Outrage Over Supreme Court Felony Refuses to Die

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

Are you still confused by the Supreme Court's rationale in halting the Florida recount in 2000? In The Betrayal Of America: How The Supreme Court Undermined Our Constitution And Chose Our President, former prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi offers a point-by-point rebuttal to the court's majority opinion that gave George W. Bush his victory.

Vincent Bugliosi is best remembered as the Los Angeles district attorney who prosecuted Charles Manson. His other books include Helter Skelter and Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O.J. Simpson Got Away With Murder.

St Pete Beach, FL: Do you think that after all is said and done that Al Gore really should be the one sitting in the oval office instead of George W. Bush.

Vincent Bugliosi: I'm not going to hazard an opinion on that. The mainstream media has been saying Bush won, but even as to that I say it's totally irrelevant as to whether Bush or Gore won in Florida. If you commit a crime, the bell is rung the moment you engage in your criminal conduct, and nothing that happens thereafter can unring the bell and is therefore irrelevant. To judge these justices by the final result rather than by their intentions at the time they engaged in their conduct would be like exonerating someone who shoots to kill if the bullet misses the victim, or if A murders B, and a doctor says "well, B was going to die from an illness in a couple of days anyway". It's irrelevant who won according to the newspaper count. My only view is that when the Supreme Court stopped the recount in Florida, took the election away from the American people and handed it to George Bush, they committed one of the biggest and most serious crimes in American history, and in a fair and just world would belong behind prison bars as much as any American white collar criminal who ever lived. I can assure anyone reading that if the Supreme Court had done for Gore what they did for Bush, I would have written the same identical book. This has nothing to do with Democrats versus Republicans.

Herndon, VA: What would it take, to bring these 5 Supreme Court Justices to justice? Who would have to initiate the recall or charges? What can we do as average lay people?

Vincent Bugliosi: A national legal organization contacted me about a week and a half ago, and told me that their executive committee is going to decide whether to use my book, The Betrayal of America, as a legal basis and foundation for asking the House Judiciary Committee to initiate impeachment proceedings against these 5 justices. That is the only legal recourse available, but there are other reasons why I wrote the book. Everyone is concerned about their legacy, and I want the verdict of history to be that these 5 justices are criminals of the very highest order. I also want the message in the book to get out there to such an extent that when these justices are at cocktail parties talking to someone, I want the thought to enter their mind whether the person they're talking to has read the Betrayal of America and thinks "I belong behind bars". Let me add that the word is getting out there. The books was based on an article in the Nation that got the biggest reader response in the magazine's 131 year history. The Betrayal of America, which is a trade paperback, is presently sold out in America (it'll be in stores in a week), but it can be ordered on amazon.com or stores. The message is getting out there. Most importantly, I want to expose this crime to help insure that it never happens again.

CS TX 77840: I thought everyone's vote was suspose to count before the decision what the State preferred was picked....In other countries it was made a big deal if people got to vote correctly and so forth. I thought I learned in High School and College that each vote counted..to participate. I think it will cause alot of apathy in voting to not count each vote. I understand Bush probably would of had the votes in his favor if they had allowed the recounts...I always thought it was a priveledge of being an American to vote.

Vincent Bugliosi: These five justices showed no respect, no regard, for 50 million Americans whose votes for Vice President Gore they knew they were erasing as if never cast. I view this as a betrayal of trust that may be unparalleled in the recorded annals of American history. Talking about the halting of the vote counting, on December the 8th, the Florida Supreme Court, under section 102.168 of the Florida election code, ordered a manual recount of 60,000 undervotes throughout the entire state. 8:00 the following morning (a Saturday), the manual recount commenced. Early that afternoon, Justice Scalia intervened with an emergency order halting the vote counting, and this is what he said (I'm not making this up - it's too far out) -- he said the manual recount had to be stopped because if it continued it could "threaten irreparable harm to George Bush". So even though the election hadn't been completed, the incredible Scalia was presupposing that Bush had won the election - indeed, had a RIGHT to win it - and any recount that showed that Gore had won could cause irreparable harm to George Bush. If that alone doesn't show that these 5 justices were up to no good, what would?

