[THS] Getting Over Scalia (and the Supreme Court in General)

[Peter Webster]

Getting Over Scalia
                                                by William Betz

            During an interview aired last night on "60 Minutes" Antonin Scalia
demonstrated, in his inability to discuss articulately the decision of the
Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore, just how vacuous and hypocritical the legal
reasoning behind that tragic theft of democracy truly was.  Shockingly,
after suggesting that anyone who has the gall to question the decision
should "get over it," Scalia then pronounced that Bush would have won the
election anyway and the result would not have been different had the
Supreme Court declined to intervene.  The Court, it will be remembered,
stopped a vote recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court, handing the
presidency to George W. Bush.  Apparently Scalia is not aware that a
consortium of news organizations performed a complete recount of Florida
votes and found conclusively that Gore had won Florida.  Unfortunately, this
inconvenient truth was at least temporarily misplaced - and maybe
permanently lost - in the aftermath of September 11, 2001.  As seems
appropriate for a national candidate who had a popular majority of more
than 500,000 votes, Gore won the presidential election in 2000. [Yes, Gore
WON in Florida:
See http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040526_KeatingPaper.pdf. MCM]

Had it not been for the tortured logic of the majority of the Supreme Court -
consisting of its five "conservative" Republican members who, as the
interviewer Leslie Stahl correctly pointed out, rendered a political decision -
then the United States would not have suffered eight years of George W.
Bush, along with the degradation of the Constitution and the rule of law; an
immoral and unjustified war of choice based solely on lies propagated by
the bastard Bush administration and our concomitant disgrace in the eyes
of the world; the descent of America into rationalizing the need for - and its
right to - torture; the transfer by the Bush administration of the national
treasury to the private hands of its corporate cohorts; the destruction by
intentional neglect of the City of New Orleans and the country's general
infrastructure; the politicization of the CIA, the Justice Department and
virtually every other agency of the Federal government; the appointment of
incompetent political cronies to important government positions; and the
virtual dismantling of the social structure of the nation.

The damage caused by the Supreme Court as the result of its palace coup
is incalculable and in all likelihood irreparable.  The legal "reasoning" used
by the Court in Bush v. Gore was, to anyone familiar with constitutional law
and, indeed, to anyone who understands American democracy,
astonishingly dishonest.  (As far as Scalia's call during the 60 Minutes
interview for honesty is concerned, the Justice claimed that the decision
was 7-2, when it was actually 5-4.)

In Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 121 S. Ct. 525, 148 L.Ed.2d 388 (2000), the
Supreme Court ordered that a recount of votes directed by the Florida
Supreme Court be stopped because of the potential violation of the right of
Bush and his supporters to equal protection of the law under the
Fourteenth Amendment.  Equal protection jurisprudence had developed
over the previous century to guard the rights of persons based on their
minority status, the "discrete and insular minorities" famously identified 70
years ago by an earlier Supreme Court.  The discrete and insular minorities
referred to in the 1938 decision included groups subjected to discrimination
on the basis of race, national origin or religion.  But who were the
vulnerable minorities in Florida?  They were Bush himself, Bush voters and
Bush supporters and suit-and-tie Republican operatives sent to Florida by
the Republican National Committee, people like John ("I'm John Bolton and
I'm here to stop the recount") Bolton, and henchmen dispatched by James
Baker, the Texas oil oligarch, Republican uber operative and Bush I former
Secretary of State.  By assigning to these persons protected minority status,
the Supreme Court effectively announced that the rule of law means
nothing, not when it stands in the way of a desired political result.  The
decision represents and will likely always represent the lowest point of
American jurisprudence.

Leslie Stahl made much of Scalia's sense of humor and purportedly pleasant
personality.  The liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined in the
humanization of Scalia.  Scalia himself discussed his identity as the first
Italian American on the Court, noting that traditional negative stereotypes of
Italians sometimes included identification with the Mafia.  But a thug is a
thug regardless of his ethnic identity, whether his thuggery is perpetrated
at the point of a gun or the point of a pen.  Surely there were many people
who believed Hitler was charming and that Mussolini had a wonderful sense
of humor.  The crimes of the two, however, remain unforgivable.  The
crime perpetrated by black-robed thugs in 2000, a crime hidden behind
pseudointellectual and dishonest legal reasoning for purely political
purposes, a crime so vile that it makes a mockery of democracy, is equally
unforgivable.

