National Lawyers Guild Impeachment Committee
Following the dramatic and to many traumatic events surrounding the Florida vote recount in the 2000 Presidential Campaign, the National Lawyers Guild is currently investigating the possibility of an Impeachment Campaign against the Five Supreme Court Justices who nullified the recount and in effect guaranteed George W. Bush the position of President of the United States. This campaign will be raised to a vote by Guild members at this year's annual Convention in Tucson Arizona, October 10th -15th. National Lawyers Guild
"many Americans who believed that the Court was an institution that could be trusted to remain above partisan politics are now experiencing a genuine loss of confidence in the impartiality of the judicial branch of our government. ""Supreme Injustice"
Justice O'Connor "..has recently acknowledged to a mutual friend that her vote in the election case may have hurt her reputation and endangered her place in history. She was right." "Supreme Injustice", by Alan K. Dershowitz, pg 161
Irreparable Harm by Renata Adler, New Republic Post date 07.12.01 >In his concurrence, Justice Scalia did not trouble for a moment to consider whether the threatened injury to Bush if the counting continued outweighed the damage to Gore if it did not. Scalia went straight to "irreparable harm." If the manual count continued, he said, it "does in my view threaten irreparable harm to the petitioner, and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election." >Well, there it is. The irreparable harm of "casting a cloud." In the long and honorable tradition of injunctions and stays, this "irreparable injury" is a new one. Not just a cloud, but a cloud on "what he claims to be the legitimacy" of what he is claiming. By that standard, of course, every litigant in every case should be granted an injunction to halt the proceeding that offends him: the prosecutor casts a cloud on a claim of innocence; the civil plaintiff, a cloud on the defendant's claim that he has already paid him. And of course vice versa, the defendants casting clouds on plaintiffs and prosecutors. The whole adversary system consists of a casting of clouds ... >Here is Scalia, waffling, with a little joke based on Alice [in Throught the Looking Glass]: "Count first, and rule upon legality afterwards, is not a recipe for producing elections that have the public acceptance democratic stability requires." >As it happens, count (or take any action which the law does not specifically forbid) first, and rule upon legality afterwards, is precisely the basis of our free and entrepreneurial system. It is one of the reasons constitutional law requires the Court to consider only specific "cases and controversies" (in contrast to abstract, hypothetical, or contingent questions) and prohibits the Court from issuing what are called "advisory opinions." >But none of this, not a word or a concept, is the reasoning or the language* of the law. And the vague, nattering--simultaneously brazen, timid, and evasive--quality of the decision culminates, of course, in this: "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities." >Look at that sentence a minute. What can it possibly mean? It apparently says that, for some reason, the decision in Bush v. Gore is not to be regarded as precedent for any other. But if this were so, it would undermine, at one stroke, the whole basis of American and Anglo-Saxon law. That each case has precedential value, must have precedential value, is the bedrock of our system of justice. Otherwise each case can be decided ad hoc, at the caprice of judges--non-elected, federal judges with lifelong tenure. The Constitution and even the Magna Carta would be superseded, the justices would be kings. http://www.thenewrepublic.com/073001/2adler073001.html
Trifecta of Ignominy
"Count first, and rule upon legality afterwards is not a recipe for producing election results that have the public acceptance democratic stability requires," Scalia wrote. "The counting of votes that are of questionable legality does in my view threaten irreparable harm to [Texas Gov. George W. Bush], and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election."
Allow me to paraphrase: "...So we must stop it this instant, lest the unruly, unsophisticated masses ever get the idea that Vice President Al Gore actually won the election because he got more votes than Bush in Florida--as well as the rest of the country. It would perturb them to see Bush inaugurated, and this might make it difficult for Bush to be an effective and respected president."
I've come up empty scouring the Constitution for my right not to be perturbed. In vain, I went back over Article II, which deals with the presidency, looking for a "sunshine clause" saying, "No clouds shall be cast upon the claim of legitimacy of a president."
Nanny Scalia and four fellow baby-sitters of the right freelanced a temporary suspension of our common-law right to know. If their reasoning holds, Republicans will be allowed to impound the ballots in Florida for at least four years so that Freedom of Information Act busybodies can't conduct their planned unofficial recounts of machine-rejected ballots several weeks or months from now.
