NY Times opines, "Chief Justice Rehnquist's dissent, joined by Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, is bluntly dismissive of the Colorado Supreme Court. In the dissenters' view, the court was merely 'purporting' to decide the case exclusively according to state law. They would have accepted the case so the US Supreme Court could have considered reversing the Colorado Supreme Court and reinstating the pro-Republican redistricting plan. The dissent attracted little notice because it fell one vote short of the four votes needed to review a case. But it is disturbingly reminiscent of the court's ruling in Bush v. Gore, in which five justices who had long been extremely deferential to state power suddenly overruled the Florida Supreme Court's interpretation of Florida election law... By departing from his deeply held belief in state autonomy to side with the Republican Party in a redistricting case, Chief Justice Rehnquist has once again invited the public to question this court's motives."

AP: "Chief Justice William Rehnquist took a utility's corporate jet to Ohio yesterday so he could speak at the dedication of the state's new court building in Columbus. American Electric Power flew Rehnquist at the request of the Ohio Supreme Court, which plans to pay for the $3,800 flight" - meaning, of course that OHIO TAXPAYERS will pay for it "The cost is more than three times the most expensive round-trip ticket between DC and Columbus." And nearly 20 times higher than the cheapest. "Security issues and Rehnquist's knee problem made a commercial flight impractical" [yeah, right!] said Ohio Supreme Court spokesman Chris Davey. ''This is not a favor." Yeah sure - you just give out $3,800 freebies to anyone who asks!

A Karl Rove tactic? "'The controversy surrounding Scalia's decision has made everyone forget about the fact that this case could become a key test of the administration's ability to exercise presidential powers free from the eyes of the courts, Congress and the public,' says James E. Moliterno, a law professor at the College of William & Mary's School of Law." Yet, reports the Indystar: "The case provides the court with one of its best opportunities since the Watergate scandal to define more clearly the scope of executive authority as it fits into the overall checks and balances among the three branches of government." This court overturned the American election system - so we doubt they'll have any problem stripping away more of the Constitution.

John Dean writes, "Recently, and now famously, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia refused to recuse himself in the lawsuit involving his friend and duck-hunting compatriot Vice President Dick Cheney... It is an extraordinary case -- in which the Vice-President contends that he is, in essence, beyond the reach of the law. It began as a set of rather pedestrian discovery matters in two consolidated civil lawsuits. Now, however, because of Cheney's stance, it could be a landmark Constitutional decision... The result, Judge Sullivan argued persuasively, would be to 'eviscerate the understanding of checks and balances between the three branches of government on which our constitutional order depends.' In other words, it would be to forever change the government, and the system our Founders envisioned. "

Reuters reports: "U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia refused on Thursday to remove himself from a case about VP Dick Cheney's energy task force and said his impartiality could not be questioned despite their recent duck-hunting trip. 'Since I do not believe my impartiality can reasonably be questioned, I do not think it would be proper for me to recuse,' he said in a 21-page memorandum released by the high court. The Sierra Club environmental group, which sued Cheney for the task force papers, had filed a motion asking that Scalia be disqualified from the case because the January trip had created an appearance of impropriety."

We don't think it is too outrageous to assume that NO judge, let alone a Supreme Court Judge should have ANYTHING to do with any group that advocates against the civil rights of another. But ethics never get in Scalia's way! "As the Supreme Court was weighing a landmark gay rights case last year, Scalia gave a keynote dinner speech in Philadelphia for an advocacy group waging a legal battle against gay rights. Scalia addressed the $150-a-plate dinner hosted by the Urban Family Council two months after hearing oral arguments in a challenge to a Texas law that made sex between gays a crime. A month after the dinner, he sharply dissented from the high court's decision overturning the Texas law. The Code of Conduct for the federal courts broadly warns judges against conduct that 'would create in reasonable minds . . . a perception that the judge's ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality, and competence is impaired.'" Can you spell IMPEACHMENT?

Reuters: "The U.S. Supreme Court said on Monday it referred to Justice Antonin Scalia a request that he remove himself from a case about Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force because their recent duck-hunting trip raised questions about his impartiality. The Sierra Club environmental group, which sued Cheney for the task force papers, filed a motion last week asking that Scalia disqualify himself from the case because the January trip had created 'an appearance of impropriety.' It said Scalia's removal would 'restore public confidence in the integrity of our nation's highest court.' The justices said in a brief order, 'In accordance with its historic practice, the court refers the motion to recuse in this case to Justice Scalia.' It was not clear when Scalia would respond to the request."

The luxurious duck-hunting trip Scalia took in Louisiana with Dick Cheney was not the first time Scalia has used impending cases to scoop up social benefits. Boston Globe reports: "Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was the guest of a Kansas law school two years ago and went pheasant hunting on a trip arranged by the school's dean, all within weeks of hearing two cases in which the dean was a lead attorney. The cases involved issues of public policy important to Kansas officials. Accompanying Scalia on the November 2001 hunting trip were the Kansas governor and recently retired state Senate president, who flew with Scalia to the hunting camp aboard a state plane." In both cases, Scalia ruled in favor of the State (i.e., in favor of his "hosts.")

Robert Scheer writes: "Quack, quack. So much for the constitutionally mandated separation of powers. Quack, quack. Say goodbye to judicial integrity. Quack, quack. Forget about holding the nation's vice president accountable for his dealings. Quack, quack. Trash the right of citizens to transparent government. Quack, quack. Bizarre as it sounds, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia quacked like a duck last week during his defensive denial that a duck-hunting trip with Vice President Dick Cheney was improper. According to Scalia, the visit of the two men to the private game reserve of a top oil executive was merely a pleasant social engagement. But Scalia's glib response was disingenuous, coming shortly before the Supremes will rule on a White House appeal in a case involving private meetings of Cheney's energy task force. It's outrageous that he does not intend to recuse himself."

Scalia stood before a (reportedly) invitation only audience at Amherst (his daughter's college, which costs well over $20,000 per year) and blathered about states' rights! Gee, we didn't hear that argument when Scalia overturned Florida's rights so Bush could be installed as emperor! The Daily Hampshire Gazette (subscriber only) reported : "Dozens of demonstrators, including a troupe of 'radical cheerleaders'' from Hampshire College, chanted 'Recuse,' outside Johnson Chapel where Scalia spoke... Others criticized his conservative judicial opinions, and Amherst College Democrats passed out black armbands for dissenters to wear." The same report says only a half dozen students wanted to shake Scalia's hand after he spoke.

"A judge seen as the defender of arch-conservative views on the US supreme court faced renewed pressure yesterday to withdraw from a case involving the vice-president, Richard Cheney, after the two went duck hunting together. The excursion by private jet to the marshes of southern Louisiana took place three weeks after the supreme court agreed to hear Mr Cheney's appeal in lawsuits brought over his formulation of the Bush administration's energy policy. Mr Scalia's protestations of neutrality have met outrage, with nearly two dozen newspaper editorials calling for Mr Scalia to step aside. Their fury has not been abated by the refusal of the chief justice, William Rehnquist, to ask Mr Scalia to stand down. Yesterday, Henry Waxman and John Conyers, called on Mr Rehnquist to set up a system for challenging a justice's decision: 'We do believe public trust in the supreme court could erode if recusal decisions appear arbitrary.'" So reports the UK Guardian.