"Get over it," indeed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Election Experts: Today's Supreme Court Ruling Will Add to Long List of
Hurdles Already Facing American Voters

Call for New Standards to Ensure Fair and Secure Elections

WASHINGTON, DC - Election experts fear that today's ruling in Crawford v.
Marion County Election Board will not only prompt state election officials to
enact similarly restrictive ID laws, but will also lay the foundation for them to
impose other restrictions that unnecessarily burden voting. These
restrictions, including laws targeting civic groups that help register voters
and improper implementation of federal laws intended to protect voters
from being wrongly purged from voter lists, could exacerbate difficulties
voters already face complying with existing voting laws.

"Today's decision is disappointing because it upholds a new hurdle for
voters unsupported by any evidence of voter impersonation in Indiana."
said Bob Brandon, Co-founder and President, Fair Elections Legal Network.
"With more states imposing their own rules, it's clear we need sensible
reform to bring fair standards to all eligible voters."

"At a time of increased participation in our election system, we need to
move toward lifting burdens on voters and creating a streamlined, fair
system. The Court's decision is an unfortunate step backward for our
nation, said John Bonifaz, Legal Director for Voter Action. "We need broad
reform to make the system easier for all eligible voters to register, remain
registered, and vote."

The Court's ruling means that large numbers of registered voters, many of
whom have been voting for most of their lives, including senior, student,
rural, disabled, minority and low income voters may not be able to cast a
ballot in next week's primary or in the November elections. While states
have the authority to regulate the administration of elections, they must do
so in a way that is uniform, fair and promotes, instead of deters, voter
participation. This case demonstrates that fair standards are necessary to
ensure full participation in our democracy."

Bob Brandon is Co-founder and President of the Fair Elections Legal
Network with more than 25 years of public policy, legislative, media and
campaign experience at the federal, state and local levels. Fair Elections
Legal Network is a national, nonpartisan network of election lawyers who
work year round, well in advance of Election Day, to remove legal and
administrative barriers to voter participation by traditionally under
participating constituencies. It has over 180 lawyers in 29 states
representing local organizations challenging restrictive laws and rules by
working informally with state and local election officials or, with the help of
its legal staff, initiating more proceedings.

John Bonifaz is a MacArthur Fellowship award winner and the Legal Director
of Voter Action, a national non-profit organization at the forefront of the
election integrity movement in the United States. He is also the founder of
the National Voting Rights Institute and served as its executive director from
1994-2004, and its general counsel from 2004-2006.Through legal
advocacy, research, and public education, Voter Action works to protect
open and transparent election processes in which US elections at the
federal, state, and local levels are accessible and verifiable.


Media Contacts:

KRIS BROWN
(703) 785-1699

kbrown at gloverparkgroup.com

MELISSA BLECHMAN
(305) 726-4488
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

BRAD BLOG ALERT
April 28, 2008
image001 103.jpg

Voter Advocate Rush Limbaugh Applauds Supreme Court's 'Huge, Huge,
Huge Move to Undercut Democrat Voter Fraud'
P
Polling Place Photo ID Restrictions in Indiana Upheld by SCOTUS in
Courageous and Historic Dredd Scott-like Decision

By Why Stop at Keeping Black and Elderly Fraudsters from Stealing
Elections?...

image002 63.jpg

As the great voting rights advocate, Rush Limbaugh, trumpeted at the
beginning of his radio show this morning, today's 6 to3 Supreme Court
ruling allowing new, modern restrictions regarding which citizens may or
may not cast a vote at an American polling place on Election Day, is "a
huge, huge, huge move forward to undercut Democrat efforts to commit
voter fraud this fall."
Fortunately, instead of coming in June, as expected, this decision on an
Indiana Photo ID restriction case, comes just in time to prevent massive
voter fraud at the polls in Indiana's Democratic Primary two weeks from
now, where millions of fraudulent Democratic voters were almost certainly
plotting to try and show up to vote on electronic voting systems on which
it's impossible to prove one way or another whether they did or didn't vote
the way the machines will tell us they did. With voting systems like those in
use across the Hoosier State, and elsewhere around the country, it's all the
more reason to ensure those Democrats can't show up and commit the
fraud they were probably planning to on May 6th!
Clearly, today's SCOTUS decision is a good start, but it hardly goes far
enough to ensure the right American voices are heard, as our founders
intended! 14th Amendment, 14th Shmamendment! Don't you Democrats
understand the Constitution is a living document, meant to be interpreted
liberally?!
If we hope to ensure that only the right people vote, and not the wrong,
fraudulent Americans, it's time to put our laws where our mouths are! So
here are a few ideas, for some even more good polling place laws to help
discourage voter fraud...
FULL STORY: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5932