Since the ‘historic’ Supreme Court session held on December 1st was not televised, many of you who didn’t have time to plod through the transcript of the ‘trial’ may have missed out on what transpired. As a public service to those readers, here are some of the highlights of that morning’s events. And for those who lack the legal expertise to grasp what was being said, italicized translations accompany all of the excerpted remarks:
Marshal of the court, Dale Bosley: The honorable, the chief justice and the associate justices of the Supreme Court of the United States … God save the United States and this honorable court.
Bosley: The Supreme Court of the United States, the most openly fascistic entity of the U.S. government, is now in session. God save the people of the United States from this dishonorable court, since they don’t seem willing or able to save themselves.
Justice John Paul Stevens: Under any circumstances, it was not “must”?
Bush attorney Theodore Olson: Under no circumstances was it “must accept.” Now the second–
Stevens: Even an act of God or fraud?
Olson: I don’t believe so.
Stevens: Are you actually suggesting, Mr. Olson, that there were absolutely no circumstances under which the secretary of state would have been required, legally and morally, to accept the revised ballot counts?
Olson: That’s what we’re saying. Now, if I could get on to the next absurd point I wanted to make–
Stevens: Hold on a goddamned minute there, Olson. Are you saying that even if the recounts were correcting massive voter fraud, she still was not required to accept them?
Olson: That’s our story, and we’re sticking with it.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: And I do not know of any case where we have impugned a state supreme court the way you are doing in this case.
Ginsburg: Olson, you fascist piece of shit. Do you have no shame at all, bringing this dung heap of a case before this court? And does your shrill-voiced hag of a wife have no shame either? If I have to see her spouting fascist propaganda on the cable airwaves one more time, I think I’m going to puke. And by the way, what do you think of a ‘news’ channel, such as MSNBC, parading her sorry ass out on a daily basis to comment on the impeachment marathon, without ever once identifying her as a major player, along with yourself, in that whole sordid affair?
Olson: I’d like to finish that one point, that the Florida Supreme Court said, “We are not going to be bound by technical statutory requirements,” or what the supreme court called hyper-technical statutory requirements. “Instead, we are going to resort to the will of the people, the will of the electorate, the will of the voters,” so to speak …
Olson: The main point that we’re arguing here is that the Florida Supreme Court had the gall to actually render a decision that attempted to honor the will of the people, as though they thought this was some sort of democracy we’re trying to run here. I can’t imagine what the hell they were thinking …
Justice Clarence Thomas:
Thomas: (I don’t know why I have to be here listening to this shit. I have no idea what the fuck these people are talking about. I hope Rehnquist and Scalia are going to explain all this shit to me later.)
Olson: And what the court was bound and determined to do was to get to a consequence that the court determined was consistent with the will of the people, irrespective of what the statute said.
Olson: Like I was saying, the Florida court insisted on issuing a ruling consistent with democratic rights, something that I, and I’m sure many of you fascists on the bench, find offensive and completely contradictory to the ‘rule of law.’
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor: And are you relying in that regard on Title II – I mean, would you like to – Article II – would you like to characterize the federal issue–
O’Connor: Did you ever see those old “Saturday Night Live” skits where Kevin Nealon – Article II – used to insert subliminal messages – Article II – into his speech? Am I getting through to you, Mr. Olson? Do you understand – hot sex – what I am trying to say?
Justice Stephen Breyer: And therefore, I guess, whether we win – whether your side, the side you’re supporting, wins or loses, it doesn’t change that.
Breyer: Holy Shit, Olson! Did you just hear that Freudian slip? What I meant to say was that if your side, you know, the side you’re on, which doesn’t include us here on the bench, who are of course neutral – but if your side wins – that’s what I meant to say. It almost sounded like we were on your side, which of course we’re not.
O’Connor: I guess Article II permits the legislature, in general, to make the choice it could itself select the electors.
O’Connor: Olson, you’re still not getting it, you dumb ass, so here it is plain and simple: Article II basically says “fuck the voters.” Why don’t you try arguing that?
Justice Antonin Scalia: And that is a real problem, it seems to me, under Article II, because, in fact, there is no right of suffrage under Article II. There’s a right of suffrage in voting for the legislature, but Article II makes it very clear that the legislature can, itself, appoint the electors.
Scalia: O’Connor’s quite right; I don’t know why no one thought of that sooner. Article II does in fact say that Bush can be installed in power despite losing the vote. The legislature does indeed have the right to say “fuck the voters.”
