<div>The US Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore, that stopped the lawful vote recount in Florida in 2000, as ordered by the Florida State Supreme Court, according to Florida state law, could be described as one of the most egregious examples of "activist judges" misapplying US Constitutional law, in history. The decision used the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment in a manner that the decision stated should not set a precedent to be applied to any other case. Which makes sense, because if Bush v. Gore were applied to elections throughout the US, election after election could be deemed flawed:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://fathom.lib.uchicago.edu/1/777777122240/">http://fathom.lib.uchicago.edu/1/777777122240/</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>From website above, written by Geoffrey R. Stone, Professor of Law at the University of Chicago:</div>
<div>
<p><font size="3" face="times newroman,serif">What does this tell us? It tells us that Justices Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas have a rather distinctive view of the United States Constitution. Apparently the Equal Protection Clause, which was enacted after the Civil War primarily to protect the rights of newlyfreed slaves, is to be used for two and only two purposes--to invalidate affirmative action and to invalidate the recount process in the 2000 presidential election.</font></p>
<p><font size="3" face="times newroman,serif">As Professor Robert Post of the Berkeley Law School has observed, "I do not know a single person who believes that if the parties were reversed, if Gore were challenging a recount ordered by a Republican Florida Supreme Court," that Justices Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas "would have reached for a startling and innovative principle of constitutional law to hand Gore the victory."</font></p>
<p><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">------------------------</font></p></div>
<div>
<h1>Supreme Injustice</h1>
<div>How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000 </div>
<div>Alan M. Dershowitz </div></div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Politics/AmericanPolitics/LawCourts/?view=usa&ci=9780195158076" target="_blank">http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Politics/AmericanPolitics/LawCourts/?view=usa&ci=9780195158076</a><br>
</div>
<div>--------------</div>
<div>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett<br></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 7:28 PM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bear@moscow.com" target="_blank">bear@moscow.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote"><br>Just a thought, but since we have had "non-activist" judges that gave us<br>decisions like Bush v. Gore, maybe we should have openly activist judges!<br>
It's the ones in the closet that have caused all the problems!<br><br><br>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<div>
<div></div>
<div>> Joe<br>> I have no major disagreement with your statement. But as a judge it is<br>> your place to uphold the law not write it, irrespective of your personal<br>> view.<br>> Roger<br>> -----Original message-----<br>
> From: Joe Campbell <a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" target="_blank">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a><br>> Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 11:47:06 -0700<br>> To: lfalen <a href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com" target="_blank">lfalen@turbonet.com</a><br>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Sotomayor: US Supreme Court's Sixth Catholic?<br>><br>>> If you are in favor of laws, like anti-abortion laws, which restrict<br>>> the choices of others AND your beliefs about the issue are based on<br>
>> your own personal religious views, then you are in favor of<br>>> restricting the actions of others who have different religious views<br>>> than your own. Sorry but that is anti-freedom, pure and simple.<br>
>><br>>> That was my point.<br>>><br>>> Joe Campbell<br>>><br>>> On Jun 5, 2009, at 9:29 AM, lfalen <<a href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com" target="_blank">lfalen@turbonet.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>>> > Joe<br>>> > I don't know what you are implying here. I am quite willing to<br>>> > except everyone's religion. I don't care whether they are Catholic,<br>>> > Methodist, Moslem, Hindu, you name it or Atheist. As long as they<br>
>> > don't force their belief's on other or kill people, what ever they<br>>> > believe is fine with me. On the court though Justice is supposed to<br>>> > be blind. Justices should not interject ther beliefs into<br>
>> > decisions.They should rule only on the facts, the constitution and<br>>> > the law.<br>>> > Roger<br>>> > -----Original message-----<br>>> > From: Joe Campbell <a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" target="_blank">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a><br>
>> > Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 02:19:21 -0700<br>>> > To: lfalen <a href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com" target="_blank">lfalen@turbonet.com</a><br>>> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Sotomayor: US Supreme Court's Sixth<br>
