Oh. I forgot to say: Factual. Not opinion. Factual.
But make no mistake about it, I think my background in the criminal law is sufficient to inform you that Scalia, Thomas et al. are criminals in the very truest sense of the word.
That in and by itself impeaches that piece. Scalia has been convicted of no crime. Hence he cannot be factually a criminal.
Didn't you say that Scalia wrote NOTHING??????
Under Supreme Court rules, a stay is supposed to be granted to an applicant (here, Bush) only if he makes a substantial showing that in the absence of a stay, there is a likelihood of "irreparable harm" to him. With the haste of a criminal, Justice Scalia, in trying to justify the Court's shutting down of the vote counting, wrote, unbelievably, that counting these votes would "threaten irreparable harm to petitioner [Bush]...by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election." [Emphasis added.] In other words, although the election had not yet been decided, the absolutely incredible Scalia was presupposing that Bush had won the election--indeed, had a right to win it--and any recount that showed Gore got more votes in Florida than Bush could "cloud" Bush's presidency. Only a criminal on the run, rushed for time and acting in desperation, could possibly write the embarrassing words Scalia did, language showing that he knew he had no legal basis for what he was doing, but that getting something down in writing, even as intellectually flabby and fatuous as it was, was better than nothing at all. (Rehnquist, Thomas, O'Connor and Kennedy, naturally, joined Scalia in the stay order.)
I think someone else's truthfulness has also been impeached here.
And, gee, the tone of that thing and the links to the side- -they make me think much more of a prosecutor's indictment than a search for truth.
Or, to put it differently, you haven't even yet made your case.
But even more important, I can find nothing in there that supports your claim.
NOW: If you want to keep playing, NEXT TIME extract or bold the text that actually says what you need to establish your claim.
Because so far you're just blowing hot air and wasting bytes. |
