the "board game" was handed to Bush by the Supreme Court in November 2000. The entire country sat on their collective hands and watched Bush's army, working with his father's SC appointees and his brother's voting machine, steal the election.
The majority watched their votes thrown away.
Um Paradox.
We're Democrats. We don't "do" oppo research.
We just wait like sitting ducks for a swift boating.
Don't rock the boat, fella.
Posted by Mister Go at May 23, 2006 02:32 PMThe whole stolen election mantra is nonsense, of course. As for Bush Sr., he only appointed 2 Justices to the court, and in 2000 7 of the Justices found Constitutional problems with what the Supreme Court of Florida did, but not all 7 agreed on the remedy. If you want to read the Supreme Court decision in the case and dissect it, we can do that, but I thought the stolen election stuff had already been put to bed.
As to the post by pessimist - right on target. The country is founded on the idea of coordinate branches of government, separated and equal, to serve as checks upon one another. The history of our country has seen a lot of tension between these powers, with the Judiciary pulling at power, the Executive pulling at it, and the Legislative pulling at it. In large part, each branch has always been viligant in maintaining its own power (and correspondingly limiting the ability of the other branches to grab power), and when it comes to the judiciary, there had even been judicially-created prudential doctrines put in place to make sure the Court doesn't extend itself into the sphere of power of the other branches (and by the same token protects it own powers).
The problem now is that many of the GOP in Congress are putting party loyalty over the responsibility they have as a co-equal branch of government. They're willing to let Bush expand executive powers without checking them, as is required by their Constitutional oath, because they see themselves as loyal to the GOP by letting Bush wield broad powers. This is a potential problem anytime the same party controls both the executive and legislative, because the political will to stand up against one's own President (so perceived anyway) is often lacking.
The GOP in Congress ought to be taking their oaths seriously and setting themselves to the task of preserving the province of the legislature as set out in the Constitution. Instead, they're more interested in letting Bush do whatever he likes. If the Democrats can manage to win Congress later this year, at least we can count on a more vigilant defense of legislative authority.
Posted by Musmanno at May 23, 2006 02:35 PMms, yh; nd yh t yr rlr wrtng, t.
[Editor: ignore=off]No. the Florida vote counts were manipulated by Bush's own brother and the Bush Campaign manager Harris was in charge of the election. Mustroll, you are a fool. You are peddling a worn out story. For the sake of fairness- forget the Supreme Court - a member of which said a recount (to determine the winner) would sully a Bush presidency (which he had not won). Ask the African American community in FLA how their vote was dumped. Ask the Jewish voters why they strangley voted for the anti-Semite Buchanan. Ask why, magically, the one electoral college vote needed for victory had to be found in the candidate's brother's state, by cancelled recount of flawed balloting. Yes, its all so convenient. Just like the "Trifecta" Bush received 6 months later.
Posted by T2 at May 23, 2006 06:55 PMT2, cldn't bth f yr gys b rght? mn, n n n th SC hs mr thn lw/vrg ntllgnc, ll wtht srs drv, cmbnd wth ttl lck f ny knwldg f hstry r sclgy. Why cldn’t y gr tht th mjrty f ths drlcts cldn't cm t cnsnss bt hw t dl wth n nprcdntd lctn? sspct tht drng thr mtng, vryn ws s frfl tht thy mstly grd t d xctly wht thy dd, nd tht ws prbbly ftr Rhnqst tld thm th pln f ctn. nd tht vn whn thy knw tht vrydy ntllgnt ppl ls ndrstd f th crrptn n h nd Flrd.
dn't knw nythng bt lt r Rbrts, bt bt ths pltcls r ss kckrs. Bt lk t ths kk crt prr t th bv tw. bnch f lw-drv-hlf-dd trds. t lst th lk f Pwll hd sm vsn nd drv, lbt wrnghdd n mny wys. Sm wth Wrrn. gn, ths 2004 dts wr md fr lttl Bsh.
dn’t knw, cld b gssng wrng hr. My bsrvtn s tht wth sch stpdty n th Crt, thy r bnd t d s lttl s pssbl. cn tll y frm prsnl xprnc f wtchng my wn dt sprvsrs cnsstntly mk th wrng dcsns whn ndr prssr. nd vry n f ths dcsns wr lwys th pth t rtrn t ‘nrml,’ SP, rgrdlss f rght/wrng.
The 2000 vote was actually stolen when some 90,000 voters were stricken from the voting rolls, many of them African-American and presumably democrats (which is why they were stricken). While I think Hastert is probably right on separation of powers issues (FBI reports to DOJ which is part of the executive branch), the really grotesque thing is that he's been a silent spectator these last 5 years while the "unitary executive" has been eviscerating the constitution: it's right up there with Gonzalez threatening reporters who report on the criminal enterprise of which Gonzalez is an integral part.