This is a major story: Two veteran Congressmen demand a fundamental, reinforcing change to America's system of checks and balances to fix an obviously broken part of that system. Yet where does this story appear in the Washington Post? A postage stamp-sized item tucked away in the back of the paper, and inaccessible on line unless you happen to do a targeted search. Dem Reps. Henry Waxman and John Conyers have asked Chief Justice Rehnquist to consider setting up a process that will allow an obviously unethical decision of a Supreme to be questioned. The decision in question, of course, is Antonin Scalia's failure to recuse himself from the Cheney case, even after spending a cozy weekend duck hunting with Cheney.

"Chief INJustice William H. Rehnquist, responding to questions from two U.S. senators about a duck hunting trip involving Justice Antonin Scalia and Dick Cheney, said it is up to each justice, not the court as a whole, to decide whether to withdraw from a pending case... 'I do not think my impartiality could reasonably be questioned,' [Scalia] said in a written response to an inquiry. [ROTFL!] Senators Pat Leahy and Joe Lieberman took issue with that view. 'When a sitting judge, poised to hear a case involving a particular litigant, goes on vacation with that litigant, reasonable people will question whether that judge can be a fair and impartial adjudicator of that man's case,' they wrote. In his reply, the chief justice said the senators' advice was not especially welcome... 'I think that any suggestion by you or Senator Lieberman as to why a justice should recuse himself in a pending case is ill-considered,' he wrote." Impeach Cheney, Scalia, and Rehnquist too!

"Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, responding to questions from two U.S. senators about a duck hunting trip involving Justice Antonin Scalia and Vice President Dick Cheney, said Monday that it is up to each justice, not the court as a whole, to decide whether to withdraw from a pending case. 'There is no formal procedure for court review of the decision of a justice in an individual case,' Rehnquist said in a letter to Democratic Sens. Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. 'That is so because it has long been settled that each justice must decide such a question for himself.' He added that it was 'ill-considered' for the senators to suggest that Scalia step aside in the pending case involving Cheney and the White House task force he headed to develop the Bush administration's energy policy. Cheney has refused to disclose records of the task force's activities." Hey, it's okay, Republicans control all three branches of government...let's party, GOPsters!

Cheryl Seal writes, "I vividly recall the day when O'Connor was confirmed as the first woman Supreme Court justice. What a thrill that was for American females of all ages! Suddenly, here was a new and exciting role model that opened up a bold new horizon. Little girls aspired to be like the 'Lady Justice,' at least the ideal she represented to them: Strength, clearsightedness, wisdom. In recent years, alas, O'Connor has marred this ideal by wading into the shallow end of the pool where the scum of corporate politics floats. Instead of proving to the world why Justice is traditionally depicted as a blindfolded woman - the embodiment of compassion, lack of bias, and uncompromising quest for the truth - she has become one of the Old Boys. By 2000, O'Connor seemed to have traded her 'blindfold and scales' in for a big fat cigar."

"Our island or lone ranger mentality is beginning to change," says Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justices "are becoming more open to comparative and international law perspectives."Ginsburg has supported a more global view of judicial decision making. Last month, Ginsburg and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Stephen Breyer discussed the death penalty and terrorism with French President Jacques Chirac during a European tour. O'Connor's stand on affirmative action, which received international support, infuriated her rightwing counterparts. In his anti-gay statement in the recent gay rights case, rabid rightwingnut Antonin Scalia complained that the court should not "impose foreign moods, fads, or fashions on Americans." Yeah - foreign fads like freedom and justice.

Jackson Thoreau writes: "After the moderates on the U.S. Supreme Court recently prevailed in upholding some affirmative action laws and invalidating anti-sodomy laws, many far-right wingers have predictably gone ballistic. For example, in a recent column calling for the impeachment of any justice who doesn't hold narrow, far-right views, Joseph Farah, editor of World Nut Daily, labeled the U.S. Supreme Court 'out of control' and 'renegade' and a 'ruling elite.' Jackson Thoreau notes that Farah and other rabid right-wingers didn't make such comments when the same court made its most anti-democratic decision in history in the 2000 Bush v. Gore case."

WashPost reports: "Those who may still be wondering whether Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has any plans to retire from the court can breathe a bit easier: the 73-year-old justice has offered her clearest public indication yet that she plans to remain at her post."

Newsday reports: "Well-informed court observers say that there could be two Supreme Court resignations next month, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, bringing the greatest upheaval on the court in 32 years. Rehnquist's resignation is considered likely, though not certain, while O'Connor's is considered likely by some court insiders and less so by others... With no change on the court in nearly a decade - the longest period without turnover in 180 years - the level of anticipation and preparation by groups on the left and the right is intense. Both sides expect a brutal battle, with the Republicans even threatening to force a legally questionable change in Senate procedure to prevent a Democratic filibuster. Such a move could itself force a constitutional crisis." Expect their replacements to be Federalist Society members that believe in strict (de)construction of the Constitution.

NY Times reports: "The Supreme Court ruled today, in a case with significant impact on the rights of noncitizens, that the federal government can detain legal immigrants without bail during their deportation proceedings. The court upheld, 5 to 4, the strict rules of the 1996 immigration law, which mandates detention of immigrants who have committed certain crimes even as those immigrants challenge their deportation... Joining in the majority were Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas." Hey, it's the same Felonious Five who stole the election for Bush. Once again they prove that they are the enemies of ordinary people!

The Supreme Court is considering a challenge to Georgia's Congressional redistricting based on the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Congress must decide in 2007 whether to renew part of the law that justices are interpreting in this case. During the hearing, Antonin Scalia was heard to say, "Maybe if we make it bad enough, they'll think about repealing it." Scalia has also said that our rights are not guaranteed by the Constitution. He must agree with the guy he put in the White House who has said, "if this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier", and, "there oughta be limits to freedom."

"When antiglobalization activists accused Nike Inc. of producing its goods in overseas sweatshops, the athletic shoe maker fought back with a publicity campaign... What happened next led to a protracted court fight being considered by the Supreme Court on Wednesday... Public interest and consumer activists dragged a large cardboard mock-up of a Nike sneaker to the sidewalk outside the Supreme Court building Wednesday morning, and positioned it atop a cardboard sheet depicting the Constitution. 'Tell the Truth - Just Do It!' read one protester's handmade sign. Kasky claims that in 1996 and 1997, Nike made six misrepresentations about its employment practices in the Third World. Kasky cited a letter to the editor of The New York Times, a press release, other documents and a posting on Nike's corporate Web site."

Clarence Thomas has signed a million-dollar deal for his memoirs with HarperCollins -- which is owned by Rupert Murdoch. Thomas has announced that he will not agree to any interviews with anyone "unsympathetic" to his conservative views: that means anybody other than the Murdoch-owned Fox News. His book, however, will get plenty of publicity, because Rush Limbaugh has already announced that he'll read it over the air. Consider that Thomas, as a member of the Supreme Court, is morally obligated to keep an open mind and consider all sides of an issue. This sweetheart deal with the rabid right and paranoid avoidance of any dissenting opinion shows just how immoral Injustice Thomas really is.

