The Nation: Senators Sould Press Alito on Bush v. Gore (Kookfest)

The Nation via Yahoo! News ^ | January 9, 2006 | John Nichols

[rod1]

That is so an election behind. Instead they could ask him if Kerry spent Xmas in Cambodia or if Teresa is named Heinz-Kerry or just Heinz.

[Soul Seeker]

But, their Favorite Justice O'Connor ruled with the Majority in Bush v. Gore.

Tsk. Can't make up their minds.

I'd rather hear what he thinks about the Florida Courts surpassing the Legislatures of Florida.

[MikeA]

Wow, when are the Dementiacrats going to get over Bush vs. Gore? Let's face it, this is what drives the Democratic reflexive and knee jerk opposition to EVERYTHING Bush does, especially Iraq. If Gore had gone into Iraq, or Clinton, Democrats would be demanding the Noble Peace Prize for them. But because they can't get over Florida 2000, the Dems just attack, attack, attack on everything Bush does because they're so emotionally stunted they can't get over it.

So what is the Nation envisioning with this? A scenario along these lines?

Wacko Dem. Obstructionist Senator: "Judge Alito, would you have allowed Florida law to be thwarted all in an attempt by the Gore campaign to fabricate enough votes to take an election in which they were NEVER ahead in Florida once all the votes were in?"

Judge Alito: "No, the Supreme Court was right to defer to Florida state election law and the principle of equal protection as a means to ending an empasse in the 2000 election."

Wacko Dem. obstructionist Senator: "So you're saying you wouldn't have allowed non-stop recounting and devining of over-votes, under-votes and no-votes to discern they were meant for Gore until enough were found to give Gore the presidency even if it was 5 years later?? You're filibusted buddy!"

[new yorker 77]

Kerry
President Bush

[MikeA]

And even if Gore had won, it would STILL be Bush-Winner, Gore-Loser. Five years later, the only thing that's changed is that Gore is actually an uberloser.

[Political Junkie Too]

Does Alito believe it is possible to reconcile the high court's intervention in an electotal battle with a strict constructionist reading of the Constitution that says Congress, not the court, is charged with settling disputed contests at the federal level?

And I thought it was a state issue as to how Florida was going to vote for its electors. The Federal issue would have been if electors tied, or flipped, or were bribed when voting in the Electoral College. Otherwise, it was a State issue.

-PJ

[Soul Seeker]

Perfect example of why Nixon was far more of a Patriot than Gore will ever be. Nixon legitmately could have contested Kennedy, but he didn't want to poisen the country with the upheavel. Gore had no such consideration, and wasn't going to win unless they could fix enough hanging chads by court order as they did here in WA. Nixon quietly stood back, and came back to win two elections. Gore burst a blood vessel. Nixon brought himself down ultimately, but I feel some sympathy for him because he didn't have the support system G.W.B's had in similiar attacks.

[don-o]

Ask the nominee how he would have ruled in the case of Bush v. Gore. Does he agree that the court was right to intervene, for the first time in history, to stop the counting of the ballots that could have determined the result of a presidential contest?

That was a 9-0 decision, wasn't it?

These people are loons. (With apologies to the loons with wings)

[Political Junkie Too]

7-2 on equal rights. 5-4 on the remedy.

-PJ

[don-o]

Thanks

[Political Junkie Too]

I should have said 7-2 that it was an equal rights violation to only count Broward, Dade, and West Palm Beach. The whole state should be recounted. 5-4 on whether a statewide recount could have been done by the certification deadline (which was extended), in order to have the electoral college vote on time.

-PJ

[Enchante]

What's truly ROFLMAO hilarious is when a demented leftist like Nichols, writing for the socialist toilet paper rag The Nation, dares to preach about "the mainstream" of US politics and claim that Alito is outside of it. A large majority of Americans support Alito on just about anything, while fringe socialists like Nichols dare to pretend that THEY are concerned with protecting "the mainstream" of US politics.

[Political Junkie Too]

Does he believe that Justices Antonin Scalia, whose sons were associated with firms that represented George W. Bush's campaign, and Clarence Thomas, whose wife was working with Bush's transition team, should have recused themselves from the deliberations? Does he worry that the decision to intervene in the case might have damaged the court's reputation as an independent body that stands apart from the partisan politics associated with the executive branch?

How far down the Judicial food chain are we allowed to go? Is The Nation worried that Bob Butterworth, the Florida State Attorney General, was the Florida chairman of the Gore/Lieberman 2000 Committee? At least Katherine Harris was not a part of the Bush election team, it only fell to her to certify the election according to Florida law. They made a big deal out of Harris following Florida law, but had no problem with the highest elected prosecutor heading the Gore team.

-PJ

[babydoll22]

That is one powerful photo.

[babydoll22]

These people are so petty and small minded. It would not surprise me, if the swimmer asks him to reveal whether he wears boxers or briefs.

[melt]

"Senators Sould Press Alito on Bush v. Gore"

I don't think "Sould" is a word. Doesn't anybody at the Nation poofread anymore?

[FLCowboy,]

Ask the nominee how he would have ruled in the case of Bush v. Gore.
They've never gotten over it. And it's driven them around the bend thinking about what might have been.

And for all the libs "loyalty" to Gore, he is a virtual outcast in the halls of Congress. Even the New York Times ignores him.

I'd venture a guess he is nothing more than a talisman to the libs.

[101st-Eagle]

Does he believe that Justices Antonin Scalia, whose sons were associated with firms that represented George W. Bush's campaign, and Clarence Thomas, whose wife was working with Bush's transition team, should have recused themselves from the deliberations?

Does he worry that the decision to intervene in the case might have damaged the court's reputation as an independent body that stands apart from the partisan politics associated with the executive branch?

Pluuueeeze! I know this is coming from a commie rag, The Nation, but the placastumus on the bottom of my fish tank could produce a less obviously slanted piece than this guy trying to come across as Daniel Webster.

Damgaged the court's reputation? FDR hammered that nail in years ago. Been anything but an independant body "apart from partisian politics." since.

Their minds are still so convoluted over Bush-Gore. They tried so many loop-holes combined with nasty PR and smearing machines and failed at every turn because of written law and the adults in the country doing the right thing

Thankfully, we prevailed in a winning race and have dismissed the shenannigans of that time as a nuisance and footnote while still remaining aware of the fact that there is a force from within that would subvert a US election given the chance.

But they are like Charles Foster Kane at his deathbed, still hyper-obsessing over an inanimate lost love, as "recount, recount," becomes the whispered tagline fading off in to election eternity.

[dvwjr]

The electoral college ALWAYS "votes in time". When their votes get transmitted to the Congress is another matter. The deadline was two hours and a few minutes after the release of the Supreme Court decision.

The whole state WAS recounted due to the closeness of the election. However, Florida had no provision for a state-wide recount for the loses after the ONE authorized recount was conducted. Nor could the Florida Supreme Court order such a thing, as the Legislature had not put any such law into place before the 2004 election. The Florida Supreme Court got spanked twice by the US Supreme Court for sticking their noses into the Florida Legislature's exclusive business.


dvwjr

[Political Junkie Too]

Thanks for the clarification. I should have been more precise. The whole state was machine recounted. The Gore team asked for hand recounts of just three counties and the Supreme Court said no, all counties must be hand counted (7-2). They differed on whether the entire state could be hand recounted in time to send an electoral college delegation to Washington (5-4).

As I recall, there was talk of sending two delegations to Washington, as well as letting the House decide whom to accept.

-PJ