After that, perhaps the paternalistic caregivers on the high court will take another look at the whole freedom-of- information idea. The truth? They can't handle the truth!
The five conservatives justices hit the trifecta of ignominy with their stay order:
1. They cast a cloud upon the court's moral authority with a partisan 5-4 ruling. If they're just a fractious clutch of ideologues like so many guests on "Hardball," why should we pay deference to their rulings?
2. They all but killed Gore's chances to prevail in a recount or swing public sentiment his way by helping Republicans run out the clock on the Dec. 12 deadline for appointing electors.
3. They all but killed Bush's chance to have the legitimacy of his election recognized by most DemocratsChicago Tribune
From the API reports:
"Some Democrats raised alarms Monday because two sons of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia work for law firms connected to the case. John Scalia accepted a position with the Miami-based firm Greenberg Traurig on November 7. The next day, Barry Richard, a partner in the firm, said he was called about representing Bush in Florida. A second son, Eugene Scalia, is a partner in the Washington office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher -- the firm representing Bush in the Supreme Court arguments. He is not involved in the case. "
Judge Merritt urges Justice Thomas to remove himself
..a federal judge in Nashville said Justice Thomas faced a serious conflict of interest as a result of his wife's work for the Heritage Foundation. The foundation has close ties to the Republican Party and would probably have a say in the hiring of key government officials if Gov. George W. Bush assumed the presidency. In e-mail distributed on Capitol Hill earlier this month, Mrs. Thomas solicited résumés "for transition purposes" from the government oversight committees of Congress. "The spouse has obviously got a substantial interest that could be affected by the outcome," [federal appellate judge, Gilbert S. Merritt of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit] said in an interview from his home in Nashville. "You should disqualify yourself. I think he'd be subject to some kind of investigation in the Senate." ...He urged Justice Thomas to remove himself from the case in order to prevent any violation of a federal law - he cited Section 455 of Title 28 of the United States Code, "Disqualification of Justices, Judges or Magistrates" - that requires court officers to excuse themselves if a spouse has "an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding."--New York Times, 12/12/00
1.58 million votes have not been counted a second time
Human Factor Was at Core Of Vote Fiasco Decisions and Leadership Were Erratic, Arbitrary
James A. Baker III asserted on Nov. 8 that "the vote in Florida has been recounted," but 18 counties never recounted their ballots. (Tim Sloan - AFP)
By John Mintz and Peter Slevin Washington Post Staff Writers Friday, June 1, 2001; Page A01
Second of two articles
So close was the Nov. 7 presidential election in Florida that state law required an automatic recount the next day. George W. Bush's lead soon slipped to 327 votes. Republican field leader James A. Baker III repeatedly urged an end to the stalemate, asserting that "the vote in Florida has been counted and the vote in Florida has been recounted."
In fact, 18 of the state's 67 counties never recounted* the ballots at all. They simply checked their original results. To this day, more than 1.58 million votes have not been counted a second time.
" In light of these factors, many Americans who believed that the Court was an institution that could be trusted to remain above partisan politics are now experiencing a genuine loss of confidence in the impartiality of the judicial branch of our government.""Supreme Injustice"
The Chicago Tribune website has a piece by Studs Terkel:
This is the first time in the history of our nation that a coup d'etat has taken place--within our own borders. As defined in the dictionary, a coup d'etat is a violent or illegal change in government. We have experienced it in other countries; Chile, for instance. Augusto Pinochet's was a military coup.
The coup that has brought us a new chieftain was civilian in form. As to its violence, it was not viscerally so, though some might maintain that depriving a citizen of his/her vote may be considered a violent act in a democracy.
The coup we have just experienced was illegal. We have been taught in our civics and history classes that our democracy is contingent on the right of every citizen to vote and to have his/her vote counted. That right has obviously been denied to countless American citizens in the state of Florida.
Read the complete story here: Chicago Tribune
This story appeared in The Times Free Press on Wednesday, March 28, 2001
Ted Turner says Bush 'bought and paid for' by the oil industry
By Jan Galletta, Staff Writer,Times Free Press
Cable television pioneer Ted Turner, who has given millions of dollars to ecological causes, said Tuesday in Chattanooga that the election of George Bush is "a personal blow to environmentalists.''
