ruling – with the results of Bush’s presidency now painfully apparent and his appointed justices helping to open the floodgates of special-interest money to further distort the democratic process – Bush v. Gore must be viewed as a moment when the United States started down a very dark road.

It also is a reminder that for Justice Scalia and his cohorts, a stated devotion to “originalism” and “strict construction” is more a propaganda exercise designed to fool the gullible than a bedrock principle that must be followed even when it doesn’t work in favor of a politically desired outcome.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book,America’s Stolen Narrative,either in print here or as an e-book (fromAmazonandbarnesandnoble.com).

 

[Tiassa]

Respect for the Dead

​

And here I thought Senate Republicans making up fake traditions was bad enough. Apparently, I forgot about Glenn Beck. Right Wing Watch↱ brings us the latest:

Glenn Beck was on the road today and unable to host his radio program, but he did find time to call in and offer his theory about why God allowed Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia to die so close to the next presidential election.

After Beck's co-host Pat Gray wondered why God simply didn't allow Scalia to live until after the election, Beck called in to assert that God had allowed Scalia to die at this time in an effort to wake up America up to the fact that his nation is on the verge of totally losing its liberty unless it elects Ted Cruz as president.

Recalling how he had been scheduled to campaign for Mitt Romney just before the 2012 election only to be thwarted by Hurricane Sandy, which he took as a sign from God, Beck said that Scalia's death was likewise all part of God's plan.​

Honestly, I've been disappointed at the grave-dancing I've been witness to these last couple days. To the other, compared to, say, closing a vicious parody↱ with an Anne Frank joke? Well, at least in that case Poe's Law isn't in effect.

That is to say, parody is parody is parody, but the only reason we know Glenn Beck is not trying to mock and denigrate the late Justice Scalia is that he is Glenn Beck.

Same thing goes for Senate Republicans; there is a settling of scores beginning, and it is ugly as hell. There are two main problems with the subsequent objections. First, Justice Scalia, by all accounts, was well loved by the people around him, preferring to keep the harming of other people generally restricted to his workplace. Second, his ostensible supporters have put on a pretty undignified show; it seems nearly futile to ask Scalia's critics to wait until the body is in the ground.
____________________

Notes:

Mantyla, Kyle. "Glenn Beck: God Allowed Scalia To Die In Order To Highlight The Importance Of Electing Ted Cruz". Right Wing Watch. 16 February 2016. RightWingWatch.org. 17 February 2016. http://bit.ly/1oIRJkP

Scalia, Antonin. "From the Desk of Justice Antonin Scalia, Deceased". The Stranger. 17 February 2016. TheStranger.com. 17 February 2016. http://bit.ly/2182I4Y

 

[Billy T]

Message sent to POTUS, Obama:

" Nominate Clinton to Supreme Court:

She will be confirmed by Senate as Republicans don't want to run against her - no one else you nominate will be confirmed.
She can continue to campaign for POTUS, until confirmed. Then she must chose. I hope she accepts a seat on the high bench and asks her supporters to support Sanders - They agree on what US's needs, but she doubts he can get his "democratic revolution" the support of the voters it needs.

I say give him a chance to do that. US needs to be more like Scandinavian countries and many young voters will work hard to elect a Congress that makes that possible. He will beat Trump or the voters deserve what they will get. "

(signed with full name and my SS number given.)

If you agree here is the form you must fill in to send msg to Obama: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

Feel free to copy mine or write your own.

 

[joepistole]

The only patriotic thing Scalia did during his pathetic life was to die in office. He is more than worthy of disgust and disdain. During his long tenure on the highest court he brought nothing but shame on the court and pain to the American people. He was an extreme partisan masquerading as a justice. He wasn't worthy of his office. He wasn't worthy of respect. He perverted the law to the benefit of his wealthy patrons and at the expense of everyday Americans. He disgraced his office and the country with his inexplicable and often contradictory rulings and more importantly used them as a pick against the American people and to the benefit of his billionaire patrons. How fitting it was he died being entertained at the estate of one of his billionaire patrons. He died as he lived, in the arms of his billionaire patrons.