Dahlia Lithwick writes in Slate: "There is nothing as amusing to a court watcher as trying to imagine what the Rehnquists, Scalias, and O'Connors are plotting, now that the time is as ripe as it will ever be for a Republican retirement and replacement ....before any of us agrees that there is going to be a blowout confirmation hearing this summer, let's consider two things: Would Rehnquist or O'Connor, who are, respectively, the second most powerful man and the most powerful woman in the country right now, really give up their day jobs merely because the time is ripe?... these people do not exactly work coal miner's hours. The justices...listen to arguments for 12 hours a month, six months a year - the functional equivalent of three days down a coal mine. The rest of their time is devoted to deciding which meager 80 cases they'll hear all year, how they'll vote, and writing opinions - for which a good deal of the research and drafting is done by law clerks who never sleep or eat."

One of the many outrageous aspects of the Felonious Five's ruling in Bush v. Gore was that their decision was a one-shot ruling that would not serve as a precedent for any future case. Naturally, that Bushit didn't even last for 2 years. WashPost reports, "Asked if there were precedent for Forrester's constitutional arguments, National Republican Senate Committee general counsel Alex Vogel, who is advising Forrester, replied: 'There's a great deal of precedent - Bush v. Gore.'" Will the Felonious Five cite Bush v. Gore in ruling on Lautenberg? The decision is expected shortly...

Adam Cohen writes, "When America is at war, according to Chief Justice William Rehnquist, people have to get used to having less freedom. There is a limit to what courts will do to help those deprived of rights, he says, because judges have a natural 'reluctance' to rule 'against the government on an issue of national security during wartime.' In fact, there is 'some truth,' he concludes, to the Latin maxim 'inter arma silent leges' 'in time of war, the law is silent'...The most disturbing aspect of Justice Rehnquist's book is the lack of outrage, or even disappointment, he evinces when rights are sacrificed." Impeach Rehnquist Now! (http://democrats.com/impeach)

Sean Wilentz writes, "Scalia's remarks show bitterness against democracy, strong dislike for the Constitution's approach to religion and eager advocacy for the submission of the individual to the state. It is a chilling mixture for an American. Because Mr. Scalia is on the Supreme Court, and because Bush has held him up as an example of judicial greatness, his writings deserve careful attention.... In Chicago Mr. Scalia asserted, not for the first time, that he is a strict constructionist, taking the Constitution as it is, not as he might want it to be. Yet he wants to give it a religious sense that is directly counter to the abundantly expressed wishes of the men who wrote the Constitution. That is not properly called strict constructionism; it is opportunism, and it threatens democracy... Justice Scalia seeks to abandon the intent of the Constitution's framers and impose views about government and divinity that no previous justice, no matter how conservative, has ever embraced."

Bush compared the Voucher "case to Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 decision striking down segregated schools. It was a reach, but Mr. Bush's use of the voucher ruling in a political stump speech reflected just how ideological this term's opinions were... The decision advanced a key conservative cause by removing longstanding First Amendment barriers to spending taxpayer money on religious education. The court tried to minimize what it was doing, but... the court removed a number of bricks from the wall separating church and state. The court also struck a blow for another cherished conservative cause, states' rights... Conservatives often criticize liberal judges for 'making law.' But that is just what conservative justices have been doing... In decision after decision this term, the court, often by a 5-to-4 majority, pushed the law rightward."

If King George is pushing for controversial legislation and the case goes to the Supreme Court, what will the vote be? Of course it will be 5-4. This time it was regarding school vouchers. The dissenting justices said the Cleveland program goes too far toward state-sponsored religion. Justice Souter said, "There is, in any case, no way to interpret the 96.6% of current voucher money going to religious schools as reflecting a free and genuine choice by the families that apply for vouchers." King George, are you sure there are no extremist Muslim schools in the US? What about the Branch Davidians? What if the KKK sets up a school, or the Aryan Nation? Of course, if there are Moonie schools, you will be more than happy to use our tax dollars to repay Rev. Moon for the $10 million he reportedly gave your family. Under this ruling, they are all entitled to this money as well, which means OUR money will fund bigotry, hatred, and possibly even terrorism. Impeach the Felonious Five!

The Supreme Court's 'Axis of Evil' - Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas - lost a 6-3 ruling on the death penalty for the mentally retarded, and they didn't take it cheerfully. Scalia read a dissent, in which he declared "Seldom has an opinion of this court rested so obviously upon nothing but the personal views of its members." Say WHAT? No decision in history has reflected the "personal views of its members" more than Bush v. Gore, which had absolutely NO basis in the Constitution or the law. Still, Shrub can breathe a sigh of relief over this ruling - if he is ever tried for a capital crime, he can simply plead stupidity.

Chief Injustice Rehnquist helped Bush steal the Presidency by throwing out 175,000 uncounted votes, thus proving himself an enemy of Democracy and the Constitution. On June 14 - Flag Day! - Ashcroft gave Bush a green light to trash the Constitution and enact dictatorial decrees. '''One is reminded of the Latin maxim, inter arma silent leges. In time of war, the laws are silent,' Rehnquist said in a speech to federal judges meeting in Williamsburg, Va. He cited as examples President Lincoln's suspension of the right to habeas corpus during the Civil War and the Supreme Court's willingness to uphold the internment of Japanese Americans and the secret military trial of eight Nazi saboteurs during World War II." The difference between then and now is that Congress declared war in the Civil War and WW II - but Congress has NOT declared war now. We are NOT legally at war, so the Supreme Court has NO grounds for refusing to strictly enforce the Constitution. Impeach the Felonious Five!

U. of Chicago Law School Professor Cass Sunstein writes: "The court took a still more remarkable step. It ruled that sovereign immunity means that federal agencies cannot hold a hearing in a proceeding brought by a private party complaining that a state has violated a federal law… the majority opinion by (In)Justice Clarence Thomas found that this administrative adjudication would violate state sovereignty… Going well beyond the Constitution's words, the Rehnquist court thinks that the Constitution generally prohibits private citizens from suing any state on a federal claim in any court, even if they show that states are injuring them in violation of federal law… As Justice Breyer wrote in his dissent, the ruling may undermine the enforcement of many laws protecting the health and safety of state employees… By creating an unjustified principle of immunity through its own overreaching, the court is diminishing the power of the president and Congress. So much for judicial restraint."

When Florida's Supreme Court ordered a state-wide recount of Florida's uncounted ballots, the Felonious Five declared that the Federal government - namely THEMSELVES - not the State of Florida, should decide Florida's election law. But the Felonious Five lawlessly declared Bush v. Gore to be a one-time-only ruling, not a precedent to be cited in any other case. That's for sure! The court's latest partisan 5-4 ruling in Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina Ports Authority completely rewrites the 11th Amendment, declaring that a Federal agency - part of the EXECUTIVE branch - was behaving like a "court" and is therefore prohibited from taking action against a state. The Fabulous Four, led by Steven Breyer, attacked Clarence Thomas' outrageous decision, vowing to fight every case like it. But if Bush controls Supreme Court appointments, fuggedaboutit. Impeach Bush and the Felonious Five!