Now let's reverse the roles. Let's assume that Al Gore, 8:00 Saturday morning, was ahead by 154 votes (Bush was ahead by 154 votes when the recount started on Saturday). Would Scalia and his brethren have done the same thing for Gore that they did for Bush? Who IS Scalia? He's not a typical Republican or conservative. He's a right-wing ideologue, a member of the far-right. Someone like Gore is anathema to him, an execration. It is absolutely inconceivable that he would have stepped in and said "we have to stop the recount because if it continues it could cause irreparable harm to Al Gore." Anyone who can say that Scalia would have done this with a straight look on their face I will personally nominate for an Academy Award. I want to say that I'm willing to stake my prosecutorial reputation on the fact that in The Betrayal of America, I prove beyond all reasonable doubt that these five justices deliberately set out to make sure that Bush became president. I present an overwhelming case of this. Like typical criminals, these 5 justices, whom I refer to as the Felonious Five, left their incriminating fingerprints everywhere.

San Diego, CA: It appears that many of the judges had conflicts of interest, i.e., Clarence Thomas' wife. How is it determined that a judge should excuse himself or herself from a case due to a conflict of interest? Kelly Johnson

Vincent Bugliosi: If they have a conflict of interest, they're obligated to recuse themselves, and certainly some of the justices should have done just that. They take an oath of office (in section 453 of title 28 of the U.S. Code) to perform their duties "impartially". The issue of motive I don't dwell on too much in the book for the simple reason that when you prosecute a case you never have to prove motive, you only have to prove the defendant committed the crime. In this case, there's no question about the motive of these five justices. These are five conservative Republican justices who wanted George Bush to win and undoubtedly voted for him. No one would have the audacity to allege otherwise. But if that's all I had, I never would have written the book. The book is based on an overwhelming amount of evidence that they set out to hand the election to George Bush. The book is based on evidence, not motive. But if you want to talk about motive, I point out in the book that Thomas's wife works for the Heritage Foundation, which assisted in the transition to office of the Bush presidency. Scalia's two sons are lawyers who worked for law firms involved in the Bush campaign. Everyone knows that Scalia's lifetime dream is to become the Chief Justice, and there's no way he could become the Chief Justice if Gore was elected. On the night of the election, Justice O'Connor was at a cocktail party in Washington D.C. with her lawyer husband John when Dan Rather announced at 8 pm that it looked like Florida was going to Gore. Her reaction was "that's just terrible", and was in a very foul mood. Her husband John told the guests that the reason for the outburst is that his wife wanted to retire to Arizona, but now they'd have to wait another four years because she didn't want a Democrat to appoint her successor. The Wall Street Journal confirmed this incident with three witnesses at the party, Newsweek confirmed it with two witnesses at the party. Both publications sought a comment from O'Connor, but she declined to comment. Again, if that's all I had, I never would have written the book. The book is based on evidence, not motive.

San Antonio, TX: Isn't a 5-4 decision the law of the land. Many of the most controversial decisions were reached on 5-4 opinions and changed the course of history. Are they just as fraudulent as you say this decision was?

Vincent Bugliosi: I don't see how the number is indicative of fraud. What's indicative of fraud is the conduct of the five justices. Show me another case in U.S Supreme Court history that was even as remotely political as this one.

There are many ideologically driven decisions of the Court. For instance: Liberals coming down with decisions helping the poor and the disadvantaged, conservatives the well-to-do and those in power; liberals, expanding the rights of criminals, conservatives expanding the rights of victims; but this wasn't ideology, it was brass knuckle politics. Was a Democrat or Republican going to be in the Oval Office? There's never been a case like this in American history, and the numbers 5-4 are totally irrelevant. Moreover, these previous ideological driven decisions of the Court were never self-serving. For instance (I'm being facetious here): When the justices voted in Roe v. Wade to legalize abortion, they weren't doing this so that their wife or mistress could have an abortion. There's no question, on the other hand, that these five justices wanted a Republican in the White House. Finally, these ideological driven decisions of the Court in the past ALSO had a sound legal basis. This one absolutely did not. As I indicated earlier, the Court, in so many words, said that they themselves didn't believe in the equal protection argument.

