Vanity Fair Magazine - "The Path to Florida" (Oct 2004 hit piece) BARF ALERT

Vanity Fair Magazine ^ | October 2004 | Margolick/Peretez/Schnaverson

[ikka]

Vanity Fair, in complete non-collaboration with the Democrats as required by the FEC, has just now decided to run a hit piece on the 2000 election. Watch in amazement as all the old bromides are once again aired out in a pathetic attempt to make the case that Bush was "selected, not elected" and that the SCOTUS "installed" Bush into the White House.

This article is in two PDFs. I will add direct links to the PDF in the body of the comment so that the DemocRAT blogger who has them does not get the hits.

[ikka]

Here are the links:

PDF part 1

PDF 2

You can make a fairly long drinking game out of this article - have a shot every time they trot out a Democrat talking point, like "SCOTUS installed the president", "Gore won the popular vote", "Jeb Bush fixed it", etc. etc.

[Gustafm1000]

It is a horribly biased article... My favorite trick libs use is to call the four libs on the Supreme Court "moderates" and the other five conservatives.

The only interesting part of this article is the first ten or so pages that delve into the back dealing of the SCOTUS during Bush v. Gore... Seems like they only interviewed law clerks for the liberal Justices, so who knows if ANY of it is accurate, but it IS a rare look behind the scenes of the Court, which for a lawyer is somewhat interesting.

[blondee123]

I am avoiding any article by Vanity Fair, not worth reading.

[andie74]

Feel dry heaves coming on...

...developing...

[spodefly]

"Shortly after the presidential vote in November 2000, two law clerks at the United States Supreme Court were joking about the photo finish in Florida. Wouldn’t it be funny, one mused, if the matter landed before them? And how, if it did, the Court would split five to four, as it so often did in big cases, with the conservative majority installing George W. Bush in the White House? The two just laughed. It all seemed too preposterous."

Nice start to the article ... tells you right where it's going.

[ikka]

I remember a few years ago when a law clerk wrote a book about the SCOTUS.

Problem is, his attitude was that clerks were controlling the justices, influencing them in different ways, etc., like puppets on a string.

Of course, when you look at the legal rulings of an SC justice over many years, you realize that individual law clerks (who change each year) could not have been influencing them too much, since the justice's attitudes towards a subject stayed pretty much the same year after year (see for example Thomas on property law).

[ikka]

Know the enemy... that is why I posted it.

[mc6809e]

This article covers the myths about the 2000 election:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/kirsanow200310150822.asp

[Terriergal]

Did you catch the "What if Bush Wins" in the same issue? I haven't read the 'road to FL' article yet, haven't the stomach after wading through the swill of "what if bush wins."


I apologize profusely, had to buy it for the Jude Law article.

[Terriergal]

We already know the enemy. They're psychotic. (in all seriousness I think a lot more of them are than one might think initially).