"About 300 protesters, through posters, T-shirts, chants and interviews, blasted Rehnquist, who they say has used his position on the court to undermine the rights of racial minorities, women and the disabled, among others. One poster declared: 'Rehnquist and the death penalty - both are cruel and unusual.' But for many in the demonstration, the biggest issue was their anger over the Supreme Court's key ruling in the disputed 2000 presidential election. Protesters also demonstrated for the same reasons against Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia when he spoke at Marquette University last year. 'I want the president to be voted in by the people, not by the courts,' said Derl Howe of Milwaukee. 'The people's right to vote has been stolen. He should have said this is not the business of the court.' The school had planned to hold an assembly for all students Friday, but [switched to an] invitation-only gathering" - just like invitation-only selection of the President!

AP writes, "An assembly to honor Chief Justice William Rehnquist at his high school alma mater was canceled Friday because of a student protest. 'We did not feel it would be appropriate to invite him to receive an honor and then embarrass him here... We did not want to subject him to that sort of treatment,' Shorewood High School principal Rick Monroe said. Congratulations to the outstanding high school students who stood up for Democracy and the Rule of Law!

John Dean writes, "All of my Rehnquist sources think the seventy-seven-year-old Chief Justice will resign after the 2002 elections, regardless of who wins the Senate. And he'll do so well before the end of Bush's first term, so that the vacancy is not held over until the 2004 presidential election. In short, we'll have a new Chief Justice before the next presidential election." Which means we must elect a SOLID Democratic majority to the Senate in November. And on a lighter note, Dean adds this tidbit: "I'm in Washington doing some Deep Throat sleuthing. That's right, the famous (or infamous, depending on your point of view) Watergate source for Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward. I think that thirty years of hiding is enough. So I'm going to surface him for the 30th anniversary of Watergate on June 17, 2002. More about that in a later column..."

"The Supreme Court's oldest and most polite justice turns 82 on Saturday, but there are few signs he is slowing down or tiring of the job. Indeed, Stevens has the buoyant energy of a person decades younger, and he remains one of the court's quickest wits, sharpest thinkers and best writers. Appointed in 1975 by President Ford, Stevens was lauded from the start as exceedingly smart, strictly nonpartisan and highly independent... When the court ended the Florida recount in the Bush vs. Gore case, Stevens' dissent was memorable. 'Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation's confidence in the judge as the impartial guardian of the rule of law,' he concluded." So writes David Savage of the LA Times.

Republicans control the House of Representatives by only 11 votes, 222-211 - so EVERY seat is crucial. In Mississippi, redistricting eliminated one seat, forcing a battle between two incumbents - Ronnie Shows (D) and Chip Pickering (R). Three Republican judges drew a district with additional white voters to favor Pickering. Amazingly, ALL THREE have direct ties to Pickering's dad, a federal judge! The case was then appealed to Supreme Injustice Antonin Scalia - a close friend of the Pickerings! Scalia, OF COURSE, immediately upheld the Republican gerrymander - and then the Felonious Five rejected a full-court review. Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Pat Leahy (D-VT) is starting an investigation. But this case is just the tip of the iceberg, and Leahy's investigation should FINALLY examine the theft of the Presidency by the Felonious Five.

"This is Terrible!" These were the infamous words of Sandra Day O'Connor on hearing that Gore had won the election. Then once the election was thrown into uncertainty and the Florida was set to count the votes by hand in order to ascertain the real winner, Justice O'Connor along with four others in a bare majority stopped the counting of the votes in a Supreme Court decision that even many conservative scholars view as a travesty. As Justice Stevens said in his stinging minority opinion"...the loser [in this Supreme Court decision] is perfectly clear...confidence in ...the rule of law." Please join us at 7 p.m. this Sunday in protesting Sandra Day O'Connor when she speaks at the 92nd St. "Y" by gathering Lexington Ave. and 92nd St. at the designated protest area. Please bring your own signs. Sponsored by Democracy March, Voter March, and Democrats.com.

FBI double-agent Robert Hanssen was "a devout member of Opus Dei, an ultraconservative Catholic organization. He was a regular parishioner of St. Catherine of Siena Church, in a Virginia suburb of the capital, where an elite congregation, which includes Supreme Court justice Antonia Scalia, attend traditional Latin masses... Opus Dei, Latin for 'Work of God,' is a secretive lay group within the body of the Catholic Church, with more than 80,000 members worldwide [Former FBI Director Louis Freeh is also alleged to be a member]. As the only personal prelature in the Church, it is an entity unto itself, separate from the diocesan structure." Scalia won't confess the truth, but Americans who believe Scalia stole the Presidency for Bush need to know: Is Scalia's first loyalty to the American people and the U.S. Constitution - or to the Vatican and Opus Dei?

Supreme Injustice Antonin Scalia considers himself a "devout" Catholic, which is why he will outlaw all abortions as soon as one pro-choice Justice retires (be VERY afraid!). Yet in the SAME BREATH, Scalia says Catholic judges who support the Catholic position opposing the death penalty should RESIGN - rather than apply their beliefs in court. How does he reconcile these diametrically opposed positions? By claiming the Catholic Church SUPPORTED the death penalty for 2000 years. "I don't see why there's been a change," he says. Hey Antonin - even Supreme Court Injustices don't get to JUDGE the Pope - he's infallible! And if you want to apply "original intent," Jesus was opposed to the death penalty! But if you want to apply "stare decisis," then you must deal with the fact that Catholics did not oppose abortion for the first 1850 years. Here's the bottom line - any Injustice who nullifies 175,000 votes to SELECT a President is a criminal - and must resign. We mean YOU, Antonin!

Anthony Kennedy was one of the 5 Justices who threw out 175,000 Florida votes to appoint Bush as Resident. Incredibly, Kennedy has stepped out from behind the closed doors of the Supreme Court to launch an educational program called "Dialogue on Freedom". Kennedy launched the program because of "a lack of 'moral outrage' among some high school students following the September 11 terrorist attacks." Say WHAT??? When will the media demand that Kennedy address the "moral outrage" of 51 million Americans who believe he and his Republican cronies STOLE the 2000 election?

"The U.S. Supreme Court has continued its dangerous trend of narrowing the scope of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On Jan. 8, the justices ruled unanimously in the case of Toyota vs. Williams that an auto assembly-line worker who developed carpal tunnel syndrome on the job did not meet the definition of a person with a disability under ADA… But the court's opinion, written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, said that that wasn't good enough. The activities in which one is limited must be an important part of 'most people's daily lives,'' she wrote, such as 'bathing and brushing one's teeth.' This sort of shallow perception shows a lack of understanding of disabling conditions and their effects. If Williams was unable to perform a task that provides her livelihood, that is a very major life activity to her. It's much more important than being able to brush her teeth." So writes Mike Ervin.