Comment from Vincent Bugliosi: People were angry at the verdict in the Simpson case, and when they read my book Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O.J. Simpson Got Away With Murder, they became even more angry. I'm getting the same identical response from liberals and many moderates who are reading The Betrayal of America. After reading the book they're angrier than they previously were. For ultra-conservatives, the book is a good $10 litmus test. If they're honest with themselves, they're going to find out how much they truly love America or whether their primary allegiance is to the Republican party. Any conservative who loves this country - the John McCains of the world, not the right-wing fanatics whom Barry Goldwater had no use for - should be very concerned over what the Court did, even though it inured to their benefit.

I'm flattered that Molly Ivins and Gerry Spence have written excellent forwards to the book. I'm also very upset with the mainstream media. For the first time in my literary career I've not appeared on any of the morning talk shows. Their response to my publicist was that the election is over with, and we're not covering the matter any further. Basically, let's get on with our lives. What does the election being over with have to do with whether or not these justices committed a serious crime? ARe we supposed to forget what they did because the election is over with? That would be like the Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg saying "the war's over with, leave us alone, let's get on with our lives". If I were to prosecute these justices in real life, their only defense would be the so-called "character" defense, meaning "we're honorable people, we're wearing robes, we're seated on the highest court in the land, we wouldn't do something liket this". I'd say fine, now let's look at the evidence. Anyone who really wants to find out what happened here has got to disabuse themselves of any notion they may have that just because these are justices seated on the highest court they wouldn't engage in grossly immoral and criminal conduct, because if you make that assumption, an assumption that has no foundation in logic, you will not be receptive the the evidence nor to the common-sense inferences to that evidence.

That an election for an American president can be stolen by the highest court in the land under the deliberate pretext of an inapplicable constitutional provision has got the be one of the most frightening and dangerous events ever to have occured in this country. I wrote this book to tell these justices that this is America, not a banana republic, and in the United States you simply can't get away with things like this.

Comment from USATODAY.com Host: Thanks to Vince Bugliosi and to all the participants.

http://cgi1.usatoday.com/mchat/20010606003/tscript.htm

-- Traitors on Trial (Vincent@Bugliosi.com), June 07, 2001

Answers

Vincent Bugliosi is a Republican. Or was, last time I looked.

But he is one of the few Republicans in the nation with the guts to say, out loud, what we all know: The GOP, with the help of the GOP members of the Supreme Court, STOLE THE 2000 ELECTION.

In proof after proof after proof, Bugliosi takes a sledgehammer to the SCOTUS' ruling in Bush v. Gore, and also to the myth of the "unbiased, apolitical" Supreme Court. (In one of the book's more chilling passages, Bugliosi demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that William Rehnquist, out of sheer naked partisanship, committed perjury in order to get onto the SC, and again in order to become Chief "Justice". As Bugliosi says, Rehnquist should be making license plates, not running the nation's highest court.)

How long will the quisling Republicans be allowed to run roughshod?

-- Republican response (gop@coup.com), June 07, 2001.


They have infiltrated our entire society. They are here and they look like us (only a little uglier). They like other people's money, power companies, petroleum companies, stealing elections, arabs, polluted moist hot air, drugs and mostly country and western music. They lie with no conscience. They are not human. They are repugs (stupid and cunning). Do not underestimate the greedy fucking repugs.

-- Tony Baloney (Fuck the@repugs.com), June 07, 2001.

As I have no idea (other than what is contained in the initial post here) what Mr. Bugliosi says in his book, I have no opinion on it.

It appears obvious though, that since he takes issue with what the US Supreme Court did, that a knowledge of those actions would be prerequisite to understanding his book.

You can 'get it from the horse's mouth" here, for the 1st ruling, and here, for the 2nd, and here for the 3rd.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 07, 2001.


Cherri,

This is today's second lengthy cut-n-paste post that is negative towards Bush, and you haven't posted either one of them!

It's not like you to let someone else beat you to a negative Bush cut-n-paste. Are you feeling alright? : )

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), June 07, 2001.

J:

I think Cherri mentioned in a recent thread that she had started a separate forum for negative Bush articles. She didn't say that she would eliminate the posts here altogether, but was responsive to criticism that her threads invariably mentioned Bush in a negative light.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 07, 2001.



Anita,

I know that was what Cherri said, but I figured that the pull would just be too much. : )

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), June 07, 2001.

No Question what happened.

The way the country responds will define what our future is. Will we be ruled by the right or be a free people. Who knows, I am old enough that I don't care.

It is your problem.

Very,

Bemused

-- Bemused (Bemused@comed.xxx), June 07, 2001.


