(Article changed on April 30, 2013 at 11:48)
Well, dear ex-Justice, it took you only thirteen years to "summon up" regrets about the Supreme Court's decision to take on Bush v Gore that put Mr. Bush in office on 12/12/2000. Do recall that it was you who said you could not retire unless a Republican won the Election, and so you retired and all hell broke loose?
Are you sure you suffered no such regrets sooner?
Are you really that glad that three woman progressives now use the ladies' room in that august neoclassical building in front of which we have demonstrated so often?
Admit it, you'd prefer copartisan females in those spots.
How else has your political perspective changed? When to the sessions of sweet, silent thought I summon up remembrance of things past, I sigh the lack of many a thing I sought, And with old woes new wail my dear time's waste --Shakespeare, Sonnet 30
There's even more to regret than that. You guys chose the correct Constitutional amendment to address but mangled the wrong part of it. Have I said this before? Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg herself said that your interpretation, that the equal protection clause had been applicable, that that unprecedented, non-precedent-setting decision, would nullify all past U.S. elections in history. (I thought of that a year before she said that, but who would listen to me, especially back then?)
But let's take a look-see at what follows in that amendment right after the "equal protection" clause:
But when the right to vote at any election . . . is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, . . . or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. . . .
Even if we count only male citizens who were deprived of the vote in Florida--most of those [all?] on the fake felon lists were men who actually did not commit any crime-- 94,000 U.S. citizens in this scenario alone, per the latest figures I find were deprived of the vote, and punishment at this level was more than justifiable. So that more than felony was involved. And the "the basis of representation" clause--might it apply to the number of electors, so that Florida's total number of electors would have been reduced?
Then what might have happened?
Gosh darn, Bush won by only five electoral votes, where Florida had twenty-five electoral votes to contribute. How many might have been subtracted?
Here is yet another among the countless ways that the Constitution was violated relevant to the G.W. Bush administration, even before Governor Bush took office.
Violation of the Constitution (just a "piece of paper"?) is punishable by (fill in the blank).
Given that the revelation of the fake felons lists was published more than a week before your infamous 12/12 decision, so that the Sunshine state, in allowing a subtraction of so many votes from its poll lists, has violated the Fourteenth Amendment substantively (I mean, other states have used arbitrary lists and it became law that an SoS can arbitrarily reject voter registrations) . . . , well something else is rotten in the state of Florida. Not only so many votes uncounted, but a far more valid application of the Fourteenth Amendment did not even invade the discourse, did it?
1 | 2