He brought us Baby Bush 1.0. And we all know Baby Bush 1.0 caused the deaths and disablement of thousands of Americans through his unwise and bungled wars. Scalia put big holes in Obamacare, and as a result, millions of hard working Americans don't have health insurance. He destroyed voting rights. He destroyed decades of campaign finance law, opening our government to the highest bidders. He destroyed the reputation and integrity of the nation's highest court. Scalia was indeed worthy of disgust and disdain. It will take many decades to repair the damage Scalia has inflicted on Americans. And the best his supporters can say in his defense is, he was an affable guy to those around him. Ted Bundy was an affable guy too, but he was also a prolific mass murder.

http://m.imdb.com/name/nm0120421/bio

Scalia should be remembered for the scumbag he truly was.

According to findlaw.com Scalia was responsible for 3 of the nation's 13 worst Supreme Court decisions. That isn't a record to be proud of considering the court is more than 225 years old and has made thousands of decisions.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/supreme_court/2015/10/13-worst-supreme-court-decisions-of-all-time.html

 

[Tiassa]

Message sent to POTUS, Obama:

" Nominate Clinton to Supreme Court:

Anything to help Republicans get elected, eh, Billy?

See, that's the thing. You're both old enough and smart enough to know the relevant history. You already know that when liberalism and leftism step up for big stakes and lose, we don't just lose but also get relegated.

I know it's not about helping Republicans get elected. But I need you to think past the dreamy stars in your eyes and recognize what is happening.

If Democratic voters send Hillary Clinton to the Show and she loses, it's on her.

If Democratic voters send Bernie Sanders to the Show, and he loses, it's on the voters.

And history demonstrates that if the American left tries to match the American right at the ballot box, the American left loses. And when we lose, we are excluded from the "serious" political discussions for decades.

The media wants to cast Bernie as some sort of polar anti-Trump? Bernie wants to welcome and promote that idea? History shows this is really dangerous for the left. But here's the thing: Bernie Sanders doesn't care. If he wins the nomination and wrecks the Democratic Party by losing, he still gets to count that as a win.

It's kind of like that weird question we hear in the wake of riots: Why do they always tear up their own neighborhoods?

If Bernie wins the nomination and loses the election, that's exactly what these primary voters will have done.

Yeah, I want my Revolution, and I want it now, too. But I also want to win.

And you, who has been around long enough to tell us all about the Civil Rights movement, who has been watching this all the whole time, simply cannot look me in the eye and honestly tell me a Sanders nomination isn't one of the biggest risks liberals could take right now.

Look at the states, Billy. Watch the Democrats, as you have for decades, get ground into bloody electoral dust at the state level. Then try to tell me how this happens.

Hillary Clinton is barely left of center; this is a compromise I'm willing to make.

Donald Trump might be nine points right of center, and perhaps Bernie Sanders only three or four points to the left, but he and his supporters want to be seen farther out on a limb than he really is. And after months spent cultivating that notion, that he is the anti-Trump, he won't be able to clean that image up and fall back to the center. The risk of losing is bad enough; the risk of getting carved into little pieces is present enough that I'm starting to worry about Sanders supporters for their apparent inability to recognize history.

So for all the "anti-establishment" bluster this year, this is the thing: If Bernie and his crew fuck this up, "socialism" will never again be trusted. There are many leftists who will hold the line and look for their chance; the Sanders presidential campaign is not that chance. He's riding populism with a bunch of promises he can't keep; even if Democrats could win back both houses this year, they still can't push that agenda through. And if he wins the nomination and blows the election, the next "socialist" up will be viewed by those leftists as suspect; we'll wait for a bona fide communist.

It's one thing to say Sanders and his supporters are playing with fire; that's pretty much cliché. But Bernie Sanders doesn't care if that fire torches everything.

And that smarmy, false confidence of matching Republican extremity won't just cost Democrats; it will hurt all Americans.

If Sanders wins the nomination he can have my full support. But if he wins the nomination and blows the election, it will be more than just a bruise to my ego. He and his supporters will bear a measure of responsibility for whatever denigrations of my quality of life Republicans manage in four years under Trump or Cruz.

If the GOP wants the White House, they should pray for a Sanders nomination, stage a contested convention, and send Jeb Bush―or even revive Lindsay Graham's candidacy as an alternative―to the Show. And then they can have the White House and both chambers of Congress.

Hope springs from the challenges history presents; it cannot, however, ignore that history.

