|
Duly noted. I had, however, heard from
other sources that Scalia's son works for the firm that is representing Bush,
and this whole situation is rife with conflicts of interest and shady
dealings. So I didn't find it too hard to believe.
I have to say, too, that given how active the
discussions were on the RAT list was prior to the election, I'm rather surprised
at how quiet it's been in the aftermath.
I was just talking with someone yesterday and
saying that it would be good to hear from Gore (where's the Alpha-Male persona
when he NEEDS it) rather than from all the pundits and articles and such.
There is a lot of information flying around and a lot to be uncomfortable about,
but it is hard to sift through everything sometimes and know which issues to
push.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2000 2:05
PM
Subject: Re: RAT FWD: Scalia's legal
vision is blinded by his ambition
A note about reading articles in newssources
whose
reputation is as soiled as is the New York Daily News.
We must be
careful to read for accuracy even when we
agree with the premise, or we
lose credibility when,
for example, we bash the reputation of the New
York
Post. Mr. Dwyer does not provide the quote from Mr.
Scalia. He does
not even quote the article in which
another reporter stated Scalia said
such a thing. If a
Justice were to say that he would serve under
one
president and not another, it would be on the front
page of the NY
Times the next day, so I'm extremely
skeptical that the alleged quote is
accurate. Mr.
Scalia can be criticized for the fact that his
federalist
views seem to have vanished in the current
case, he can be criticized for
his stridence in
opinions, which serves no purpose other than
sully-ing
the court. Making up rumors about him and passing them
around
on-line does not become active and
well-informed
citizens.
rm
--- Laura Winton <fluffysingler@prodigy.net>
wrote:
> this is one of the more sickening and blatant things
>
I've read--although all
> the way through it's been about favors
and
> backscratching. I did read that
> Scalia's son is on
Bush's legal team, and this
> article shows that it's even
> worse
than just that.
>
>
> ------Original Message------
>
From: Mary Jo Maroney <maroneym@hpmidwest.org>
>
Sent: December 12, 2000 4:23:13 PM GMT
> Subject: Scalia's legal vision
is blinded by his
> ambition
>
>
> Published on
Monday, December 11, 2000 in the New
> York
> <http://www.nydailynews.com/> Daily
News
> Justice Scalia's Legal Vision Is Blinded by His
>
Ambition
> by Jim Dwyer
>
> Earlier this year, Antonin
Scalia, the Supreme Court
> justice
> who now is all but serving
as the attorney for
> George W. Bush, let it be
> known that if
Democrats won the presidency, he'd
> quit the court.
> He would
leave because under a Democratic
> administration, he
> would have
no shot at being named chief justice by
> Al Gore, according to
the
> March issue of the Washingtonian magazine.
> Now, Scalia has
taken charge of the election case
> for George
> W. Bush and will
try to herd the conservatives this
> morning for the result
> he
apparently wants: a Bush presidency, and,
> perhaps, the job of
chief
> justice when William Rehnquist retires in a few
> years as
is expected.
> Normally, judges disqualify themselves from cases
in
> which
> they have a personal interest; if the naked
ambition
> to be the court's chief
> was accurately attributed to
him, then he has no
> business deciding this
> fight.
>
Scalia, however, could not have been bolder in his
> advocacy
>
for Bush's cause, and, by extension, his own.
> During oral arguments
two weeks ago, he took shots
> at the
> Florida courts, which had
said the most fundamental
> right in a democracy is
> the
vote.
> No way, Scalia said.
> "There is no right of suffrage
under Article II," he
> declared.
> In plain English, he said that
the citizens have no
> constitutional right to vote for President.
His
> reason is that the
> Constitution places that power in the
hands of the
> state legislatures,
> although he did not mention
that all 50 state
> legislatures submit the
> question to a
popular vote. (Some transcripts of the
> Supreme Court session
>
attributed this remark to Rehnquist, but Scalia
> apparently was the
actual
> speaker.)
> Over the weekend, he took matters even
further.
> Scalia wrote that Bush would suffer "irreparable
>
harm" if
> votes were counted "by casting a cloud upon what he
>
claims to be the
> legitimacy of his election."
> You have may
seen that moment in "A Few Good Men"
> when Tom
> Cruise is
defending a soldier at a military trial.
> "I want the truth!" says
Cruise, during
> cross-examination.
> Jack Nicholson looks up at
him with contempt.
> "You can't handle the truth," snarls
Nicholson.
> The legality of the votes worries Scalia."Count
>
first and
> rule upon legality afterward is not a recipe for
>
producing election results
> that have the public acceptance democratic
stability
> requires," Scalia
> wrote.
> We've gotten by for
two centuries on precisely that
> recipe.
> That is what is done
on every Election Day in this
> country.
> First we vote. Then
come the challenges, if any,
> which end
> up in court, and are
decided there. This is not new.
> To have disputed
> ballots
decided by courts doesn't "change the rules
> of the game." Those
are
> the rules of the game. To do otherwise changes the
> law,
the customs and the
> practice in every single state.
> No one can
possibly argue that it is the best
> interests of
> Bush or Gore
that the votes not be counted.
> There was talk yesterday -
unfortunately, it proved
> to be
> untrue - that the Florida
courts were going to ship
> uncounted ballots up to
> Washington.
Those ballots, for better and worse, are
> the only evidence
about
> the results of this election.
> To exclude them from this
decision is like saying
> that a
> murder weapon seized from a
suspect can't be shown
> to a jury because of a
> legal
technicality.
> But Scalia says that we - the nation - can't
handle
> the
> truth of counting those ballots, that the
results
> might damage a Bush
> presidency if they show that he
really didn't win.
> So we hide the facts for the good of the
country.
> Or is it really for the good of Antonin Scalia, the
>
chief
> justice wanna-be?
> Copyright 2000 NY Daily News
>
###
>
> "Those poor kids. So young. So
nauseous."
> --Krusty the Klown Telethon for Motion Sickness
>
>
> Laura Winton
> fluffysingler@prodigy.net
>
http://pages.prodigy.net/fluffysingler
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do
You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of
Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/
|