GORE WON !
1 2 3 4
17. December 12:- The
US Supreme Court, in a decision as partisan as the unconscionable
Dred Scott decision of 1857, permanently halted the Florida recount,
thus handing the presidency to George W. Bush. The Gang of Five
baldly stated: "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional
right to vote for electors for the President of the United States
unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election
as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral
College." They added further that the state legislature could,
at any time, revoke the popular vote for president and "if
it so chooses, select the electors itself."
Associate Justice John
Paul Stevens stated in his dissenting opinion: "In the interest
of finality, however, the majority effectively orders the disenfranchisement
of an unknown number of voters whose ballots reveal their intent--
and are therefore legal votes under state law-- but were for some
reason rejected by the ballot-counting machines.... Although we
may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner
of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser
is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as
an impartial guardian of the rule of law."
Two members of the Gang of Five have conflicts of interest with
a Bush victory sufficient to cause more ethical judges to recuse
themselves. Thomas' wife Virginia is employed by the Heritage Foundation,
a right-wing think tank, where she is processing resumés
for appointments in a Bush administration. Scalia's son Eugene is
a partner in the Washington law office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.
One of the senior partners there is Theodore Olson, who argued Bush's
case before the Supreme Court and is supposed to be on Bush's short
list for a Supreme Court nomination. Additionally, Justice O'Connor,
aged 70, has been postponing retirement until a Republican president
takes office. It could also be argued that Rehnquist and Scalia
would favor the succession of Bush as a president more likely to
appoint new justices that would be their clones and cement their
judicial philosophy for the next three decades.
Democrats prostrate before Supreme
Court assault on democratic rights [12 December]
ties, political bias linked US Supreme Court justices to Bush camp
And, finally, in case
you didn't understand how the Supremes could have reasoned their
way to their final decision, this interview with attorney Mark Levine
should make it perfectly clear!
Layman's Guide To The Supreme Court Decision in Bush v. Gore, by
Mark Levine, Esq.
This site was
last changed November 28, 2001. It was created on March 20, 1997.
use of any of the material contained herein is strictly prohibited.