Thomas: (I suppose as the only African American on the bench, and likely in the entire courtroom – unless you count Bob Barr – I should probably say something about the disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of black voters, rather than sitting here mute. Unfortunately, I’m a reprehensible piece of shit who is only concerned with wrapping this up in time to get home and watch “Back Door Girls” one more time before I have to return it.)
Gore attorney Laurence Tribe: The disenfranchising of people, which is what this is all about, disenfranchising people isn’t very nice.
Tribe: Saying “fuck the voters,” which is the sole basis for the Bush team’s abhorrent lawsuit, is a vile, unconscionable act that should be denounced in the harshest possible terms, but I’m such a craven douche bag that all I can come up with is to say that it isn’t very nice.
Olson: The second paragraph of the conclusion says, “Because the right to vote is the preeminent right in the declaration of rights of the Florida Constitution” and so forth. The opinion is full of language–
Olson: The Florida court’s decision is full of mumbo-jumbo about the people having a right to vote, or some kind of crazy shit like that. Frankly, this document reads like it was written by schoolchildren who had just been brainwashed into believing that they live in a democracy. This decision is a joke–
Olson: I think that the only reasonable, fair reading of the decision is that the Florida Supreme Court felt that – and it says it over and over again – that we are going to attempt to discern the will of the people, the will of the electorate, and discern and enhance in whatever way we possibly can the right to vote.
Olson: I can’t remember that Article you guys keep referring to, but like you said, the legislature doesn’t have to respect the results of the election anyway. That’s where the Florida court really screwed up, because they thought that it was actually important to get an accurate count of the ballots in order to determine the will of the people. But, like you guys keep saying, the legislature can do whatever it damn well pleases, so why all the fuss over getting an accurate count of the ballots? Even if Gore won the election by thousands of votes, as everyone in this room knows he did, who cares? Florida’s Secretary of State has already certified our boy as the winner, and the legislature can now select the state’s electors. I don’t know, to be honest with you, why we even bothered to hold the election in the first place. It seems like a big waste of time and money to me.
On December 4th, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of – big fucking surprise – George W. Bush (five of the nine Injustices were appointed by the Bush and Reagan administrations, and two others by Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford). The blatantly fascistic decision was strangely unsigned, demonstrating that while the court is in fact filled with spawns of Satan, none of them has the integrity to own up to their fascist leanings. A couple of highlights of the decision, with the requisite translations, are reproduced here:
There are expressions in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Florida that may be read to indicate that it construed the Florida Election Code without regard to the extent to which the Florida Constitution could, consistent with Art. II, Sec. 1, cl. 2, “circumscribe the legislative power.” The opinion states, for example, that “[t]o the extent that the Legislature may enact laws regulating the electoral process, those laws are valid only if they impose no ‘unreasonable or unnecessary’ restraints on the right of suffrage” guaranteed by the state constitution. App. to Pet. for Cert. 30a. The opinion also states that “[b]ecause election laws are intended to facilitate the right of suffrage, such laws must be liberally construed in favor of the citizens’ right to vote …”
We strongly object to the decision rendered by the Florida Supreme Court, in that the lower court based its decision on the misguided notion that the president of the United States should be elected by the people, at least indirectly. The Florida court showed a contempt for the ‘rule of law’ that is exceeded only by our own complete contempt for the American people, especially all those elderly and minority voters who we didn’t expect to turn out to vote on election day. This court wishes to affirm that the Florida Legislature, and, quite frankly, the legislatures of any other states, need not pay any attention to the wishes of the voters …
Specifically, we are unclear as to the extent to which the Florida Supreme Court saw the Florida Constitution as circumscribing the legislature’s authority under Article II, Sec. 1, cl. 2. We are also unclear as to the consideration the Florida Supreme Court accorded to 3 U.S.C. Sec. 5. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is therefore vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Though the attorney for Bush was unable to actually make this argument in court, perhaps not being as openly fascist as those of us on the bench, we have nevertheless ruled in favor of the Bush team based on our own disagreements with the decision of the Florida Supreme Court. This we can do because we are appointed for life and can therefore do any goddamned thing we please. We have no qualms with saying “fuck the voters,” because, quite frankly, none of them ever cast a vote for any of us to be sitting up here. We hereby order the Florida Supreme Court to abide by our ruling and to likewise say “fuck the voters.”
It is so ordered.