By the way:

When you make the choice remember, I told you so; just like Y2K. You can let this stand and have someone like J or Dennis run your everyday life. Or, you can fight it. It is really up to you.

I will be on my boat watching.

Very,

Bemused

-- Bemused (Bemused@comedy.xxx), June 07, 2001.


Refused,

Oh please tell us all again how wealthy you are.


By the way: You had better order extra ballast for your sailboat. It will surely be top-heavy when you are aboard.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), June 07, 2001.

Jealous are we J. Haven't done that much. I understand. I have met many like you. You are forgiven.

When I come into port, the flag has a leaf. The way it is.

Very,

Bemused

-- Bemused (Bemused@comedy.xxx), June 07, 2001.



Refused,

You may indeed be jealous; I can't say. I am definitely not jealous, especially of you.

The Lord has blessed me such that my cup truly does overflow. He has done much for me, and I highly doubt that you understand in the least.

Unfortunately, I have met many like you. You are probably no wealthier than I am, but you love to tout your own horn to all within earshot, proclaiming how much you have accumulated.

You are an arrogant braggart.

"The way it is", indeed.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), June 07, 2001.

I don't thik J is jealous, Refused. You are a dickhead like Pantyliner.-"I don't have an opinion at this time".... Like someone actually gives a fuck.

-- KoFE (your@ton.USSA), June 07, 2001.

The Bugliosi piece is old news and has been posted here before under its title in Nation magazine, "None Dare Call it Treason". For those who give a shit, I think Robert Bork has also published on the SC ruling. His view was different. No surprise there, but Bork does know more about constitutional law than Bugliosi.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), June 07, 2001.

Unfortunately, I have met many like you. You are probably no wealthier than I am, but you love to tout your own horn to all within earshot, proclaiming how much you have accumulated.

You are an arrogant braggart.

J: Didn't you in the past week state that you had tons of money? If my memory serves, you were criticized about your money being from a militia source. I feel confident that you remember the exchange on that thread, and arrogant braggart is not something I'd toss out to others, seeing that you'd made similar claims yourself. Just my opinion. Your mileage may vary.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 07, 2001.


Vincent Bugliosi has crafted himself into a one-man entertainment machine. He has his own in-house fund raising operation and he misses no trick in choosing the subject for his next book/movie/TV Mini- Series/lecture tour/etc.,etc., etc………

We should always look at Vince’s work as what it is…….Entertainment!

-- Telinet (like@it.is), June 07, 2001.



Point well taken, Anita. Good catch.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), June 08, 2001.

What did you catch?

-- Joey wasn't the only one in the cab (who@smelled.funny), June 08, 2001.

J and Kofe:

Don't get so riled-up [as we say down here]. Oh well, you know when you inherit a lot you can earn a lot more.

A friend has a place outside of Christchurch and has invited us down for a month. Will have to close down my part of the ranch and leave. The cowsitters will take care of the rest.:).

Will be thinking about you when it is hot here.

Very,

Bemused

-- Bemused (Bemused@comedy.xxx), June 08, 2001.


Dennis, TB2K just keeps getting better and better.

-- bespectacled (at@you.folks), June 08, 2001.

Anita,

I wasn't bragging, dear lady, I was refuting an outrageous claim that 'twofaced.scum' had made. Specifically, he wrote, "Even folks WITH cash are not buying this BS administration".

I responded, "Actually, I have cash - lots of it - and I am pretty much fully buying into what this administration is doing".

I purposefully added the "lots of it", because I anticipated that at least one of the anonymous juveniles who traipse through here would respond with something about the $1.43 in my pocket not counting, if I didn't. If, in your opinion, that situation resembles Refused's incessant bragging, then by all means hold tightly to your opinion of me.

And by the way, I wasn't "criticized about my money being from a militia source", as you put it. The poster who sometimes calls himself, "Afraid of J's Militia", was attempting to be witty when he said that, "FYI, having lots of the script (sic) printed by the Montana Freemen does NOT mean that you're rich".

In my opinion, it was a genuinely good effort on his part, marred only by his ignorance of the difference between the words script and scrip.


Refused,

I'm not riled-up in the least.

Are you saying that you inherited much of your wealth? If so, it is a great testimony to your parents.

Unfortunately, your arrogance is not.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), June 08, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