Justice Scalia is a Lying Retard

[Flagg]

ThinkProgress

Scalia Rewrites History, Claims 5-4 Bush v. Gore Decision ‘Wasn’t Even Close’

By Ian Millhiser on Mar 9, 2012 at 1:30 pm

During a speech at Wesleyan University last night, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia offered a strange revision of the time he joined with four of his conservative colleagues to make George W. Bush president:

At the end of the speech, Scalia took questions from the audience. One person asked about the Bush-Gore case, where the Supreme Court had to determine the winner of the election.

“Get over it,” Scalia said of the controversy surrounding it, to laughter from the audience.“

Scalia reminded the audience it was Gore who took the election to court, and the election was going to be decided in a court anyway—either the Florida Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court.

It was a long time ago, people forget…It was a 7-2 decision. It wasn’t even close,” he said.

Bush v. Gore was not a 7-2 decision — and indeed, Scalia could tell this is true by counting all four of the dissenting opinions in that case. Although it is true that the four dissenters divided on how the Florida recount should proceed — two believed there should be a statewide recount of all Florida voters while two others believed a narrower recount would be acceptable — not one of the Court’s four moderates agreed with Scalia that the winner of the 2000 presidential election should effectively be chosen by five most conservative members of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Like someone couldn't easily fact check this you lying retarded scumbag?

[Aaron MkII]

The faithful won't or they won't care, he's not addressing us with this answer.

[Haruko]

Well, whether 7-2 or 5-4, the Electoral College is still silly.

[Flagg]

It's really more archaic than silly. It had a valid purpose once. Now it's just an impediment to real democracy.

[Straha]

Scalia is actually right.

Bush V. Gore was a clusterfuck because no justice was happy with making the decision but in the big issue at hand, whether or not the recount would grant 'equal protection' to all the Florida voters and should continue as it was going, was a 7-2 decision. The 5-4 was what to do in light of this decision. Five people wanted it stopped, the other four split between allowing the Florida court system come up with a new method of recounting and something else (I forget what.) The 5-4 part of the case is controversial, and certainly ought be, but it pales in comparison of importance to the 7-2 decision.

Regardless, the moral of the story is when a Supreme Court Justice and a journalist square off over Supreme Court decisions, the Justice is usually right.

[Mr Bean]

Which ignores Straha the fact the Florida law has provisions for exactly what happened, namely a single statewide recount. The correct decision was, follow your own fucking law and do a single statewide recount you have until January 10th. The whole problem to begin with was the bizarre county by county recount that both Bush and Gore tried. Never mind the ignored absentee vote which had not even been counted yet.

[Straha]

Which ignores Straha the fact the Florida law has provisions for exactly what happened, namely a single statewide recount. The correct decision was, follow your own fucking law and do a single statewide recount you have until January 10th. The whole problem to begin with was the bizarre county by county recount that both Bush and Gore tried. Never mind the ignored absentee vote which had not even been counted yet.

I'm not ignoring anything. I'm merely pointing out that Scalia is right that the decision that mattered was 7-2, not 5-4. Any claim otherwise is flat wrong, whatever you (or I) may think of the court's decision.

[Mr Bean]

I'm not ignoring anything. I'm merely pointing out that Scalia is right that the decision that mattered was 7-2, not 5-4. Any claim otherwise is flat wrong, whatever you (or I) may think of the court's decision.

A valid point