• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
UFPPC (www.ufppc.org) Digging Deeper LXI: November 10, 2008, 7:00 p.m.
Vincent Bugliosi,
The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President 
(New York:Thunder’s Mouth Press/Nation Books, 2001).PART ONEPreface by the Editors of 
The Nation
.
Bugliosi’s Feb. 1, 2001 article “None DareCall It Treason” drew a huge responsefrom readers of 
The Nation
(3-4). In thisbook are, additionally, “a lengthyintroduction, support material,amplifications, endnotes” referring torelevant Supreme Court opinions anddocuments (5).
Foreword by Molly Ivins.
Bugliosi’stext is “the modern equivalent of ‘J’Accuse’” (7). Chads (7-8). There wasnothing really new in this drama exceptwhat the Supreme Court did (9).
Foreword by Gerry Spence.
“Thepractice of law is the practice of areligion” and there is a vow of silenceabout criticizing judges (11). Bugliosi’stext is “an apostasy that steals thebreath” (12).
Introduction by Vincent Bugliosi.
 The ultimate recount of the vote is“irrelevant” (15-17). Bugliosi is disturbedthat no conservative friend of his whoread the article is angry about what theSupreme Court did, showing that “the farright unquestionably is more mean-spirited” (20; 17-21). To prove his
bonafides,
Bugliosi notes that he was againstNixon, but also against Nixon’simpeachment (21-22). The
Nation
articledeals only with the Supreme Courtdecision (22-23). Contrary to popularopinion, judges are highly political,including Supreme Court justices (23-28). The reason the justices were capable of this: all human beings are sensitive to“self-interest” (28-29 & 32-39).
None Dare Call It Treason.
[Publishedin
The Nation
on Feb. 1, 2001.] TheCourt’s sin was “being a knowingsurrogate of the Republican Party insteadof being an impartial arbiter of the law”(41). The equal protection argumentdoes not hold water (42-45). The Court’sruling was not supported by the cases itcited (45-46). Any subsequentknowledge provided by a recount isirrelevant to the justices’ culpability (46).Reaction has been too tepid—these are“criminals in the very
truest 
sense of theword,” not technically, for there is no lawthey have actually violated, but in termsof “natural law and justice” (48, 49; 46-50). That it is inconceivable that these justices would have so acted had Gorerather than Bush been the plaintiff “proves,
on its face
, that the fiveconservative Republican Justices were upto no good” (50). What they did speaksfor itself: 1. That counting the votes todetermine who won the electionconstituted “irreparable harm” justifyinga stay is untenable, as John Paul Stevenssaid in dissent (50-53). 2. The decisionwas issued
 per curiam
, indicating that no justice wanted to sign it; who wrote it isunknown, “though it is believed to beO’Connor and/or Kennedy” (53; 53-54).3. On Nov. 24, the Court denied reviewon equal-protection grounds, which wasthe third objection proposed (54-55). 4. The Court needlessly treated Dec. 12 asa definitive deadline, when it was nothingof the kind; moreover, the recountswould probably have been finished intime, had the Court not issued a stay (55-58). 5. The conservative justices ignoredtheir supposed belief in states’ rights(58). 6. The assertion that the decisionhad no value as precedent because itwas “
limited to the present circumstances
” flies in the face of the
 
very nature of appellate court decisionsand by itself “shows unequivocally thatthe Court knew its decision was notbased on the merits or the law, and wassolely a decision to appoint George Bushpresident” (59). The view that we mustrespect the Court in order to uphold therule of law “is just so much drivel” (60).Bugliosi wrote the article because “I wantthese five Justices to know that this isAmerica, not a banana republic, and inthe United States of America, you simplycannot get away with things like this”(61). The Court’s reputation is stained“for years to come, perhaps decades”(61). Can the U.S. be a great nation if this is not rectified?—but Bugliosi admitshe does “not know how this can be done”(62).
Amplifications.
1. The justices violatedtheir oath of office (63-64). 2. ErwinChemerinsky of Harvard believes Bushlacked standing to sue in
Bush v. Gore
(65-66). 3. Punch cards produced 3.92%nonvotes in Florida, optical scans 1.43%(67). 4. Gore’s brief and David Boies’sargument failed to make good argumentson equal protection issues—it was“appalling,” not citing cases and notraising a variety of points, such as thefact that the Court had always ruled thatequal protection rulings must find“purposeful” discrimination; Laurence Tribe and David Boies performed poorly(68-73). 5. The Court’s citation of earlieropinions was deliberately misleading(74). 6. Court decisions are often called“political,” meaning “ideological,” butthis one was
really 
political (75-76). 7. The justices were not guilty of theftbecause no personal property wasinvolved; but Justice Rehnquist didcommit the crime of perjury inmaintaining under oath that a memo hewrote arguing that
Plessy v. Ferguson
should be “reaffirmed” was really writtenfor Justice Robert Jackson at his request—defaming Jackson as well (77-86). 8.Evidence that Justice O’Connor wanted toretire is not that important (87-89). 9.Bush signed into law in 1997 a Texas lawpreferring manual recounts to machinerecounts (90-91). 10. The 11
th
Circuit inAtlanta, with a majority of judgesappointed by Republican presidents,voted 8-4 against granting a recount-stopping stay hours before the SupremeCourt acted (92). 11. Scalia’s imputationof illegality to some ballots was anecessary but absurd part of theargument in
Bush v. Gore
(93). 12. On Jan. 13, 2001, more than 500 lawprofessors denounced the political natureof the stay in a full-page ad in the
NewYork Times
(94). 13. Linda Greenhouseof the
New York Times
published anarticle on Feb. 20, 2001, alleging that theCourt denied the equal-protectionargument on Nov. 24 because it waspending in another case, but this doesnot stand up to scrutiny (95-97). 14. TheSupreme Court also acted wrongly, forpolitical reasons, in the Paula Jones case,about which Bugliosi wrote in
No Island 
(98-108). 15. The decision was 5-4, not7-2 (109). 16. The recount could havecontinued up to Jan. 6 (109). 17. Thetreatment of deadlines as sacrosanct wasludicrous, “criminal” (110-12). 18.Chemerinsky says
Bush v. Gore
is theonly case in history limited to the presentcircumstances (113). 19. G.H.W. Bushwas one of the most-qualified presidentsin history (114). 20. Treason is defined inthe Constitution too narrowly to apply tothis case (115-16).
PART THREESummary: A Brief History of theLegal Proceedings Leading Up to theDecember 12, 2000, Ruling of theU.S. Supreme Court in
Bush v. Gore
.
 The early recount battle (119-23). TheFlorida Supreme Court’s decision tocontinue recounts defended (123-28).On Nov. 22, recounting in Miami-DadeCounty stopped by a mob (129-30).Republican petition to the Supreme Courton Nov. 22, granted Nov. 24 (130-35).On Nov. 26, Florida Secretary of State
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...