Dicky's Doodles &Scribbles

Cartoons,editorials and comment about current events and more.

Saturday, April 26, 2008

Antonin Scalia; "Get Over it!"

Justice Antonin Scalia is once again demonstrating his arrogance and disregard for the basic tenets of law and democracy.
Speaking to CBS’ Leslie Stahl, in an interview to be aired tomorrow on 60 Minutes, Scalia dismisses those who still point to the 2000 election as an electoral miscarriage. His comment to those folks; “Get over it!”
As far as "Getting over it!" goes, it would be a hell of a lot easier to "get over it" if we had not for the last eight years, been saddled with the disastrous, failed presidency of George The Incompetent and his corrupt administration!
He then erroneously blames the Gore camp for sending the election to the courts when in actuality it was Bush’s backers that first turned to the legal system in the 2000 election.
"It was Al Gore who made it a judicial question…. We didn’t go looking for trouble. It was he who said, 'I want this to be decided by the courts,'" says Scalia.
Scalia is wrong, as usual!
Former Secretary of State James Baker filed a suit in federal court on Saturday, Nov. 11, 2000, to block Gore's request for a hand recount.
The following is a chronology of the legal actions that followed;
Saturday, Dec. 9—The U.S. Supreme Court votes 5–4 to halt the hand recounts and sets a hearing for Dec. 11.
Florida Supreme Court hears appeal on whether absentee ballots in Martin and Seminole counties should be counted.
Tuesday, Dec. 12—The U.S. Supreme Court rules in Bush v. Gore 7–2 to reverse the Florida Supreme Court, which had ordered manual recounts in certain counties. The Court contends that the recount was not treating all ballots equally, and was thus a violation of the Constitution's equal protection and due process guarantees. The Supreme Court of Florida would be required to set up new voting standards and carry them out in a recount. The justices, however, split 5–4 along partisan lines about implementing a remedy. Five justices maintain that this process and the recount must adhere to the official deadline for certifying electoral college votes: midnight, Dec. 12; other justices question the importance of this date. Since the Court makes its ruling just hours before the deadline, it in effect ensures that it is too late for a recount. The decision generates enormous controversy. Those objecting to the ruling assert that the Supreme Court, and not the electorate, has effectively determined the outcome of the presidential election. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg writes in a scathing dissent, “the Court’s conclusion that a constitutionally adequate recount is impractical is a prophecy the Court’s own judgment will not allow to be tested. Such an untested prophecy should not decide the Presidency of the United States.”
Wednesday, Dec. 13—In another decision, Florida Supreme Court decides not to hear an appeal from Gore asking that absentee ballots from Martin and Seminole counties be thrown out.
In televised speeches, Gore concedes, and Bush accepts the presidency.
Monday, Dec. 18—Electoral college representatives meet in state capitals and cast votes to select president.
Wednesday, Jan. 5—Congress meets to tally electoral college results.
Saturday, Jan. 20—George W. Bush sworn in as 43rd president of the United States.


At 6:27 AM , Blogger David said...

Well, that was a pretty silly thing for him to say. Even a Scalia biographer touting him for the spot Roberts got admitted that this case was not Scalia's best moment.

That being said, I thought the liberals were as bad as the conservatives with respect to these cases in both Florida's high court and the Supreme Court. I have no doubt in my mind that had Gore had the sleight lead over Bush, all of the actors, from Kathleen Harris to John Paul Stevens, would have reversed every position they held in the real world and come out for their team just the same.

Enjoyed the post. Thanks. I wrote my own post on the court you might find interesting on 7/04/07 at deisenberg.blogspot.com.

At 9:49 AM , Blogger Dicky Neely said...

Hi David,
I appreciate your comment on my blog about Scalia. I read the post you referred too and find much that is interesting here. I feel Scalia is way out of bounds with his so-called "originalist" philosophy in regards to the interpretation of the Constitution.
He infers that the document must be interpreted according to the original intent of the framers.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The intent of the framers was to condone slavery, deny equal rights to all citizens and to count slaves as 3/5's of a person for political apportionment reasons while denying them status as a human being.
In the Federalist #34, I believe, it is stated that the constitution must not be written according to "the exigencies of the present but must also take into account the exigencies of the future." (I am paraphrasing here, I don't recall the quote exactly)
The implication of this is that the Constitution is indeed a "living" document that must, and can, adapt to the "exigencies" of the modern period.
Certainly the fact that the Constitution allows for amendments and has now been amended many times must show this as a fact.
It is also noteworthy that the Constitution would not likely have been ratified at all had not a guarantee of a Bill of Rights be included, as they were in the first 10 amendments.
And as for the original intent of the framers, that is a specious claim if he presumes to be able to divine such a concept. Any reading of the history of the Constitutional Convention shows that the framers were a diverse, contentious lot with much to disagree about.
Thanks for the comment...


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home