-Caveat Lector- ------- Forwarded message follows ------- Date sent: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 21:41:05 -0800 From: "eWarrior (Kurt Jonach)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Justice Scalia's Legal Vision is Blinded by his Ambition To: Steve Wingate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.nydailynews.com/2000-12-11/News_and_Views/Beyond_the_City/a-91901.asp ------------------------------------------------------------ JUSTICE SCALIA'S LEGAL VISION IS BLINDED BY HIS AMBITION New York Daily News Online December 11, 2000 Justice Scalia's Legal Vision Is Blinded by His Ambition 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? ------- End of forwarded message ------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ }}}> ANOMALOUS RADIO <{{{ - Techno, Ambient, Talk (33k+) http://www.live365.com/cgi-bin/directory.cgi?autostart=anomalous }}}> RADIO ANOMALY <{{{ - Techno, Ambient, Jazz (Cable, DSL) http://www.live365.com/cgi-bin/directory.cgi?autostart=stevew168 Anomalous Images and UFO Files http://www.anomalous-images.com <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
