Bush v. Gore: The Worst (or at least second-to-the-worst) Supreme Court Decision Ever
http://scholars.law.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1508&context=nljA great article. The article cites Dred Scott also.
Romeo.lima333
(1,127 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)Would be a different world if he had stood for right and fought it.
Romeo.lima333
(1,127 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)Romeo.lima333
(1,127 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)I feel the same
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)It's Nadar's fault!
Raster
(20,998 posts)Nothing but an inaccurate meme deflecting attention from the real truth: bush*/cheney* stole the 2000 election through a variety of means, and anytime anyone tries to assign the nefarious results to any reason other than electoral fraud they aid the whitewashing of a putrid election history.
Sorry, but "Nader did it" is a rallying cry for morons.
marym625
(17,997 posts)fredamae
(4,458 posts)worst ever...(of our time) because it allowed for two (more) very corporate friendly, politically activist justices to be nominated and confirmed under BushII that ultimately gave us Citizens United.
Romeo.lima333
(1,127 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)In spite of the fact that I cringe every time I even think about that decision. It is a good read.
R&
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)deutsey
(20,166 posts)in particular for retrieving this fact from the memory hole:
The actual results of the 2000 presidential election remain in dispute. A
Media Consortium review of Floridas uncounted ballots in 2001 concluded
that Bush would have won by a slender margin even if the Supreme Court had
not intervened, but that a full statewide recount of rejected ballots would probably
have gone Gores way. With black precincts experiencing more than three
times as many rejected ballots as white precincts, early concerns about vote
suppression were confirmed. And there were, of course, the infamous butterfly
ballots, which assuredly confused thousands of elderly voters who
intended to vote for Gore, but mistakenly punched Pat Buchanan. The New
York Times lamented: The reality, therefore, is that Mr. Bushs victory in the
most fouled-up, disputed and wrenching presidential election in American history
was so breathtakingly narrow that there is no way of knowing with absolute
precision who got the most votes.
We will also never know whether the Republican partisans on the Court
would have made the same decision if it had been George W. Bush, and not Al
Gore, who needed the Florida recount to become President. But we can certainly
make an educated guess.
I swear I've pointed this out to people who believe that Bush won legitimately (even some Democrats), and they look at me as if I'm a conspiracy nut.
Raster
(20,998 posts)...a unabashedly partisan Florida Secretary of State and equally unabashedly partisan Governor mandated the removal of tens of thousands of legal and qualified voters from the Florida voter roles, many of whom to this day have not had their lawful, legal right to vote restored. These persons removed came from primarily Democratic-leaning precincts in a concerted effort to target probable Gore voters.
And further let us not forget that this unabashedly partisan Secretary of State was the State Chairperson of the committee to elect Bush*/Cheney* and ran the statewide campaign from her official office in Tallahassee.
The fix was in long before any ballot was cast: George W. Bush* would be selected and installed as President of the United States no matter the lawful outcome.
I say that to people and they look at me like I'm some tinfoiler.
Let us not forget, either, that it was Bush relative working for FOX News that called the election for Bush.
The genesis of this call, and in particular the chronology of the ensuing echos are telling. The story began on election night at 2:16 AM. Fox News projected George W. Bush as winner of the Florida primary and the Presidential election. In a classic case of pack journalism that college professors will no doubt cite for years to come, ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN all followed Foxs lead during the next four minutes, calling the election for Bush.
The telling part of this story is that the call was made by John Ellis, a freelance political advisor contracted by Fox News to head their election night "decision desk." Ellis is also first cousin to George W. Bush and Florida governor John Ellis "Jeb" Bush.
More than just a cousin in name, Ellis maintains close contact with the Bush brothers. A former colleague of his at The Boston Globe reports how he stays in regular email contact with his cousin Jeb. The Center for Public Inquiry reports that he has been a guest of his cousin George W. at the Texas governors mansion. During the election, Ellis took to the editorial pages of The Globe, defending George W. against charges of cocaine abuse, writing that he personally knew Bush was not a "cocaine addict" since he has been close with his cousin for a very long time. Hence it was not surprise, recently, when Ellis proclaimed, "I am loyal to my cousin.... I put that loyalty ahead of my loyalty to anyone else."
By calling the election for his cousin when he did, Ellis proved instrumental in turning Bushs loss in the popular vote into an apparently righteous struggle to gain the presidency. With a constitutional crisis looming on the horizon, pundits called for Gore, and not Bush, to be a "patriot" and concede. In a fair count, without shenanigans or election irregularities, the Miami Herald estimated Gore would have won Florida by 23,000 votes. The Bush strategy all along was to prevent a recount and run out the clock which he succeeded in doing, eventually winning the state and the presidency by a few hundred votes. The strategy only worked because Ellis coronated him the winner.
Weeks later, Ellis former colleague, Bill Kovach, while defending Ellis integrity as a journalist, reported that Ellis had been in telephone contact with both Jeb and George W. Bush on election night prior to his making the election call. Even Kovach admitted this was improper.
http://mediastudy.com/articles/jellis.html
procon
(15,805 posts)As a people, we may never recover from the terrible decisions the right bent Supremes have inflicted on this country in just the start of this century, and I fear it will only get worse.
fasttense
(17,301 posts)The fact that there wasn't a massive march on the court is what really angers me. We just went about our regular jobs wondering what we could do. Gore conceded and that is what really is beyond understanding. He let them take it away from him. And every awful thing that has happened since the bushes were selected is all the Supreme Court's fault.
Until we as a nation stand up to the Supremes, and their never ending litany of partisan political, feudal-like, court decisions, we citizens will be nothing but cowering serfs.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)deutsey
(20,166 posts)I was among the activists in the first year after Bush v. Gore who tried to point out the illegitimacy of his presidency. There were thousands of us in the streets during the Inauguration. I swear it seemed there were more of us in DC that day than Bush supporters. We were ignored by the media and Democratic establishment. I even had friends who were rank-and-file Democrats tell me to get over it and move on.
The thing is, had Bush won fair and square, I would still have opposed his policies, but I would've acknowledged him as the president. That's how our system is supposed to work. But there is such a huge amount of evidence that he and Jeb and their family's crony friends rigged the election, and casually deprived so many of our fellow citizens of their hard-earned right to vote, that I can never accept him as president.
The sad thing is: our democracy (as screwy as it is) worked in 2000. The majority of Americans knew Gore was the better candidate given the alternative (I voted for him, although I had problems with him). The people's will should have prevailed, but the fix was in and when confronted with such a bald-faced power grab supported by the Supreme Court and corporate media, the people shrugged and changed the channel.
fasttense
(17,301 posts)"When confronted with such a bald-faced power grab supported by the Supreme Court and corporate media, the people shrugged and changed the channel."
Yonx
(59 posts)And she's a Republican. She regrets not allowing a recount.
A recount should have been granted. Bush stole the elections.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Raster
(20,998 posts)You had your chance to do the right thing. You had your chance to preserve the rule of law and the will of the people.
And you did not. You chose your own personal expediency over the good of the country.
Fuck you.