How did the supreme court ever justify that "one time" ruling on Gore v Bush?

[Peregrine Took]

That was the one thing I never understood.

[NJSecularist]

1. There is still outrage about it to this day.

It was never justified. I've yet to hear a compelling argument from anybody who follows conservative jurisprudence on how it was a sound legal argument.

[jefferson_dem]

15. They defend it by saying the FL Court was too "activist" and needed to be overturned.

Amazing, huh?

The Mighty SCOTUS interjects itself in an overtly political manner, which runs counter to two centuries of existing legal jurisprudence and directly contradicts the explicit Constitutional corrective for POTUS election shenanigans, all in the name of correcting the overly activist (mis)judgment of the FL State Court.

EDIT: And, oh, by the way...this Equal Protection thingy won't apply to future election controversies.

[gratuitous]

2. They never really have

And Scalia's really touchy about it. He was interviewed a week or two ago, and the interviewer had the temerity to ask about Bush v. Gore; Fat Tony's response basically boiled down to "get over it."

[Warpy]

3. "We did it because we could"

Three of the anti American five are left. They should be impeached.

[Peregrine Took]

10. george bush - "Get out of Al Gore's house!!"

[Liberal Gramma]

11. Just one of the many reasons we need to control Congress.

[Wapsie B]

12. Yes they should. And Fat Tony should be the first to go.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. They didn't; they just pulled it out of their asses.

They shouldn't have granted certiorari in the first place because the main criterion for granting cert is that the case presents a major constitutional issue of broad national import. So if the case was intended to have no precedential effect, it shouldn't have been heard in the first place. That opinion was the most disingenuous, poorly-reasoned pile of bullshit I've ever read.

[pinto]

5. 5 - 4. Go figure,

:shrug:

[RufusTFirefly]

6. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Yes, it's totally amazing how the SCOTUS, whose primary purpose in interpreting the Constitution is to set a precedent that subsequent decisions follow, explicitly said in its decision (sic) that Bush v. Gore could not be used as a precedent.

The black-robed cry of "Nevermind" heard 'round the world.

[Horse with no Name]

7. Who do they HAVE to justify it to?

ALL of the American people should have taken to the streets the second they did it. The SCOTUS took a chance that they could get away with it and they did it. They probably held their breath until the actual swearing in. After that, the crime was complete. It was a done deal.
Silence is complicity.

[HawkerHurricane]

8. quite simple, really

Since there was no set standard for counting the vote (lie #1), actually counting all the votes by random standards would be unfair to Governer George Bush as it would call into question the legitimacy of his victory (lie #2).

[DesertFlower]

9. attorney vincent bugliosi

said "the supreme court was guilty of treason".

[Nevernose]

18. That was a good book

Highly recommended to anyone who hasn't read it.

[Stinky The Clown]

13. They can do whatever the fuck they want ...... and they wanted Bush as president.

For us ...... this, from O'Connor, among others:

[RufusTFirefly]

14. But, but 9/11 changed EVERYTHING!!

OK, I'll reluctantly concede that the Court's decision came before 9/11, but as we continue to wage a noble fight in the WOT, who's got the audacity to nit-pick about timelines??

[Peregrine Took]

17. How many people died in 911? 3000? And how many in Iraq? 500,000++?

Are we "even" yet?

[RufusTFirefly]

21. Surely you're not equating one America life with one life of a towel-headed savage

:sarcasm:

One of the most subversive things that Michael Moore did in Fahrenheit 9/11 was to provide subtitles for the "babbling" of Iraqi mothers/wives who lost their sons/husbands. One of the ways that we Americans (residents of the U.S.A.) insulate ourselves against our country's own atrocities is by convincing ourselves that our "victims" are somehow less human than we are. Just a lot of incomprehensible babbling. It's a tried-and-true war propaganda technique -- dehumanizing the "enemy."

[global1]

16. Can You Say - Coup d' etat.....nt

[L. Coyote]

19. 2000.12.12 Junta Day

Since when has anyone ever justified an overthrow, right?

2008. Take back the Executive!!!

[ShadowLiberal]

20. But they had to stop the 'activist vote recounters' by being activist judges!

[deminks]

22. Fat Tony tells us to "get over it." I don't think we can, or even should. nt

I thought the anger was gone, but it is still there, and it may be worse, seeing what the end result has been. Did Baker get the legacy he was hoping for? How about Justice Sandy? Fat Tony? They just don't give a rat's behind, anyway. They made their money. They get invited to parties. They make their speeches. Why should they worry their pretty minds?