Posted by Brian Boru at May 23, 2006 09:58 PMI thought I'd never see the day when a moron like this could be elected president. This is what happens when you get to the point where biggest war chest (pun intended) wins 90% of the time, mony = "speech" and privatisation becomes equated with the mysterious workings of divine providence. The whole shootin match envisioned by Franklin, Jefferson, Madison & co. has been reduced to a big fire sale with an underqualified, egg-sucking weasal at its head.
Posted by jondee at May 23, 2006 11:08 PMYeah, T2, vague conspiracy theories. Who's repeated a tired mantra? Go read the court decisions and then we'll talk.
Scout:
Yes, I think in large part you're probably right. The Florida case was so screwed up by the time it got to the Supreme Court that there wasn't much they could do with it, though. Remember, the Florida Supreme Court's actions were found to be unconstitutional by 7 of the 9 Supreme Court justices, so that finding wasn't along ideological lines (oddly enough, Ginsburg and Stevens argued for principles of Federalism in that case, something you'd expect to see out of Scalia or Thomas and not those two). So you've got 7 Justices siding with Bush on his Constitutional equal protection argument, despite what T2 would have you believe. Only the three most conservative justices sided with Bush on the article II arguments, but at the end of the day you've got 7 who of them saying what the Florida Supreme Court was doing was unconstitutional.
5 of the 7 then ruled that a constitutionally-adequate recount could not be completed by the statutory deadline for the state to select its electors. This deadline is set by federal statute and was within a day or two of the Supreme Court decision. So these 5 (including O'Connor, I might add) said the most appropriate thing to do Constitutionally was to go with the previously certified vote.
People who argue against the Supreme Court's actions on the merits (instead of postulating conspiracy theories) will point out that the deadline wasn't able to be met, in part, because of the Court's own injunctions while hearing the case. I think that's a valid argument and it goes directly to what you said, scout, about them not knowing precisely how to handle an unprecedented case like this. They probably shouldn't have issued the injunction, but they were trying, I think, to prevent more harm, particularly since the coverage of the recount was intense. Further evidence that they were dealing with the sort of thing they weren't used to was the majoritie's express limitation of the holding to the case at hand. I think that was a mistake as well - if the case is good law, then it ought to be applicable as precedent.
Posted by Musmanno at May 24, 2006 05:47 AMwww.macyapper.com
ILLINOIS SCHLUMP NO ORDINARY CHUMP?
Hastert More Than Irrelevant Lump?
From The Hill:
House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) told President Bush yesterday that he is concerned the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) raid on Rep. William Jefferson’s (D-La.) congressional office over the weekend was a direct violation of the Constitution
*Woooooo.
The Schlump from Illinois dares to challenge the Great and Powerful Prez.
“The Speaker spoke candidly with the president about the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s raid over the weekend,” Hastert spokesman Ron Bonjean said yesterday in confirming his boss’s remarks.“My opinion is they took the wrong path,” Hastert said. “They need to back up, and we need to go from there.”
*Oooooooh. "Candidly." Garsh.
Go back to Illinois and sweep the floors at the high school, you irrelevant non-entity.
*And stand up straight. Quit schlumping.
Posted by john mcintire at May 24, 2006 08:36 AMOne wonders if Hastert's comments may be out of self-interest more than anything else. I.e. he doesn't like unannounced raids because his office might be next. People in Congress tend to do a lot of looking over their shoulder whenever there is an investigation of any of their members. Likely because most of them are involved in things they shouldn't be.
Still, it does raise an interesting separation of powers issue. Is the FBI action an impermissible extension of executive power into the affairs of the legislature, or is it a check by one branch on another. If it is an impermissible extension, then by the same token is the legislative prohibited from investigating the executive? And if not, where does that power end (this is a question Clinton should have asked himself when the GOP Congress was on its witchhunt. He would have saved himself some headaches).
Posted by Musmanno at May 24, 2006 08:53 AMms, pprct yr rsrch nd rtnl n ths tpc.
Y’v lkd nt ths mttr; lt m pprch smll mnt f vgnss, f nly bcs m s vry mch wr f hw lttl knw wht gs n nywhr, spclly wht ws sd drng th Crt mtngs rgrdng th bv vnt.
