I voted for Gore in 2000 and watched with disbelief when the Supreme Court decided to take on Bush v Gore . . . disbelief because the method Florida decided to use to count the 2000 election votes should have remained with Florida. Federal intervention was not necessary, period.
It was an unprincipled decision that the Supremes in their “infinite wisdom” decided should apply solely to this case … that it could not be used as precedent for future cases. Cute, right? The majority of the court acted improperly (States rights, anyone?) and politically (5 Republican Justices) and some would say corruptly.
I still remember the number of people who questioned whether Scalia’s vote was because he wanted to position himself to be the next choice as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
What was shattered, along with the Constitution, was our belief in the incorruptibility of the Supreme Court justices. We witnessed, first hand, that the Supremes are as political as the rest of the hacks in this country that pretend to be fair and impartial and whose actions show the opposite reality. Legions of Americans have hoped that the Supremes would, once again behave with honor and dignity . . . alas as Donofrio,Berg, etal have witnessed, that will not take place.
The following is from an excellent article in Salon (written in 2000) . . . back when Salon was a source one could trust. It is a superior article that reviews several books written by legal authorities, including Alan Dershowitz, Vincent Bugliosi, Richard H. Pildes, and Cass R. Sunstein and Richard A. Epstein.
I urge anyone that has been fighting the good fight, trying to get our legislators, elected officials, and the courts to take an intellectually honest look at Obama and the Constitutional crisis brought on because Obama will not (cannot) present any documentation (exception the forged COLB on the Internet) proving he meets the eligibility requirements for POTUS as a natural born citizen to read the article. It may give you additional insight as to how to proceed. The article begins:
Supreme Court to democracy: Drop dead
With a single rash, partisan act, the high court has tainted the Bush presidency, besmirched its own reputation and soiled our nation’s proudest legacy.
Dec. 14, 2001 | Tuesday, Dec. 12, is a day that will live in American infamy long after the tainted election of George W. Bush has faded from memory. With their rash, divisive decision to dispense with the risky and inconvenient workings of democracy and simply award the presidency to their fellow Republican, five right-wing justices dragged the Supreme Court down to perhaps its most ignominious point since the Dred Scott decision.
With this as a back drop, should anyone really be surprised that the Supremes are, again, turning backs on the Constitution? Are we really so surprised that there isn’t a single backbone among them? Is it really so surprising ?
Why, when we have legitimate Constitutional questions will the Supremes not act? Self interest, perhaps? Lack of integrity, courage, intellectual honesty, impartiality? Some of these . . . all of these?
The far reaching impact of the Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss the cases brought thus far on technical issues (standing, wrong format, didn’t cross a “t” or an “i” was missing) is monumental. We have witnessed numerous people run for the office of POTUS we know are ineligible because they are not “natural born citizens” Obama (until he proves he is), Bill Richardson, Roger Calero and still the Supremes remain silent on an issue that effects every citizen of this country!
There is an element of power and, perhaps inevitably, self-interest in all judicial decisions. As Sunstein remarked, “We’ve tended to have too idealized a view of the court.” But the idea that justice must be blind, that the most powerful court in the world — and arguably the most powerful institution in the country — must not sink into brazen partisanship, is a bedrock principle . . . ( change & emphasis mine )that they have failed to live up to!
We must stand by it, and those justices who violate it must be held accountable. By failing to live up to their judicial oath, by allowing political motivations to sway them, by besmirching democracy itself, the five members of the (change and emphasis mine) 2009 Supreme Court majority will have disgraced themselves forever.
From history’s judgment, there will be no appeal.