P2P-Zone  

Go Back   P2P-Zone > Political Asylum
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Political Asylum Publicly Debate Politics, War, Media.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 18-10-04, 09:05 PM   #1
multi
Thanks for being with arse
 
multi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The other side of the world
Posts: 10,343
Question Supreme Court Clerks spill Bush v. Gore details

Quote:
“Since ‘The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court’ (the 1979 Supreme Court expose by Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong), I don’t think there has been another case where law clerks spoke so openly to the press about the inner workings of the court,” says Noah Feldman, a professor of law at New York University and ex-clerk for Justice David H. Souter. “I’m shocked.”

The justices have had no public reaction. Chief Justice William Rehnquist declined a request to comment for this article.

The Vanity Fair sources do not deny the importance of in-chambers confidentiality, a lifetime obligation spelled out in the written code of conduct that all law clerks pledge to uphold when they come to the court. They simply felt bound by a higher duty.

“We feel that something illegitimate was done with the Court’s power, and such an extraordinary situation justifies breaking an obligation we’d otherwise honor,” one clerk told the magazine. “Our secrecy was helping to shield some of those actions.”
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journal...on/9949251.htm

Quote:
Most of the criticism in the Vanity Fair piece is aimed at Justices Antonin Scalia, Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy, all of whom voted in favor of Bush. Scalia is depicted bullying Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg into watering down her dissenting opinion. O’Connor is described as emotionally fixated on stopping a recount and Kennedy as overly influenced by his right-wing clerks.

As the Vanity Fair article’s authors concede, the clerks present no document or other “smoking gun” proving that the conservative justices deliberately decided the case to suit their partisan preferences – a charge that members of the court on both sides have denied publicly.
__________________

i beat the internet
- the end boss is hard
multi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-10-04, 09:23 PM   #2
JackSpratts
 
JackSpratts's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 10,013
Default

you simply can't f:ck with a democracy at these levels and not expect massive repercussions. the bush decision will go down in history as the worst ever made by the court. it may lead to resignations. as people begin to realise what really happened it could eventually destroy the supreme court itself. whatever happens no one will ever hold the court in anything like the esteem it earned in years past. a handfull of activist judges wrecked a painstakingly constructed institution unmatched by any court in the world, they did so for purely partisan politics, and for that they should be drawn and quartered.

- js.
JackSpratts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-10-04, 11:29 PM   #3
Mazer
Earthbound misfit
 
Mazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Moses Lake, Washington
Posts: 2,563
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JackSpratts
whatever happens no one will ever hold the court in anything like the esteem it earned in years past. a handfull of activist judges wrecked a painstakingly constructed institution unmatched by any court in the world, they did so for purely partisan politics, and for that they should be drawn and quartered.
Though I'm glad the Supreme Court put a stop to the attempted theift of the election by Gore and his cronies, I must admit that I am very disappointed by the court's wresting of power from the hands of the people. They have been guilty not only of bench legislation over the years but also of encouraging lower courts to do the same. In many ways they have meddled with the fundamental values of this nation without our consent, making sweeping decisions that have made serious changes to our society. It's happened so slowly over the past two centuries that we've hardly noticed how much different we are as a people because of their annual proclamations. And they're wholly unwilling to undo these changes, relying on precedent in place of conscience. It's time Congress impeached the lot of them so the President can make a fresh start with new appointees who won't pretend they're above the fray and immune to scrutiny.
Mazer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-10-04, 12:23 AM   #4
Gutrguy
Semiblind
 
Gutrguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,857
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazer
Though I'm glad the Supreme Court put a stop to the attempted theift of the election by Gore and his cronies, I must admit that I am very disappointed by the court's wresting of power from the hands of the people. They have been guilty not only of bench legislation over the years but also of encouraging lower courts to do the same. In many ways they have meddled with the fundamental values of this nation without our consent, making sweeping decisions that have made serious changes to our society. It's happened so slowly over the past two centuries that we've hardly noticed how much different we are as a people because of their annual proclamations. And they're wholly unwilling to undo these changes, relying on precedent in place of conscience. It's time Congress impeached the lot of them so the President can make a fresh start with new appointees who won't pretend they're above the fray and immune to scrutiny.
Wow, the lawsuit was titled Bush V Gore, which means Bush brought the suit, and the theivery. I believe they should have thrown the case out, and counted all the votes until it was correct, no matter how long it took...that is the only way the true winner of the election would have been known, and the rightful man (whomever it was) would be in office.
Gutrguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-10-04, 12:47 AM   #5
Mazer
Earthbound misfit
 
Mazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Moses Lake, Washington
Posts: 2,563
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gutrguy
Wow, the lawsuit was titled Bush V Gore, which means Bush brought the suit, and the theivery. I believe they should have thrown the case out, and counted all the votes until it was correct, no matter how long it took...that is the only way the true winner of the election would have been known, and the rightful man (whomever it was) would be in office.
Well, even though this is a dead issue, I doubt an other recount would have mattered. The court said simply that one recount was plenty, Gore didn't think so and continued to campaign after the election was over, as if some how he could convince everyone that certain votes didn't count. The contention all came from his camp, that's how I see it anyway. In the end no theift ever occurred.