Just because the right wing gets away with ignoring history doesn't mean the left does also.

And if you stop ignorng history, you would know that's true.

More important than winning, this time, is not losing.

Consider a setting in which a prominent Republican can accuse Donald Trump of being a leftist and not be laughed out of the room.

Nothing about what has been going on in recent years suggests Sanders' candidacy is a good idea.

This is not the year for our Revolution; we will lose.

But, you know, hey, what does that really matter? This isn't about the good of our society, or the human condition; this is about feeling good in the moment, and that's what counts, right?

And this is the difference between tactics and strategy. Sure, it's a feelgood tactic, but it is, strategically speaking, toxic pabulum.

So bandwagoning cynical ideas like sending Hillary Clinton to the Supreme Court might give warm fuzzies in the moment, but it's just more infotainment and political theatre.

The Democratic Party is my compromise with the American right wing; if leftists want me to pull off the line and join the revolutionary vanguard, they need a real Revolution. Promising the political equivalent of cake-frosted puppies and unicorns shitting Dippin' Dots from the sky does not qualify.

The Sanders platform certainly feels good, but it's the kind of liberal fantasy that gets us shredded on Election Day, and relegated to the minor leagues when we lose. And anyone who thinks American voters are suddenly going to defy history and break hard left just because the opportunity presents itself should probably figure out a functional explanation of just how that projection works.

Bernie Sanders is asking American voters to take a huge risk, and he needs something better than, "Because", to explain just how that's going to work.

And when his supporters are down to "remove the other candidate so we can win", they are setting themselves up not as revolutionaries, but mere provocateurs and saboteurs. They might not care about the differences between the parties, and, certes, when Republicans run the Show and run the country into the ground, they can comfort themselves by blaming the Democratic Party, but there are actual human stakes on the table, here, and it would be rather quite reassuring to know, to the one, that Team Sanders is cognizant of that reality, and, to the other, that their response is something more substantial than, "Fuck it".

 

[iceaura]

And history demonstrates that if the American left tries to match the American right at the ballot box, the American left loses. And when we lose, we are excluded from the "serious" political discussions for decades.

Like when the Left compromised on Bill Clinton, and remained shut out of the Reagan Era until 2016? Or was it back when the Left compromised on Humphrey, and never got back in game?

The Left has been shut out of American politics for a generation now. It hasn't been for lack of compromise on Clintons.

Hillary Clinton is barely left of center; this is a compromise I'm willing to make.

She is solidly to the right of anything a reasonable person could call a "center", and she always has been. Her friends are banksters, her ideology rightwing and authoritarian, her proposals a continuation of Reaganomics and imperial militaristic venturing, with protecting Israel from all of its neighbors the focus of US foreign policy.

More important than winning, this time, is not losing.

Clinton is a sure loss, elected or not. That's the problem.

She is also more likely to lose a general election than Sanders, as things stand now. She has a lot of baggage, and no upside in name recognition, and she's a lousy campaigner.

Look: Clinton is not on your side. Whatever you think is being risked by backing Sanders, it isn't leftwing access to political power. Clinton will shut that down as firmly as Trump.

Nothing about what has been going on in recent years suggests Sanders' candidacy is a good idea.

Or Clinton's. But we're stuck.

 

[joepistole]

Anything to help Republicans get elected, eh, Billy?

See, that's the thing. You're both old enough and smart enough to know the relevant history. You already know that when liberalism and leftism step up for big stakes and lose, we don't just lose but also get relegated.

I know it's not about helping Republicans get elected. But I need you to think past the dreamy stars in your eyes and recognize what is happening.

If Democratic voters send Hillary Clinton to the Show and she loses, it's on her.

If Democratic voters send Bernie Sanders to the Show, and he loses, it's on the voters.

And history demonstrates that if the American left tries to match the American right at the ballot box, the American left loses. And when we lose, we are excluded from the "serious" political discussions for decades.

The media wants to cast Bernie as some sort of polar anti-Trump? Bernie wants to welcome and promote that idea? History shows this is really dangerous for the left. But here's the thing: Bernie Sanders doesn't care. If he wins the nomination and wrecks the Democratic Party by losing, he still gets to count that as a win.

It's kind of like that weird question we hear in the wake of riots: Why do they always tear up their own neighborhoods?