Mr. Turner said the president "was bought and paid for by the petroleum industry'' and that "the Republican Party has become the party of polluters.''
He made the remarks at McCallie School in an informal seminar with nine students chosen for their environmental interest and service work.
Mr. Turner, 62, and a member of the McCallie Class of 1956, said he considered the presidential election results "to be a disaster'' and that the proposal to open protected land in Alaska to oil drilling "is ridiculous."Times Free Press
Oregon Democratic Party endorses Supreme Court impeachment Posted on Monday, July 23 @ 09:48:00 EDT --------------------------------------------------- By Bruce Olson, Reuters PORTLAND, Ore. (Reuters) - The Oregon Democratic Party endorsed on Sunday a drive to impeach five U.S. Supreme Court justices for the decision that gave George W. Bush the presidency last year. The party's central committee voted overwhelmingly to begin a campaign it hopes will take the issue to the U.S. House of Representatives, which has the authority to impeach justices. The resolution passed Sunday by the 66 Oregon party activists called for the "immediate investigation of the behavior" of the five justices who voted to stop hand recounts of Florida ballots*. The decision gave Bush the majority of electoral votes and the presidency. Then-Vice President Al Gore won the popular vote. The justices who voted to stop the hand recounts were Chief Justice* William Rehnquist and Associate Justices Antonin Scalia, Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy. "This is the first organized effort to advocate impeachment of five justices," said former Rep. Charles Porter, 82, who first raised the issue with Lane County Democrats and then convinced the state party to adopt the resolution. Porter accused the five of "egregiously bad behavior, high crimes and misdemeanors." Neel Pender, executive director of Oregon's Democratic Party, said party officials would ask its congressional delegation to begin investigating the matter. The delegation has four Democratic House members and one Democratic senator. http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=2536&mode=&order=0
A web page by Phillip Cheng has this anecdote on Gödel
"According to Princeton legend, for his oral examination for U.S. citizenship, Gödel studied the Constitution intensely, as if it were a document of theoretical logic. Just before the interview, Gödel confided to his friend Albert Einstein that he had discovered that it was logically possible within the limits of the Constitution for the United States to be turned into a dictatorship. Einstein wisely advised Gödel not to mention this "discovery" at his citizenship interview. "
Political and movement news sites:
Bartcop Political news and humor
Buzzflash News
Bush Brother's Banana Republic
Allied Forces Million Voter march
fringefolk \'frinjfolk\ n
people who rise up to protest when the constitution is unraveled: Fringefolk
Betty Bowers has a well designed site: Betty Bowers is a better Christian than you!
This game takes only minutes to play, and is very rewarding: New Supreme Court Game!
Political and movement news sites:
Bartcop Political news and humor
Buzzflash News
Bush Brother's Banana Republic
Allied Forces Million Voter march
Freud and Maslow An Analysis of Political Parties With Reference to Freud and Maslow by Eldon E. New, B.A. The lowwsest level of Maslow's hierarcy of needs is the survival level. This corresponds to Freuds anal retentive level. People operating on this level like guns and violence better than sex and pleasure, and tend to be authoritarian and conservative, and even feel proud of their backwards outlook. Freud would say they need more therapy. The next level on Maslow's hierarcy of needs corresponds with Freud's "genital" personality type. This type of person tends to like sex and pleasure. They tend to avoid military service, and hold liberal political* views. Freud would say they are healthy.
Oregon Democrats want Supreme Court impeached Five of the justices voted politically in November's election, says the party's Executive Committee from "The Oregonian" Wednesday, June 27, 2001 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Thirty years ago, Oregon adopted the first bottle bill in the country. Now, some Democrats want the state to be the first to call for the impeachment of more than half of the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. The state Democratic Executive Committee last weekend voted to forward to the full central committee a resolution calling for Congress to conduct an impeachment inquiry into the five justices* who voted last December to stop the presidential vote recount in Florida*, a decision that ended the election* dispute between Texas Gov. George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore. Jim Edmunson, chairman of the state Democratic* Party, said he expects the full central committee* to adopt the resolution in its July 22 meeting. "It will be overwhelmingly supported," Edmunson said. "I'm not aware of a single Democrat who thinks the Supreme* Court did a good job." http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/public_safety/oregonian/lc_41impea27.frame
Get your own Free Home Page