Yeah, I did read it; that’s what I was referring to:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=36374
It was kinda, I say, kinda a joke, son. That’s why I put one of these 
on it.
Damn you and your insidious cleverness… I should’ve seen the joke; sorry for being a bit snotty in response.
(Aside: So these things (:)) are a way to indicate humorous intent? I always thought you were hearkening back to the glory days of Berzerk on the Atari 2600!)
I have some distict problems with the Bush vs. Gore decisions, which DSYoungEsq has done a much better job of dissecting (on another thread) than I ever could. But there’s a certain amount of respect due to the sitting justices and the decisions they render, tempering my views. Kind of a layman’s stare decisis.
The one thing that I found totally beyond the pale was Mr. Injustice Scalia’s obiter dictum in the opinion enjoining continued recounts, that they would “endanger the legitimacy of the Bush presidency” if they did not result in Gore’s election. To expect a judge to remain totally isolated from the political arena is disingenuous; to expect him to act in a judicious and judicial manner is almost tautological, it’s so obviously a judge’s duty. And Scalia took a wholly partisan attitude in that remark.
IMHO, if recounts had continued and Bush had won despite them, Republicans would be going “Toldja so!” and Democrats “oops.” Bush would be clearly legitimated by those results. OTOH, a Gore win would remain controversial but would at least be supportable on the basis of “a fair count of all the votes,” which no Republican could object to, even if he felt the evaluation of disputable votes was too subjective. But all that stopping the recount did was to prove that Bush can stoop to the same legal tricks his supporters had castigated Gore for doing. In short, it not only did not “preserve the legitimacy” of the Bush presidency, but appears to have left about half the country feeling that he had stolen the election by playing legal-technicality games.
I would, personally, like to see Scalia removed from office for cheapening the Court into a political tool for his preferred party. And I have never before felt that any justice, of any ideological stripe, had stepped sufficiently over the line to call for something like that. (Never mind that he cannot distinguish between a scientific theory and a religious dogma; neither could Blackmun. :rolleyes:)
You may have misunderstood the legal aspects of those words. In order to obtain a temporary restraint prior to judgement, a supplicant must have both a good chance of ultimately prevailing and irreparable harm being done by not waiting until the final judgement. The Blackmun dissent (to the stay) claimed that there was no harm in waiting in this instance. Scalia merely explained why, in the opinion of the majority, that legal hurdle was met. (His other remarks about the likelihood of Bush prevailing addressed the other legal stay issue.)