Nw, th fd crt jdgs r n th bnch fr lf. Ths fct ln crts t mch n tttd f flshnss, hstrclly spkng. Frthr, ths chck hs nt slwd th pc f pltcl chng, whch ws th rsn fr t’s xstnc. Nvrthlss, ths prtctn nslts th fd bnch sttrs, psychlgclly spkng.
s y pntd t, ’Cnnr smd t sd wth lttl Bsh n th bv. ’v nt sn ny thnkng frm hr, lss frm Gnsbrg, nd fr lss frm tht prvrt Thms.
Yt, ’Cnnr rlly rsd tch f fr n m whn sh mntnd drng sm spch r ntrvw smwhr pntng t th dngr f ‘dcttrshp,’ nd hw ths frm f gv’t bgns by tmprng wth th jdcry.
By prblm hr s hw t wgh hr sttmnt; hr mnd s s wk s thy cm, yt, sk, dd smthng hppn wth th Crt xprnc wth th lttl Bsh bys tht pt sm fr nt hr? D y s my qstn? nd, f y hrd ’Cnnr’s bv ‘dcttrshp’ sttmnt, wht’s yr tk?
Scout- thanks for your comments. I've done some research on it, and moreover I used to teach a law course covering constitutional law at a college, and this was post Bush v. Gore so we talked about it.
I think while on the Court, the Justices try for the most part to uphold their oaths and make the appropriate decisions. Inherent philosophical differences mean they are going to come down on different sides of issues, but it doesn't mean any of them are being dishonest in their approach. I think O'Connor sided with Bush in the case because she really believe she was right (and much as I hate to saying seeing the jackass we got for President, I think she may very well have been right).
Of course, while on the Court the Justices can't very well go around making comments like the one O'Connor made about dictatorship. Once she was off the court, she was free to speak her mind and I think her concerns are valid. O'Connor is by no means a left-winger, and here you have her warning essentially against the course the present administration is taking. So I think her concerns should be taken seriously. Of course, if we're going to take her seriously and credit her thinking in one instance, then it stands to reason she should at least be considered seriously in others. Many of those who applauded her comments about dictatorship wouldn't have much to say if reminded of her decision in Bush v. Gore.
Yes, federal appointment of judges for life can be a problem, and it has become more of a problem, at least in the public perception, as the Courts have been regarded as being more political. Federal judges are appointed for life because they are supposed to be insulated from politics and the whims of the day, and the idea was that if you required them to run for election they'd be beholden to political interests. But at the time the Judiciary was also considered to be the weakest of the branches of government. Justice Marshall made precisely this point in Marbury v. Madison when he took upon the Court the power to have the final say in whether something was Constitutional (many people don't realize that it wasn't always settled that the Court could say that something Congress or the President did was unconstitutional). Marshall pointed out, correctly, that the Judiciary had no means of enforcing anything because it relied on the other branches. He concluded it was the weakest branch, and thus the most appropriate one to give the authority for determining what is Constitutional because of the checks against it (and in fact when the Supreme Court ruled against Abraham Lincoln, he flat out ignored them and there was nothing they could do about it. Imagine if the Supreme Court ruled that the NSA wiretapping was unconstitutional (which it is) and Bush said screw you guys, we're doing it anyway. What could the court do? Nothing).
Anyway, I'm getting really far afield here. I don't know if anything specific happened to make O'Connor say those words. I have a feeling that the general trend of this administration to exert executive authority at the expense of the other branches, and without regard to what the law may or may not be, is what she's talking about.
And she's right.
Posted by Musmanno at May 24, 2006 09:17 AMms, wsh smn wld pck 'Cnnr's mnd n ths mttr; nw, knw ll th fd crt sttrs fl vlnrbl. Thy trd t dcrs ths flng whn thy kckd t th S Mrshls nd hrd thr wn prvt scrty, (Mrshls hd t mch rp, s fr s thy wr cncrnd). Ths mv nt nly ddn't hlp, bt ws cstly. sspct tht thy nw knw tht th qlty f th Mrshls s nw s bd tht thy fl frcd t kp wht thy hv. nywy, y gt th pnt. nd ths s qt pssbly th cr prblm tht lctd 'Cnnr's sttmnt.
Stll, yr pnt bt Lncln rss th hstrcl prcdnt bt gnrng fd prcdrs drng tms f mrgncy. nd Lncln hd mst srs prblm. Whl lttl Bsh s nt Lncln, hs hndlrs wld ls b wr f th bv, spclly Gnzls nd ths W fl vr hr t Brkly. nd thr r s mny hddn lyrs n bth th C nd Pnt tht try t fgr hw t s ny 'vnt' tht jst hppns t nfld.
sspct tht w r ll gng t g fr qt rd n th nr ftr, n wy r th thr.
[Editor: ignore=off]