Philip J. Berg, Esquire, former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania and political activist... on the 1st anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Bush vs. Gore which "anointed" Bush as President [wrote] to three (3) U.S. Supreme Court Justices, Justices O'Connor, Scalia and Thomas requesting that they agree to "Voluntary Disbarment" for failing to "recuse" themselves in said case and other violations. Berg said: "It is the appearance of impartiality not the reality of bias or prejudice that dictates and in this case, there was not only appearance but also actual conflict of interest. They violated the rules of conduct and must accept the consequences of their partisan action."

The US Extreme Court's first action of the current term was to disbar President Clinton. Clinton had 40 days to fight disbarment, but decided not to waste his time and money, since the Supreme Court is completely stacked against him. According to David Kendall, "only four of the 570 disciplinary cases considered by the committee in Arkansas from 1985 to 2000 were similar to Clinton's. In those four cases, the committee issued a reprimand or letter of caution, but did not impose suspension or disbarment, Kendall said." Once again, Clinton got screwed by the right-wing Supreme Court. But that's the way this Supreme Court works - only Democrats get punished.

Back in June, ex-conservative David Brock revealed that Clarence Thomas sent him information to intimidate Kay Savage, who knew the truth about Thomas's "obsessive interest in pornography." Now "a [conservative] biography of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas contends he discussed the Roe v. Wade abortion decision with at least three people before his confirmation hearings, even though he told a Senate committee he had not. Under Senate questioning in 1991, Thomas said he had never debated the contents or outcome of the 1973 Supreme Court decision that found a constitutional right to abortion, and had no personal opinion about it. 'Clarence Thomas, a Biography' by Andrew Peyton Thomas, includes interviews with three people who say Clarence Thomas discussed the case in varying detail in conversations in the mid-1970s through the 1980s." We demand Thomas's disbarment and impeachment!

As far as we can recall, the NY Times has never criticized the Supreme Court's treasonous decision in Bush v. Gore, which we believe to be the Court's worst violation of democracy and the rule of law in American history. So we were shocked to see this condemnation of Bush v. Gore buried in their Supreme Court editorial: "The aftermath of the terrorist attacks has temporarily quieted the debate over the court's historic and in our view misguided ruling that handed the election to George W. Bush." Does that mean the Times will someday seriously present the views of those - led by Vince Bugliosi, Democrats.com, and the entire pro-Democracy movement - who believe the Supreme Court's Felonious Five should be impeached? We're not counting on it. The bottom line is that the NY Times dismisses - and blacks out - progressive activists like us.

At the start of its fall term, the first action of the U.S. Supreme Court was to disbar President Clinton. This announcement hit us like a terrorist attack. We cannot believe the Supreme Court would do this NOW, with Americans still grieving over the deaths of 6,000 terror victims - and with emotions still raw over the Supreme Court's betrayal of the constitution in Bush v. Gore. This disbarment decision is so outrageous that we are resuming our campaign to Impeach the Supreme Court 5. Sign our petition, and bring the impeachment resolution before your local or state Democratic Party.

Supreme Injustice Sandra Day O'Connor is the swing vote on most crucial cases, including Bush v. Gore. So when she publicly announces her willingness to accept "more restrictions on our personal freedom than has ever been the case in our country," that should send a shiver up America's collective spine. After all, O'Connor was willing to nullify 51 million votes - and the rule of law as applied to elections since 1789 - simply for the sake of "finality." What will she tolerate for the sake of "security"?

In 'The Accidental President,' Newsweek's David Kaplan writes: "The amazing aspect of Bush v. Gore is that it just might’ve gone the other way. Justice Anthony Kennedy - the key swing vote, the man the Court’s law clerks once dubbed 'Flipper' for his equivocations - had wavered, enough that Souter thought until the very end that he’d get him. If Kennedy could be flipped, the 5-to-4 ruling for Bush would become a 5-to-4 win for Gore. They’d find an equal-protection violation, send the case back to the Florida justices to fix standards and administer the best recount they could under the circumstances and before December 18, and then leave it to the political branches - the Florida Legislature and, if need be, the U.S. Congress - to settle for good... But the High Court’s decision short-circuited the process. The vote was close. But we never knew - until now - just how close."

"Outside, nearly 100 people yesterday protested the appearance of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia at a conference at Hofstra University, saying the justice helped President George W. Bush "steal" last November's election... Inviting Scalia to discuss judicial ethics is "like asking Idi Amin to talk about human rights," said Nancy Solomon, 44, of Roslyn... Scalia did not directly address the protesters during his 40-minute keynote speech. The protesters said Scalia let his conservative ideology dictate his support of the high court's majority opinion that stopped the presidential vote recount in Florida and effectively handed the presidency to Bush. A heckler in the audience, Christopher Acosta, 50, of Manhattan, was asked to leave by Hofstra authorities after emitting several loud ha, ha, ha's in response to comments by Scalia." You go, Chris!

To help Democrats.com launch our "Fall Offensive" at a press conference in Washington DC, former Rep. Charles Porter sent us a letter of encouragement. "My congratulations to Democrats.com for your network of 27,000 activists who are replicating Paul Revere's example of sounding the alarm. And of course, to Vincent Bugliosi for his arousing, keen analysis of 'The Betrayal of America,' the title of his best selling book that is still informing Americans of the shocking and unprecedented disloyalty of five members of the United States Supreme Court last December... My persistent vision is still, speaking metaphorically, of a black powder train ignited, and then proceeding at lightning speed to illuminate the issues so that the House of Representatives and the Senate will perceive the urgency for action to rescue our Supreme Court and return it to our traditional rule of law."

The "Felonious Five" issued such an outrageous ruling in Bush v. Gore that they instructed courts not to use the decision as a precedent in other cases - something that has NEVER happened in U.S. history. And because that argument is absurd, judges around the country are refusing to throw out cases that are based on Bush v. Gore. These cases are in their early stages, and time will tell whether the judges actually cite Bush v. Gore as a precedent in their decisions. But who are really on trial in these cases are the Felonious Five, who belong in jail for their crime against Democracy and the Rule of Law.

Supreme Court Justices rarely discuss their decisions in public. But in January, when a group of visiting Russian justices asked seven members of the Supreme Court about Bush v. Gore, remarkable things were said. Dissenter Steven Breyer said it was "the most outrageous, indefensible thing" the Court had ever done. Dissenter Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, "here we’re applying the Equal Protection Clause in a way that would de-legitimize virtually every election in American history." Injustice Sandra Day O'Connor "talked pedantically about the Electoral College." Injustices Rehnquist and Scalia "said almost nothing." Injustice Anthony Kennedy was left making the case, arguing in effect that fair elections and the rule of law meant nothing, that chaos was the enemy. What arrogance - impeach the Supreme Court 5!

"To Dean David Yellen, Hofstra Law School: Antonin Scalia, one of the five ultra-conservative U.S. Supreme Court Judges who stopped the legal hand count of votes in Florida in Election 2000, was invited to speak at Hofstra University in Hempstead, Long Island, NY on Sunday, September 9th at 4:00 pm. To add insult to injury, Scalia will be a keynote speaker and will be honored at this Hofstra Law School Ethics Conference Hofstra Univ. Student Center, Hempstead, Long Island, NY... I, the undersigned, condemn the actions of Hofstra Law School in honoring at an ethics conference Antonin Scalia who acted totally unethical in the decision in Bush v. Gore." Sign the petition!