I know many disagree with me and believe that the Supreme Court appointed the President. My main point here is that such a lapse would be the least of their sins when compared to their previous declarations. In my opinion the Supreme Court rules by oligarchy, it's unconstitutional, and Congress needs to do what's right by America by impeaching all nine justices.
Mazer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-10-04, 01:01 PM   #6
albed
flippin 'em off
 
albed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the real world
Posts: 3,231
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazer
Though I'm glad the Supreme Court put a stop to the attempted theift of the election by Gore and his cronies, I must admit that I am very disappointed by the court's wresting of power from the hands of the people. They have been guilty not only of bench legislation over the years but also of encouraging lower courts to do the same. In many ways they have meddled with the fundamental values of this nation without our consent, making sweeping decisions that have made serious changes to our society.
So what serious changes bother you so much? Is it giving blacks equal rights with whites or removing religious icons from public institutions or something else?




Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazer
It's happened so slowly over the past two centuries that we've hardly noticed how much different we are as a people because of their annual proclamations.
I'm unfamiliar with these proclamations not to mention their effect. Just what are they titled and on what date are they performed?




Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazer
And they're wholly unwilling to undo these changes, relying on precedent in place of conscience. It's time Congress impeached the lot of them so the President can make a fresh start with new appointees who won't pretend they're above the fray and immune to scrutiny.
On what basis besides your own opinion; impeachment does require more than that. Or maybe the whole government should become childish and impetuous.
albed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-10-04, 02:36 PM   #7
Mazer
Earthbound misfit
 
Mazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Moses Lake, Washington
Posts: 2,563
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by albed
So what serious changes bother you so much? Is it giving blacks equal rights with whites or removing religious icons from public institutions or something else?

I'm unfamiliar with these proclamations not to mention their effect. Just what are they titled and on what date are they performed?

On what basis besides your own opinion; impeachment does require more than that. Or maybe the whole government should become childish and impetuous.
Those are good questions, if a little loaded, so I'll try to answer them. Give me some time though, there's two centuries of history to study. Off the top of my head I recall last years decision that the extensions of copyright terms are allowed to be retoractive, putting works that were once in the public domain back under their expired copyrights. That's a minor one, but fairly recent. I'd also consider the Roe v. Wade decision a perverse interpretation of the Constitution, and an example of the Judical branch stealing legislative powers. More to come, albed, so be patient.
Mazer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-10-04, 02:56 PM   #8
albed
flippin 'em off
 
albed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the real world
Posts: 3,231
Default

Roe v. Wade restricts the government not the public so it's hardly stealing legislative powers.

Odd you should have to study your topic after you've posted about it.
__________________
Taking power from the many and giving it to the few corrupts the few and degrades the many.
albed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-10-04, 05:56 AM   #9
multi
Thanks for being with arse
 
multi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The other side of the world
Posts: 10,343
Default

Quote:
In an affidavit filed with the lawsuit, Russell said he was told to ask prospective voters, ``Who would you vote for in the next election?'' He said he was told to register only those who supported President Bush.

``I personally witnessed my supervisor at VOA, together with her personal assistant, destroy completed registration forms that VOA employees had collected,'' said Russell. ``All of the destroyed registration forms were for registrants who indicated their party preference as `Democrat.' ''

Russell said he registered both Democrats and Republicans and, as a result, his pay was docked. According to the lawsuit against the Clark County Registrar of Voters, he provided copies of destroyed registration forms he retrieved from his supervisor's garbage can. more..
__________________

i beat the internet
- the end boss is hard
multi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-10-04, 09:34 PM   #10
multi
Thanks for being with arse
 
multi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The other side of the world
Posts: 10,343
Default republicans now knocking them selves out with their own dirty-tricks

Quote:
A Lakewood Republican stealing campaign signs late one night got nabbed when he ran across a low- hanging driveway chain, fell face first onto a pilfered sign and the concrete and knocked himself unconscious.

Randal Wagner, 50, was loaded into an ambulance, treated at Lutheran Medical Center for abrasions and facial cuts and issued a summons.more..
__________________

i beat the internet
- the end boss is hard
multi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-10-04, 07:57 PM   #11
Nicobie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 5,522
Default

It all comes off as a bunch of sore losers to me.

How come nobody is bitching about Kennedy or LBJ's rip-off?

Don't U think it would be more productive to try to make our system the best it can be?

Just cut the crap and go foward instead.
__________________
May your tote always stay tight and your edge eversharp :wink:
Nicobie is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump






All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© www.p2p-zone.com - Napsterites - 2000 - 2024 (Contact grm1@iinet.net.au for all admin enquiries)