Tuesday :: Feb 3, 2004

Why Haven’t Rehnquist and O’Connor Retired?

by paradox

Something very strange happened over the space of the last three years—not one of the sitting members of the Supreme Court have retired.

At the very least two were seen as a dead lock for retirement at the start of Bush’s term—Rehnquist and O’Connor. Rehnquist is 80 years old, and O’Connor allegedly wanted to spend more time with her sick husband. Yet here in 2004 there they are, part of precisely the same court that started Bush’s term. Why?

No one knows, and O’Connor and Rehnquist are not talking. But I think I know: the scathing, vicious criticism of Bush vs. Gore got to them. They were brazen enough to pull it off in the privacy of their judicial chambers, but once the decision was in the full light of day and the endless barrages of scorn and contempt were heaped upon them they finally realized what they had done when they stole the election for Bush.

They couldn’t actually follow through. They stole the election for Bush so he could choose their successors (among other things), but with the obvious proof of the odius, stinking, public text of Bush vs. Gore as witness to their theft they decided, for whatever reason, that stealing the election would have to be enough. They weren’t going to give their critics the chance to lambaste them once more as another Republican took their place on the Court as the result of the theft in Bush vs. Gore.

Dershowitz idly gossiped in 2001 that O’Connor stayed on to salvage her reputation—a career of careful jurisprudence had been chucked out the window in the most laughable decision ever handed down by the Supreme Court. Will history be kind to a jurist who violated every principle of her previous decisions to steal an election? Nice try, Sandra. Can’t be done.

Make no mistake: fierce Republican advocacy of Bush primarily arises out of his illegitimacy. They all know Bush stole his job and they'll do anything to get him legitimately elected the second time to validate the original theft. Of course it still bothers them a great deal—when the Republicans won the midterms fools loudly proclaimed the election legitimized Bush, naturally leaving out the convenient little fact that Bush wasn’t on any ballot.

So a new Supreme Court justice will have to wait until 2005, for none of the thieves who wrote Bush vs. Gore would ever bring the whole sordid affair up yet again with a confirmation process in an election year. The Felonious Five who stole the election know that, despite a complete absence of the theft in the current media agenda, no one has even remotely forgotten Bush vs. Gore.

***** The last time I posted at The Left Coaster some sicko called my house, abused my wife and scared her very badly. I’m still here. I am an American, and I will not be silenced*****

paradox :: 8:23 AM :: Comments (31) :: Digg It!