It's still amazing how hysterical you can still make a Democrat by bringing this subject up. For someone nasty like me, it is difficult to avoid the temptation to poke the sore spot just to watch them foam at the mouth... ;)

...This is why this issue will never die, and these judges will be known throughout history as the most corrupt Supreme Court, not because they gave the election to a fellow Republican but because they could not defend their decision from accusations of partisanship which breaks their oath of office. This is the opinion of virtually every law professor in the country [he counted them!], that these judges destroyed the whole concept of fairness on which the system is based.



It has nothing to do with Bush versus Gore, and nothing to do with who would have won.

[Pull the other one. It has bells on it.] A judge has to be able to justify a decision based on precedent and the "shoe on the other foot" rule, that if for example Gore had been in Bush's place would they have given the election to Gore. No one believes they would have*, which means they are corrupt and legally should be impeached.



You have to read a book on it to understand just how bad it really was.



(italics mine)

*Had the decision given the election to Gore, and had the popular vote gone to Bush instead, Al would have strode to the White House wrapped in the Constitution, praising the wisdom of the Electoral College. All the Justices would be reaping the praises of the media and the academic community, and would be doing speaking engagements and be invited to All The Right Parties. These are, not coincidentally, the perks currently enjoyed by Bugliosi and Dershowitz, who wrote the aforementioned books which crap all over the Supreme Court for daring to vote against the Democratic