If Bernie wins the nomination and loses the election, that's exactly what these primary voters will have done.

Yeah, I want my Revolution, and I want it now, too. But I also want to win.

And you, who has been around long enough to tell us all about the Civil Rights movement, who has been watching this all the whole time, simply cannot look me in the eye and honestly tell me a Sanders nomination isn't one of the biggest risks liberals could take right now.

Look at the states, Billy. Watch the Democrats, as you have for decades, get ground into bloody electoral dust at the state level. Then try to tell me how this happens.

Hillary Clinton is barely left of center; this is a compromise I'm willing to make.

Donald Trump might be nine points right of center, and perhaps Bernie Sanders only three or four points to the left, but he and his supporters want to be seen farther out on a limb than he really is. And after months spent cultivating that notion, that he is the anti-Trump, he won't be able to clean that image up and fall back to the center. The risk of losing is bad enough; the risk of getting carved into little pieces is present enough that I'm starting to worry about Sanders supporters for their apparent inability to recognize history.

So for all the "anti-establishment" bluster this year, this is the thing: If Bernie and his crew fuck this up, "socialism" will never again be trusted. There are many leftists who will hold the line and look for their chance; the Sanders presidential campaign is not that chance. He's riding populism with a bunch of promises he can't keep; even if Democrats could win back both houses this year, they still can't push that agenda through. And if he wins the nomination and blows the election, the next "socialist" up will be viewed by those leftists as suspect; we'll wait for a bona fide communist.

It's one thing to say Sanders and his supporters are playing with fire; that's pretty much cliché. But Bernie Sanders doesn't care if that fire torches everything.

And that smarmy, false confidence of matching Republican extremity won't just cost Democrats; it will hurt all Americans.

If Sanders wins the nomination he can have my full support. But if he wins the nomination and blows the election, it will be more than just a bruise to my ego. He and his supporters will bear a measure of responsibility for whatever denigrations of my quality of life Republicans manage in four years under Trump or Cruz.

If the GOP wants the White House, they should pray for a Sanders nomination, stage a contested convention, and send Jeb Bush―or even revive Lindsay Graham's candidacy as an alternative―to the Show. And then they can have the White House and both chambers of Congress.

Hope springs from the challenges history presents; it cannot, however, ignore that history.

Just because the right wing gets away with ignoring history doesn't mean the left does also.

And if you stop ignorng history, you would know that's true.

More important than winning, this time, is not losing.

Consider a setting in which a prominent Republican can accuse Donald Trump of being a leftist and not be laughed out of the room.

Nothing about what has been going on in recent years suggests Sanders' candidacy is a good idea.

This is not the year for our Revolution; we will lose.

But, you know, hey, what does that really matter? This isn't about the good of our society, or the human condition; this is about feeling good in the moment, and that's what counts, right?

And this is the difference between tactics and strategy. Sure, it's a feelgood tactic, but it is, strategically speaking, toxic pabulum.

So bandwagoning cynical ideas like sending Hillary Clinton to the Supreme Court might give warm fuzzies in the moment, but it's just more infotainment and poltiical theatre.

The Democratic Party is my compromise with the American right wing; if leftists want me to pull off the line and join the revolutionary vanguard, they need a real Revolution. Promising the political equivalent of cake-frosted puppies and unicorns shitting Dippin' Dots from the sky does not qualify.

The Sanders platform certainly feels good, but it's the kind of liberal fantasy that gets us shredded on Election Day, and relegated to the minor leagues when we lose. And anyone who thinks American voters are suddenly going to defy history and break hard left just because the opportunity presents itself should probably figure out a functional explanation of just how that projection works.

Bernie Sanders is asking American voters to take a huge risk, and he needs something better than, "Because", to explain just how that's going to work.

And when his supporters are down to "remove the other candidate so we can win", they are setting themselves up not as revolutionaries, but mere provocateurs and saboteurs. They might not care about the differences between the parties, and, certes, when Republicans run the Show and run the country into the ground, they can comfort themselves by blaming the Democratic Party, but there are actual human stakes on the table, here, and it would be rather quite reassuring to know, to the one, that Team Sanders is cognizant of that reality, and, to the other, that their response is something more substantial than, "Fuck it".

The stakes are too high this election cycle. Democrats had best not screw it up or we will all be in a world of pain.