Skip to comments.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Questions His Impartiality in High Court's 2000 Election Ruling
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGB8O8DOP0E.html ^
Posted on 10/24/2004 3:13:36 PM PDT by hipaatwo
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-45 next last
1
posted on
10/24/2004 3:13:36 PM PDT
by
hipaatwo
To: hipaatwo
It would be nice if the Justice referred to the Constitution once in a while. He took an oath to it.
To: hipaatwo
An excellent reason why the Court should not have heard
Bush v. Gore to begin with.
The Florida mess should have been resolved by Congress, as the Constitution provides.
3
posted on
10/24/2004 3:16:57 PM PDT
by
Jim Noble
(FR Iraq policy debate begins 11/3/04. Pass the word.)
To: hipaatwo
Of course he wasn't impartial. Liberal Judges are liberals first and seek to make their mark by "making" law in their own way.
He's apparently the last one to figure he's wasn't impartial in his 2000 election decision, and even then, he's still not sure.
Comment #5 Removed by Moderator
To: Jim Noble
The Florida mess should have been resolved by the Florida Legislature or, failing that, Congress, as the Constitution provides.
6
posted on
10/24/2004 3:21:56 PM PDT
by
conservatism_IS_compassion
(The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters but PR.)
7
posted on
10/24/2004 3:24:44 PM PDT
by
tgiles
To: hipaatwo; imintrouble
"Do I read the newspapers and try to see which way the political wind is blowing?" he said. "No. But we do decide through briefs that are submitted. ... They are people trying to tell us of the impact of our decisions in their bit of the world." The truth is that liberalism is defined by the negative, superficial imperatives of journalism. And that, therefore, reading newspapers or listening to "the news" is a suspect activitiy for jurists, who subject themselves thereby to the blandishments of positive or negative PR. Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate
8
posted on
10/24/2004 3:26:59 PM PDT
by
conservatism_IS_compassion
(The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters but PR.)
To: tgiles
an honest jerkoff is still a jerkoff.
9
posted on
10/24/2004 3:26:59 PM PDT
by
satchmodog9
(Murder and weather are our only news)
To: tgiles
After he's caught with his hand in the cookie jar.
10
posted on
10/24/2004 3:27:20 PM PDT
by
pipecorp
("never know where you're going till you get there." the philosopher Insectus Harem)
To: Jim Noble
The Florida mess should have been resolved by Congress, as the Constitution provides.
==================================
I must respectfully disagree on that point, Jim. It would not have gotten that far. I had spoken with the office of Speaker of House Foley who was prepared to convene a special session of the legislature if the Supreme Court did not undo what the RAT partisan Florida Supremes had done. Fortunately, the GOP had the votes and would have given the electors to Bush as they had the authority to do.
11
posted on
10/24/2004 3:27:33 PM PDT
by
doug from upland
(Michael Moore = a culinary Pinocchio ---- tell a lie, gain a pound.)
To: hipaatwo
"I had to ask myself would I vote the same way if the names were reversed," Sure I would (wink, wink).
Liberals consider idealogical positions much more important than the Constitution.
12
posted on
10/24/2004 3:27:53 PM PDT
by
mcenedo
(lying liberal media - our most dangerous and powerful enemy)
To: Jim Noble
Exactly. The correct decision in that case would have been for the U.S. Supreme Court to refuse to hear the case. The Florida legislature would have certified that state's electors, or else no Florida electors would have been certified at all -- in which case the U.S. Congress would have elected the President (since neither candidate would have had the required 270 electoral votes).
13
posted on
10/24/2004 3:31:59 PM PDT
by
Alberta's Child
(I made enough money to buy Miami -- but I pissed it away on the Alternative Minimum Tax.)
To: Victoria Delsoul
14
posted on
10/24/2004 3:33:00 PM PDT
by
Alberta's Child
(I made enough money to buy Miami -- but I pissed it away on the Alternative Minimum Tax.)
To: conservatism_IS_compassion; doug from upland
I don't think the Florida Legislature could have resolved the mess without help from Congress.
The Fla Supreme Court was SO out of control, I think they would have ordered Harris to certify a Gore slate, and the Legislature would surely have appointed a Bush slate.
The Joint Session in January 2001 would have received two sets of Florida EVs, and would have had to chhose-which they would have done, in Bush's favor.
The USSC taking up a political question was a big mistake, IMO.
15
posted on
10/24/2004 3:33:03 PM PDT
by
Jim Noble
(FR Iraq policy debate begins 11/3/04. Pass the word.)
To: tgiles
I think if he were really honest he would have said, "my votes on the Supreme Court have nothing to do with the law or the constitution. I simply vote for the most liberal position."
16
posted on
10/24/2004 3:36:53 PM PDT
by
yarddog
To: hipaatwo
If scalia or thomas said this It would be the lead story tonight on 60 minutes.
17
posted on
10/24/2004 3:38:15 PM PDT
by
TheRedSoxWinThePennant
(Remember the Red Sox won the pennant on George Bush's watch)
To: Jim Noble
According to Foley's office, they believed that they had the ability to solve it and the Florida Supremes would not have been able to intervene. Perhaps they were wrong. Theoretically, the USSC could have refused to hear it, the Legislature would have given the electors to Bush, the Florida Supremes could have exceeded their authority, and then what? What if the Florida Supremes ordered the electors to be given to Gore? It seems that it would then have to go to the USSC. All hell would have broken loose if the Florida Supremes ordering electors to be given to Gore, the USSC refusing to hear it, then a Republican congress overturning them in awarding the electors. I think that would have caused riots in the streets.
18
posted on
10/24/2004 3:39:59 PM PDT
by
doug from upland
(Michael Moore = a culinary Pinocchio ---- tell a lie, gain a pound.)
To: Jim Noble
I think our Judges are hopelessly corrupt. They see an opening to overrule the voice of the people and do it. That's not going to last much longer. They seem to believe that they will ride roughshod over the majority of our citizens, but in the end, the people will rule. But what to do to clean out ideologues, and who decides? Can we put it to the voters?
19
posted on
10/24/2004 3:40:03 PM PDT
by
JesseJane
(~On November 2, keep in mind what mattered most on 9-11.~)
To: Jim Noble
"The Fla Supreme Court was SO out of control, I think they would have ordered Harris to certify a Gore slate, and the Legislature would surely have appointed a Bush slate." And the Legislature's would have been chosen. NO state supreme court has authority to have any say on the slates of electors. Only the state legislature does.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-45 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson