Screw you too, moron. I can only hope that karma will someday crap on your lawn.

Stare decisis much, Scalia?

Yeah, I mean it isn't like anyone keeps track of these rulings for future reference or anything.

Farkin' asshole.

/drtfa yet

"I am a law-and-order guy. I mean, I confess to being a social conservative, but it does not affect my views on cases," Scalia said on CBS, which on Thursday released excerpts of the interview.

I tend to agree with Scalia on a lot of things, but even I agree this is bullshiat

I am a law-and-order guy. I mean, I confess to being a crypto-fascist, and it does affect my views on cases

Fixed

SphericalTime: Screw you too, moron. I can only hope that karma will someday crap on your lawn.

Eloquently put. You told him.

Seriously now.. who really thinks that the Supreme Court decided the outcome of the Florida vote tally? Its not like Gore wanted to recount all the votes, only those counties that would benefit him and never mind the states elections laws that declared the winner had to be named by a certain date. But then you'd also have to forget that it was the democratic voters who voted "incorrectly" for Buchanan after the democratic election boards designed the ballots and then gave themselves a wide latitude to determine what the voter intent was even if there was no hole punched.

But the only real detail is that even after all the votes were tallied, again and again, Gore still came up short.

But way to stay bitter after 7.5 years people; you must be pretty clingy.

/And yes.. Bush is a fark up. But the correct legal decision was made.

For as much as he whines about certain long-standing Supreme Court decisions, that is rich.

Snowflake Tubbybottom: But way to stay bitter after 7.5 years people; you must be pretty clingy.

well, some of us take this democracy thing a little bit seriously, and feel that the issue is worth debating.

burndtdan: well, some of us take this democracy thing a little bit seriously

There's your problem.

kronicfeld: For as much as he whines about certain long-standing Supreme Court decisions, that is rich.

Agreed. Scalia and all the other social conservatives should just "get over" Roe v. Wade.

burndtdan: Snowflake Tubbybottom: But way to stay bitter after 7.5 years people; you must be pretty clingy.

well, some of us take this democracy thing a little bit seriously, and feel that the issue is worth debating.

So do we, which is why you should reexamine the facts of the case and then get over it already. But being simplistic and lazy makes it much easier to just say the Supreme Court gave Bush the presidency rather accepting the truth.

So what, if anything, is worth debating here?

TheCid: Agreed. Scalia and all the other social conservatives should just "get over" Roe v. Wade.

I was thinking more along the lines of Lemon, but that works too.

burndtdan: well, some of us take this democracy thing a little bit seriously, and feel that the issue is worth debating.

You'll get over it.

kronicfeld: For as much as he whines about certain long-standing Supreme Court decisions, that is rich.

kronicfeld said what I was going to say, only better.

Scalia would be a much better justice if he could just keep his freakin mouth shut around the press. I don't even know the tally of cases he's had to excuse himself from because he put forth an opinion about the topic to the press days or weeks earlier. How about shut up and do your job, Mr. Justice?

Humean_Nature: kronicfeld: For as much as he whines about certain long-standing Supreme Court decisions, that is rich.

kronicfeld said what I was going to say, only better.

Scalia would be a much better justice if he could just keep his freakin mouth shut around the press. I don't even know the tally of cases he's had to excuse himself from because he put forth an opinion about the topic to the press days or weeks earlier. How about shut up and do your job, Mr. Justice?

Considering that this is Scalia we're talking about, I'd much rather him blab one too many times and end up having to permanently recuse himself from the seat.

Jeff did it better.

Snowflake Tubbybottom: But the only real detail is that even after all the votes were tallied, again and again, Gore still came up short.

That is a false assertion.

The real numbers

Dancin_In_Anson:

burndtdan: well, some of us take this democracy thing a little bit seriously

There's your problem.

I'm glad to see that you've dropped the pretense of being pro-democracy.

mr_bunny: Jeff did it better.

You beat me to it.

Justice Jeff Scalia?

mr_bunny: Jeff did it better.

and at least he was right.

I'd like to point out that its easy to hate the GOP justices for voting the party line in Bush v. Gore, but the Dem justices did the exact same thing. There just happened to be 5 conservatives and 4 liberals on the court. No one on that court was apolitical in that decision.

kronicfeld


scalia will have himself cryogenically frozen so he can live long enough to see Lemon overturned before he gets over that case. to people like scalia seeing religious freedom flourish is like having acid thrown in their face.

Am I the only one here who has actually read the Florida law? If you read the law, the Supreme Court made the right decision.

Scalia is the best justice because he has actually read the Constitution.

DulceEtDecorumEst: We can split hairs all day about how the vote count may have come out, we may never know. But the supreme court made the right legal decision. Also, on a practical level, even though he started out shaky, George W Bush is finishing strong. He has made the difficult decisions, and has persevered in Iraq. I think the turnaround there that the surge is making finally proves him right. Also, Scalia has been a strong judge for a while, and he is also a very respectable man, so dont through hate his way.

Where's the ASCI Picard when you need it?

I can't wait to watch "Recount" on HBO next month.

/Get over it.
//If you want to talk about real shenanigans, look at the WA governor's race back in 2004.
///Rossi should have won.