On August 27, the Orange County Democratic Party Central Committee met to consider the resolution to call for an investigation of the five Supreme Injustices. The discussion consisted primarily of statements by 12 year old Alexandar H. and 10-year old Natasha H. These statements were followed by UNANIMOUS adoption of the resolution. The following are the resolution and the statements of these two young Democrats. We encourage EVERY local, county, and state Democratic Committee to adopt this resolution!

Former Rep. Charles Porter (D-OR) started a grassroots movement to impeach the Supreme Court's Felonious Five. ). "I've got to tell you, I'm surprised," says Oregon state Democratic chairman Jim Edmunson. "There's been a large amount of interest. We've had e-mail, letters, contributions from people all over the country. It's like the movie Network: 'I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore.'" You said it, Jim! Contact your state and local Democratic Party (http://www.democrats.org/stateparties/index.html) and tell them you want to introduce a resolution to impeach the Felonious Five!

What unfolded on August 2 under the elegant, gilded dome of the landmark historic Grand Lake Theater in Oakland, California was one of the harshest, no-holds-barred indictments of the U.S. Supreme Court ever made. Famed prosecutor and writer Vincent Bugliosi blasted the Bush v Gore ruling, calling it the "worst crime in U.S. history" - in effect, the "theft of the Presidency."

Vincent Bugliosi, author of "The Betrayal Of America, How The Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution And Chose Our President," was interviewed by Meria Heller on July 31. Bugliosi, the legendary prosecutor of Charles Manson, presented the whole truth about the illegal actions of the Felonious Five. Bugliosi also discussed why all of America should be up in arms over this stolen election. Bugliosi is the ONLY national figure who is really OUT there on this issue. Why? This was an excellent interview full of facts about the hidden agenda of the Felonious Five.

The National Lawyers Guild is exploring the legal, economic and viable political grounds for launching a broad-based impeachment campaign against the five members of the Bush v. Gore majority on the Supreme Court. They are asking progressive groups to adopt "sense of the body" resolutions, letters from directors, or even full endorsements so they can assess the real support for mounting a successful campaign. The National Lawyers Guild intends to commit serious resources to the campaign if their national convention endorses it in October. For more info, e-mail impeachment@nlg.org or call 212-627-2656.

"The Oregon Democratic Party endorsed on Sunday a drive to impeach five U.S. Supreme Court justices for the decision that gave George W. Bush the presidency last year... The resolution passed Sunday by the 66 Oregon party activists called for the 'immediate investigation of the behavior' of the five justices who voted to stop hand recounts of Florida ballots... 'This is the first organized effort to advocate impeachment of five justices,' said former Rep. Charles Porter, 82, who first raised the issue with Lane County Democrats and then convinced the state party to adopt the resolution. Porter accused the five of 'egregiously bad behavior, high crimes and misdemeanors.' Neel Pender, executive director of Oregon's Democratic Party, said party officials would ask its congressional delegation to begin investigating the matter. The delegation has four Democratic House members and one Democratic senator." Democrats in other states - tell your state party to follow suit today!

In a remarkable joint interview on ABC's Good Morning America, Alan Dershowitz and Vince Bugliosi made this dramatic announcement. "Vince and I, who, you know, he's a prosecutor, I'm a defense attorney, we issue a challenge here today to any two lawyers in America to defend the Supreme Court. We will but the Supreme Court on trial. He will cross-examine, I will do the closing arguments, let people come forward ... let people--but nobody is coming forward to defend these people." This is powerful! Will any Republicans step up to the challenge? Or will they admit the truth through their silence - that the Supreme Court stole the election?

It was the first state to adopt a bottle bill and it has led the way in many other progressive initiatives. Now Oregon may become the first state to formally call for the impeachment of the five Supreme Court justices. The Felonious Five committed an act tantamount to treason by blocking the presidential recount in FLA and handing the 2000 election illegally to G. W. Bush. The state Democratic Exec. Committee has voted to put forward a resolution that will demand that Congress conduct an impeachment inquiry into the Court's actions. The impeachment campaign was initiated by Charles Porter, a former Dem. congressman from Eugene. In response, the Oregon GOP blathered the same tired and inappropriate line GOPers have been blathering for months: "Get over it." As if!

Supreme Injustice Clarence Thomas "is not well-regarded or respected by most black people. Prominent African-American members of legal organizations from New York to Hawaii have objected to Thomas speaking before them, black school parents have protested his visits. Patrons at one of one of the most popular black restaurants in Washington demanded that the owner remove Thomas' portrait from its black 'Wall of Fame.' This is all because most black Americans see Thomas as an ongoing embarrassment. His right-wing politics are viewed as a danger to their civil and constitutional rights, and his presence on the Supreme Court is not a cause for celebration, but a source of distress and resentment... Democrats, civil rights leaders, moderates, liberals and progressives should not allow Bush to manipulate their desire for a diverse and representative judiciary by naming judges who only look diverse." So writes Detroit Free Press columnist Trevor Coleman.

There has never been a Supreme Court more politically motivated by its choices of which cases to hear - not to mention their ruling on these cases. In fact, now all corporate lobbyists have to do to push through their agenda is sue and push their case to the Scalia Five. It's a done deal every time. Now the court has decided to take on a patients rights case which will decide whether states may enforce laws requiring a binding independent review of a decision by an HMO to reject a certain treatment. In other words, it will determine whose medical opinion counts more -- your doctor's or your HMOs. What the court's acceptance of this case really means is that Bush has lined up a back up plan in the event that his intended veto of McCain-Edwards-Kennedy is overturned. Must be nice to have the Supremes at your disposal!

"Lest we forget--just over six months ago, the Rehnquist Court stole an election in broad daylight. In fear of the truth, the Scalia Five intervened to block all votes from being counted, an action 'unprecedented' (both historically and judicially) in US history," writes Steve Cobble in this week's 'The Nation.' "The least we can do is know our own history, and to understand that what the Injustices did was an insult to the dreams and ideals of Lexington and Concord, Valley Forge and Jefferson and Paine, Gettsyburg and Lincoln and Douglass, Selma and King, Seneca Falls and Anthony, Delano and Chavez, Flint and Debs and Lewis. We can bear witness to injustice, in the nonviolent protest tradition of Thoreau, Gandhi, King, Havel, Robinson, Chavez." Cobble suggests a poignant course of action in response to the injustice.

"Yesterday's Supreme Court ruling [5-4] upholding [hard money] limits on political party spending represents a reprieve for congressional Democrats, who had feared they would be dramatically outspent by the GOP if the caps were lifted. Campaign finance experts also said the ruling could boost the prospects for passage in the House" of the McCain-Feingold bill banning soft money. The dissenters were the usual Federalist Society Four -- Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist and Kennedy. In an earlier Washington Post article, Thomas is quoted parroting the usual 'money = free speech' propaganda put out by the Federalist Society. Another Fed-Soc spiel is that lifting such caps would "strengthen the two parties " This really means that powerful networks, such as the Bush 'Pioneers' and corporations, would strengthen their grip on the parties.

