|
FirmhandKY -> RE: Scalia says "get over it" in regards to 2000 election (4/28/2008 5:28:30 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cjan
Firm, I actually hold Scalia and his intellect in high regard. I think his views re the Constitution not being a "living" document, but, rather a "dead" one in the sense that the Constitution should not reflect changing socio/political values is valid and necessary in our unique experiment in democracy ,and the balance of power between co-equal branches of government affords. I agrre with him also that the appropriate vehicle for our societies changes in values is the legislative branch of government.
I too am a strict constructionist, although it does present problems from time to time, I think it is the best way to defend our freedoms in the long run.
quote:
ORIGINAL: cjan
The point at which I disagree with Scalia is that I believe that the Supremes' Bush v Gore decision was an usurpation of power that rightly belonged to the Florida legislature and it's Supreme Court. The Florida legislature was, in 2000 , and remains, firmly in Republican hands. I have no doubt that, if the Supremes had not intervened in the Bush v Gore matter, that the Florida legislature would have found a way to hand Bush the Florida electoral votes itself. However, then Floridians would have had the opportunity, if they wished to exercise it, to vote the cocksuking whores out of office. An opportunity that "we the people" don't have with the Supremes.
I can see your point of view. It is a valid concern. Even the Supreme Court was concerned about this very issue.
But, at the end of the day, they had to make a decision about how the mess in Florida would effect the rest of the US. In effect, allowing the Florida Courts to decide the results of the national election - especially when the majority of the Supreme Court did indeed see Constitutional issues at stake - wasn't something that they were prepared to do.
They disagreed with you, and others who supported your position, but also realized that their acceptance of, and the limited time frame required for a decision could create a bad precedence (think Dred Scott), so made the unusual move to say that no lasting precedence was granted.
Of course, this decision itself gave those who disagreed with them a tool to argue that the entire acceptance and result was illegitimate.
But they get paid to make the hard decisions - and they made it. For this, regardless of what one feels about the actual decision, I believe they merit honor.
Again - I understand your position and beliefs. They do indeed have strength. However, I believe, in the balance, less damage was done by the action of the Court, than by a decision to return the issue to the Florida Courts.
Reasonable men may disagee, without being disagreeable.
Firm
|
|
|
|