I'm not exactly a big fan of Scalia's social views, but if you read Coy v Iowa it is an interesting contrast between his normal "law and order" stance and his strict constructionist leanings. I am also not a big fan of his judicial philosophy, but oh well.
Also, apparently he is the strongest constitutional scholar on the bench.

Really, my biggest gripe with him was the refusal to recuse himself in the case where he had been hunting with one of the litigants relatives a short time prior to the case.

DamnYankees: I'd like to point out that its easy to hate the GOP justices for voting the party line in Bush v. Gore, but the Dem justices did the exact same thing. There just happened to be 5 conservatives and 4 liberals on the court. No one on that court was apolitical in that decision.

I'd also like to point out that it is entirely possible that there was a right decision and a wrong decision and one party or another showed their partisanship by voting the wrong way and that the other showed their adherence to principle by voting the other way.

You are welcome to opine which is which.

KaponoFor3: "I am a law-and-order guy. I mean, I confess to being a social conservative, but it does not affect my views on cases," Scalia said on CBS, which on Thursday released excerpts of the interview.

I tend to agree with Scalia on a lot of things, but even I agree this is bullshiat

I want to see his face when he was saying that. I can't imagine him not busting out laughing afterward.

JesustheDarkLord: Scalia is the best justice because he has actually read the Constitution.

Sandra Day O'Connor would like to have a word with you.

It's a 2000 flash back.

Skleenar: Dancin_In_Anson:

burndtdan: well, some of us take this democracy thing a little bit seriously

There's your problem.

I'm glad to see that you've dropped the pretense of being pro-democracy.

The United States is a Constitutional Republic, whose people vote to elect representatives who then in turn elect government officials like the President. Contrary to popular belief, it never has been and never will be a complete democracy.

The_Sponge: /Get over it.
//If you want to talk about real shenanigans, look at the WA governor's race back in 2004.
///Rossi should have won.

What shenanigans are you talking about?

The series of trumped-up accusations of fraud that even the GOP secretary of state and US atty would not countenance?

Those?

SCOTUS-POS

Political?

Hell, it was 7-2 decision that said that the method being used was unconstitutional. Sure, 5-4 to stop the vote, but they were going to have to find a different way anyways besides using the best guess of the ballot inspector.

Skleenar: I'd also like to point out that it is entirely possible that there was a right decision and a wrong decision and one party or another showed their partisanship by voting the wrong way and that the other showed their adherence to principle by voting the other way.

You are welcome to opine which is which.

I completely agree. But people don't pay attention to that, and all too often simply like to say "hmmm...5 GOP voted for Bush - they must have no logic!"

Scalia must be a lot of fun at parties...

Look...can't we all just agree that Ginsburg is the worst justice on the SCOTUS?

Maybe GORE could have started by Winning his home state.

DamnYankees: There just happened to be 5 conservatives and 4 liberals on the court.

In what universe are Souter, Ginsburg, Jones, and Breyer considered "liberal?" The Rehnquist court was the second most conservative in the last century, bested only by the current Roberts court.

DamnYankees: No one on that court was apolitical in that decision.

Siding with Gore makes one rigorous, not partisan.

Bush v Gore was wrongly decided. The SC simply didn't have jurisdiction, period. Having said that, I also strongly believe that it would have made no real difference because it was Congress that had jurisdiction and that was being run by the Republicans, so the same result would have happened.

The_Sponge: Look...can't we all just agree that Ginsburg is the worst justice on the SCOTUS?

No, she's one of the best for sure. I think Ginsburg and Scalia are the two best justices.

Thomas is by far the worst.

By January 21, 2009, I will get over it.

DulceEtDecorumEst: We can split hairs all day about how the vote count may have come out, we may never know. But the supreme court made the right legal decision. Also, on a practical level, even though he started out shaky, George W Bush is finishing strong. He has made the difficult decisions, and has persevered in Iraq. I think the turnaround there that the surge is making finally proves him right. Also, Scalia has been a strong judge for a while, and he is also a very respectable man, so dont through hate his way.

6/10, I'm sure you'll get some bites. Nice misspelling of "throw" there at the end, also.

TofuTheAlmighty: In what universe are Souter, Ginsburg, Jones, and Breyer considered "liberal?" The Rehnquist court was the second most conservative in the last century, bested only by the current Roberts court.

First of all, who is Jones? Secondly, anyone who says Ginsburg isn't a liberal is rather nuts. She was the head of the ACLU.

With the way the Democrats has set up their own nomination
process(Fla, Mich), don't be surprised if the USSC isn't
called on again even before the general election...

What a well-reasoned and eloquently stated argument.

MrBrightside: The United States is a Constitutional Republic, whose people vote to elect representatives who then in turn elect government officials like the President. Contrary to popular belief, it never has been and never will be a complete democracy.

You do know the difference between the term "democracy" as a principle of government and the term "democracy" as a specific type of democratic government, right?

Here's a hint: One of them makes sense in the phrase "Some of us take democracy seriously" and one of them doesn't.

The_Sponge:

/Get over it.
///Rossi should have won.

Were you trying to be funny? Because that's funny!