>> > Catholic?<br>>> ><br>>> >> Roger,<br>>> >><br>>> >> You can be pro-life and also pro-choice. The issue is whether or not<br>>> >> you are truely in favor of freedom of religion and thought and<br>
>> >> practice and are willing to accept that some folks don't share your<br>>> >> narrow world view. Why not let them decide for themselves.<br>>> >><br>>> >> Joe Campbell<br>
>> >><br>>> >> On Jun 4, 2009, at 10:44 AM, lfalen <<a href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com" target="_blank">lfalen@turbonet.com</a>> wrote:<br>>> >><br>>> >>> I do not think that her views on abortion are well known. If turns<br>
>> >>> out that she is pro-life, I lot of you with the possible exception<br>>> >>> of Keely will be less enthused with her appointment. It would be<br>>> >>> ironic if she turned out to be the reverse of Souter on the abortion<br>
>> >>> issue.<br>>> >>> Roger<br>>> >>> -----Original message-----<br>>> >>> From: Ted Moffett <a href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com" target="_blank">starbliss@gmail.com</a><br>
>> >>> Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 01:41:37 -0700<br>>> >>> To: Moscow Vision 2020 <a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>>> >>> Subject: [Vision2020] Sotomayor: US Supreme Court's Sixth Catholic?<br>
>> >>><br>>> >>>> Gender, racial or ethnic background may or may not be important in<br>>> >>>> a choice<br>>> >>>> for a US Supreme Court justice, but it seems religious background<br>
>> >>>> is not a<br>>> >>>> major focus in the case of Sotomayor's nomination.<br>>> >>>><br>>> >>>> And why is this issue not on the front page? If she were Muslim,<br>
>> >>>> Hindu or<br>>> >>>> Atheist, the full force of the religious bias in the US body<br>>> >>>> politic towards<br>>> >>>> a challenge to the Christian/Judaism monopoly on US politics<br>
>> >>>> would be<br>>> >>>> revealed, despite the claim of the religious right that<br>>> >>>> Christianity is<br>>> >>>> being marginalized in government. Religion is a dominant influence<br>
>> >>>> on<br>>> >>>> ideology that should be open to full critical rational fact based<br>>> >>>> discussion, as well as gender, racial or ethnic background.<br>>> >>>><br>
>> >>>> Article on Sotomayor's Catholic background:<br>>> >>>><br>>> >>>> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/31/us/politics/31catholics.html?ref=global-home" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/31/us/politics/31catholics.html?ref=global-home</a><br>
>> >>>> -------------------<br>>> >>>> Why is there not a single US Senator who declares themselves of<br>>> >>>> another<br>>> >>>> religious background than Christian or Jewish, of one variety or<br>
>> >>>> another?<br>>> >>>> There are two US Senators who are "unspecified." Now there's a<br>>> >>>> faith for<br>>> >>>> you!<br>>> >>>><br>
>> >>>> <a href="http://www.adherents.com/adh_congress.html#109" target="_blank">http://www.adherents.com/adh_congress.html#109</a><br>>> >>>><br>>> >>>> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Affiliation_in_the_United_States_Senate" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Affiliation_in_the_United_States_Senate</a><br>
>> >>>><br>>> >>>>> From website above:<br>>> >>>><br>>> >>>> According to the data, no Senator falls under the category "No<br>>> >>>> Religion/Atheist/Agnostic" - a category embodied by 15.0% of the<br>
>> >>>> U.S.<br>>> >>>> population according to the 2001 Census.<br>>> >>>> -------------------<br>>> >>>> Religion is the most pervasive form of prejudice against a<br>
>> >>>> political<br>>> >>>> position (and despite what some might wish otherwise, US Supreme<br>>> >>>> Court<br>>> >>>> justice nominations are very political in nature) in US politics,<br>
>> >>>> in the US<br>>> >>>> Senate or the presidency. More than gender, race or ethnicity.<br>>> >>>><br>>> >>>> No politician running for the US Senate or the presidency would<br>
>> >>>> stand a<br>>> >>>> chance if they openly declared themselves Atheist.<br>>> >>>><br>>> >>>> Ted Moffett<br>>> >>>><br>>> >>>><br>
>> >>><br>>> >>> =======================================================<br>>> >>> List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>>> >>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
>> >>> <a href="http://www.fsr.net/" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>>> >>> mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
>> >>> =======================================================<br>><br>> =======================================================<br>> List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
> <a href="http://www.fsr.net/" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>> mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>> =======================================================<br>
><br><br><br>=======================================================<br> List services made available by First Step Internet,<br> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br> <a href="http://www.fsr.net/" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>=======================================================<br></div></div></blockquote></div><br>