American nurses are fighting mad at the Supreme Court's Felonious Five. About 10 days ago, the Supremes handed down a ruling that nurses who help direct less-skilled employees do not have the right to belong to a union. "RNs are dedicated professionals who have earned the right to unionize if they see fit," said Gerald W. McEntee, pres. of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). The decisions, says McEntee "will turn off more and more" nurses from entering the field - right at a time when the nursing shortage threatens to become critical. In addition, said the four dissenting judges, the Felonious 5's ridiculously broad definition of the term "supervisor" threatens the right of other professional employees to organize. Now the court is helping create a new health care crisis and ensuring Bush's Corporate States of America will have a growing population of skilled workers they can push around and manipulate to their advantage.

"To Disciplinary Boards of Justices O'Connor, Scalia and Thomas: We, the undersigned, hereby request that formal disciplinary proceedings be initiated and 'disbarment' is appropriate against United States Supreme Court Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas for violating the Rules of Court and NOT 'recusing' themselves in the case of Bush vs. Gore. The outcome of the 2000 Presidential election was a result of corruption at the highest judicial level, the U.S. Supreme Court. This is an outrage and totally unacceptable in a democratic society. We cannot and will not allow this to go unanswered. The disgraceful conduct of these three Justices have made a mockery of the law and made the United States of America the laughing stock of the world." Sign the petition!

In April, Bush named Antonin Scalia's son Eugene as Solicitor of the Department of Labor. Now he's named William Rehnquist's daughter Janet as Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services. Just another reason why the Felonious Five should be impeached.

Buzzflash interviewed Vincent Bugliosi, author of "The Betrayal Of America: How The Supreme Court Undermined Our Constitution And Chose Our President." Bugliosi refuses to "get over it," and he explains why. "I prosecuted Charles Manson. He was responsible for the savage murders of innocent people. But this is worse. This is worse than John Wayne Gacy. The magnitude of this crime is mind-boggling. These five criminals, let’s call them what they are, they belong in prison for the rest of their lives. They stole something that many Americans have fought and died for. They corrupted our most precious possession - our democracy!" Read the full interview!

The Tyrannical Three - Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas - couldn't find a fourth vote for the Supreme Court to hear a Ten Commandments case - and boy were they pissed. "The court let stand a December ruling by a federal appeals court, which said Elkhart, Ind., may not keep a 6-foot-tall granite pillar engraved with the commandments on the lawn of its town hall. Its display in that place amounted to a governmental endorsement of a particular religious belief, the appeals court held, and therefore violated the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state." In an extraordinary gesture, Rehnquist wrote a written complaint, saying the Ten Commandments were religiously neutral. But Stevens fired right back, noting the monument's first two lines read, in large letters, "THE TEN COMMANDMENTS -- I AM THE LORD THY GOD." This, Stevens wrote, "is rather hard to square with the proposition that the monument expresses no particular religious preference."

We're beginning to be heard! Angry citizens - who will forever be enraged at the Supreme Coup that handed King George the Presidency - made headlines protesting one of the Felonious Five, Antonin "We can't count the votes because when it's proven that Gore won there would be 'irreparable harm' done to our buddy Bush" Scalia. About 75 people, holding signs that read "Never Forget Selection 2000" and "Injustice Scalia" gathered outside the hotel where Scalia was speaking, chanting "We Will Remember" and "No Justice, No Peace." George LeMieux, the Broward Republican chairman, said it was "outrageous" for Democrats to protest a Supreme Court justice. "The strategy of the Democratic Party leaders is to keep their rank and file members enraged with this concept that they really won the election and that it was taken from them so they can use that hatred to keep these people motivated for the next election," LeMieux said. Damn straight Georgie boy. Except for one thing. we DID win!

What do George Bush and Chief Supreme Court Justice Rehnquist have in common besides collusion to steal the election? They are bigots with a history of giving their fellow white bigots - even murderers - preferential treatment, while making equally sure blacks accused of murder - especially black activists - are denied any justice at all. Take the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal, the journalist many believe was framed for killing a Philadelphia police officer. Mumia has been on death row since 1982 despite mounting evidence of his innocence, including new forensic and ballistic data. Yet, while Rehnquist during this time agreed to hear the case of a neo-Nazi who killed a woman in a jail break crime spree, then saw to it his death sentence was overturned, the court refused to even hear Mumia's case, which had far more compelling reasons to be entertained by the high court. Let's investigate the judicial system right to the top, Dems, and clean house! As Robert Johnson put it, it's time to "dust our brooms"!

The Felonious Five continued their attack on our constitutional rights, this time ruling that prior convictions that trigger longer sentences for repeat offenders cannot be challenged. Why? Because it would require courts to do some work. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor cited "ease of administration and the interest in promoting the finality of judgments." Remember the sacred Republican principle of "finality"? That was Bush's main argument against counting all of the votes in Florida. Republicans believe one thing: You Have No Rights.

For a decade, the Rehnquist court has been slashing away at our 4th Amendment rights against "unreasonable searches and seizures." This week, they ruled 5-4 that police could lock up a mom and search her car for not wearing a seat belt, a minor traffic infraction. Allowing police to lock someone up for a minor infraction is a massive expansion of police authority, which will no doubt be felt primarily by African-Americans and the poor. It's time to impeach the Extreme Court!

On Tuesday, the Extreme Court's Gang of Five issued a major civil rights ruling and outlawed citizen lawsuits against federal programs that discriminate. As in Bush v. Gore, the Felonious Five extended their reach into a settled area of law where there was no conflict among lower courts, and imposed the Federalist Society view that those in power can do whatever they please to harm powerless citizens. As in Bush v. Gore, Justice John Paul Stevens - a Republican appointee - read a stinging dissent from the bench, calling the decision "unfounded in our precedent and hostile to decades of settled expectations." By inference, the Court's ruling will also kill the right of citizens to sue under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which allowed girls to sue colleges for equal treatment both academically and in sports.

"Students and community activists rallied on Tuesday on the UC Berkeley campus to denounce a recent court ruling they say will open the door to discrimination against the disabled. Speakers at the noon rally, Disability Rights Day of Action, on the steps of Sproul Hall exhorted students to...consider the grave implications of a February ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that gutted the rights of disabled state workers to sue their employers for discrimination." Daniel Davis, vice President of UC Berkeley's Disabled Students Union, "If the protection of the rights of the disabled is further eroded, your civil rights could be in jeopardy next." Who handed down this ruling against the rights of the disabled? The same five felons who gave us the immoral Bush v. Gore decision – Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, O' Connor and Kennedy.

