Scalia plays revisionist historian

November 22, 2005

In the latest sign that Antonin Scalia has completely given up on the reality-based community, the Supreme Court justice suggested yesterday that the high court did not inject itself into the 2000 presidential election.

Speaking at the Time Warner Center last night, Scalia said: “The election was dragged into the courts by the Gore people. We did not go looking for trouble.”

But he said the court had to take the case.

“The issue was whether Florida’s Supreme Court or the United States Supreme Court [would decide the election.] What did you expect us to do? Turn the case down because it wasn’t important enough?”

There was no indication that Scalia was kidding.

It’s Gore’s fault the Bush campaign asked the Supreme Court to override a state court on a state ballot issue? The Supreme Court had to take the case? Is Scalia serious?

For that matter, Scalia added his belief that studies showed that Bush still would have won a Florida recount. It’s a tangent from Scalia’s point — that it’s Gore’s fault the Supreme Court heard the case — but the most thorough analysis of the election showed Gore would have won Florida had there been a statewide recount.

Not to rehash the 2000 race over again or anything….

I know it pains all of us to realize that more people voted for Gore than for Bush in 2000.

But, PLEASE, remember that IF the recount had been allowed to be completed, that Bush still would have won. We need to remember that Gore DID NOT ask for a state wide recount. He only asked for specific counties. He did that because he thought it gave him the best chance to win. However, that was a big misteak.

Of course, the other thing to remember is there was little chance that that the butterfly ballot cost Gore hundreds or thousands of votes and the state of Florida destroyed the ballots so that no statisticians could go back and show how many votes the butterfly ballot cost Gore.

I am sure that all the holocaust survivors really meant to give Buchanan so many votes and the butterfly ballot had nothing to do with it.

  • Scalia isn’t even right about the facts. Gore didn’t drag anything into the courts. First there was a legally mandated recount. Then, Gore requested a further recount, as was his right under the law. He didn’t sue for a recount.

    It was Bush who dragged the courts into it when he repeatedly sued to stop the recount process. The case before the Supreme Court was called Bush v. Gore. Bush was the plaintiff. Bush sued. Bush lost. Bush appealed to the Supreme Court.

    One other comment bears additional scrutiny: “What did you expect us to do? Turn the case down because it wasn’t important enough?”

    That is the kind of comment that Scalia would ridicule if the shoe were on the other foot. The Supreme Court doesn’t hear cases depending on whether they are “important”. It hears cases because there is a federal question, often a Constitutional question, at issue.

    People expected the Supreme Court to turn the case down because the Supreme Court does not get involved in state election procedures unless there is a racial discrimination issue involved. The idea that Bush had his 14th Amendment rights violated by a recount in which some discretion was used by local precincts is beyond laughable. Particularly after you consider that different precincts use entirely different voting mechanism and that doesn’t bother Scalia.

  • Sounds like he’s already trying to defend himself against charges that haven’t been filed yet. Very interesting…..

  • The Supreme Court stole an election and nothing good has happened in this country since then. What I wouldn’t give to have to listen to boring old Al Gore for the next three years.

  • Curmudgeon – HA! I was thinking exactly the same thing. Methinks thou dost protesteth too much, Scalia. “It’s not my fault! It’s not my fault! It’s not my fault!”

  • Scalia’s quote “We did not go looking for trouble” stinks of inclusion. Which “We” does he belong to?

  • There will be, shortly after the present Administration leaves office, or after the death of Justice Scalia, a sudden plethora of stories about the ex parte contacts between the higest reaches of the 2000 Bush campaign and the chambers of at least two Justices at the time.

    So it is written, so it shall be

    • Comments are closed.