"In a crucial ruling on the role of race in legislative districting, the Supreme Court today upheld a long-disputed North Carolina Congressional district against the accusation that the 47-percent-black district was the product of an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The 5-to-4 decision, which overturned a lower court's finding that the state's 12th Congressional District was unconstitutional, provided much-needed guidance to state legislatures and lower federal courts that will soon be dealing with a nationwide round of redistricting as a result of the 2000 census." Four of the felonious five voted against this decision that favors minority representation -- Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas. Interestingly, Thomas wrote the dissenting opinion.

Matt Drudge's "scoops" are wrong more often than they are right (e.g. Clinton's love child, Sid Blumenthal's wifebeating). But it is worth noting his report that "President Bush's senior legal team is planning for the possibility that two -- repeat two -- Supreme Court justices may retire this summer." The top conservative pick is Judge Michael Luttig of the racist 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, a protege of Antonin Scalia who is only 46. Also in the running are two hispanics - Judge Emilio Garza and White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales. Gonzales is best known for keeping Bush off a DUI jury that would have exposed Bush's own DUI conviction long before Election weekend - when it produced a drop of several points in the polls.

Investigative reporter Gregory Palast of the BBC and London Examiner has broken a number of important stories about the stolen election, including the illegal felon purge by Katherine Harris. You can hear him discuss these issues - and his upcoming documentary - on Meria Heller's radio show on April 10, webcast live.

The Federalist Society's finest continue to strip away the rights of individuals in the name of the real right-wing agenda -- greater government and corporate intrusion in our lives. "A divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that a criminal suspect's constitutional right to have an attorney present does not extend to police interrogation on a related offense." Yes, indeed it was the same Gang of Five Fascists who brought us the despicable Bush v. Gore decision -- Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, O'Connor and Kennedy. "Rehnquist Does Not Foresee Unwanted Interrogations" -- gee, how reassuring. Once again, Breyer speaks for the four justices -- and the rest of us -- who still believe in Democracy and Freedom, "Breyer said the majority's 'unnecessarily technical definition' of an offense would undermine constitutional protections 'while doing nothing to further effective law enforcement.'"

Four months after stopping the Florida recount, the U.S. Supreme Court ducked a case that cited Bush v. Gore as a precedent. The case involved a 1998 referendum broadening death penalty, which the Florida Supreme Court ruled invalid because of misleading wording on the ballot. Florida officials cited Bush v. Gore as the precedent for the US Supreme Court to overturn the Florida court, but this time the Supremes ducked - without giving a reason.

For the first time since the Supreme Court's legal coup d'etat selecting Bu$h, two of the felonious five were asked to explain their illegal intervention in a purely state matter. Their reply? Nothing but nonsense. "Ultimately, the power, the prestige, the respect of the court depends on trust," said Anthony Kennedy. "My colleagues and I want to be the most trusted people in America." Hey Anthony, if this is anything other than another lie, here's how you can earn our trust - by RESIGNING NOW. Failing that, it's time for Congress to begin impeachment proceedings as soon as the media recounts prove Gore really won Florida.

"The Supreme Court said on Monday it will return to the politically explosive issue of federal affirmative action for racial minorities, deciding whether a program to help disadvantaged businesses survives constitutional scrutiny."

In a major victory for human rights activists, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed out of a fight between international oil companies and the relatives of executed Nigerian playwright Ken Saro-Wiwa and other alleged victims. The court, without comment Monday, allowed the relatives to go ahead with a lawsuit in New York that claims the oil companies were complicit in the 1995 deaths and other alleged human rights abuses. Saro-Wiwa has become a hero to environmental and human rights activists in Africa and elsewhere who see him as a martyr for the rights of indigenous people.

That's the view of the "totalitarian three" on the Extreme Court - Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist. Time after time, they vote to obliterate the Bill of Rights. How many conservatives out there can still say with a straight face that the conservative movement is for less government intrusion in favor of an individual's rights? It's time to impeach them.

The reviews are in from Scalia's lecture to the University of Wisconsin Law School - and he's getting panned. "Scalia turned in a performance so vapid that, had he been applying for a place on the faculty, he would rightly have been sent packing." So says the Capital Times of Madison.

"Quite demonstrably the worst Supreme Court decision in history, Bush v. Gore changes everything in American law and politics," according to Jamin Raskin in the Washington Monthly. "The conservatives upended and ravaged four foundational relationships in our constitutional system. It usurped the role of the Florida Supreme Court in interpreting state law. It usurped the role of the American people by halting the counting of ballots in a presidential election and effectively choosing the president for them. It usurped Congress' powers to accept or reject the states' electoral college votes. And it reversed the proper distribution of powers in federal government by having Supreme Court justices appoint the president rather than vice versa."

Extreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia went to Milwaukee to proclaim the gospel of "original intent," but was met by angry protesters. "He's against civil rights, he's against women's rights, he's against the voters in Florida," said Brian Verdin, 48, of Milwaukee, who wore a skeleton mask and held a sign that read, "Scalia is scary." Scalia's "originalism" flies in the face of his vote to stop the Florida vote count; nothing is more central to the entire Constitution than the concept of democracy, as summed up in the first three words. It begins "We the People" - not "They, the Republican Judges belonging to the Federalist Society's Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy." One more thing - they didn't have vote counting machines in the 18th Century, so how did they count the votes? BY HAND, DETERMINING THE INTENT OF THE VOTER - exactly what Scalia declared unconstitutional. "Original intent" - what an evil joke.

While railing against alleged "judicial activism," the Supreme Court five engage in the very practice. Of course, consistent with the hypocritical Republican standard, that's okay, because it's for the right wing crusade. In the past, liberals had the courage to challenge outrageous Supreme Court decisions. Why are liberals afraid of taking on the Gang of 5?

NYU Law Professor Ronald Dworkin recently wrote a lengthy critique of the Supreme Court's scandalous Bush v. Gore decision. Charles Fried, a conservative law professor who was Reagan's Solicitor General, challenged Dworkin's critique and defended the Supreme Court. In rebuttal, Dworkin needed few words to demolish Fried's arguments. This debate should be conducted face to face - for as long as it takes to finish - and televised to the nation so the American people can judge for themselves whether the Supreme Court's Gang of 5 should be jailed for treason.

It won't help, of course. Scalia, for one, just appears, due to his arrogance, to be digging himself a deeper whole. Rhenquist is not a particularly - shall we say - personable fellow. And, of course, it doesn't help when you're dogged by protestors, who seem to be growing in number.

The Supreme Court's outrageous and lawless ruling in Bush v. Gore, may come back to bite the US Supreme Court in the ass. According to DePaul University Law Professor Marlene Arnold Nicholson, "Eventually the court will be faced with another election contest based on its recent ruling, and the justices will have to decide between upholding an interpretation of the clause that is inconsistent with their philosophies or reversing themselves." Our guarantee: regardless of the facts in any future case, the Gang of 5 will rule for the Republicans.

The Milford (NY) School District controversy was argued before the Supreme Court on Wednesday. It all began in 1996 when a local church asked to hold children's religious classes in the town's public school. The school district denied their request, on the grounds that it violated the separation of Church and State. Representing the Church is John Rutherford, President of the Rutherford Institute and a follower of Christian Reconstructionist R.J. Rushdoony (Read more about Reconstructionism at http://www.politicalamazon.com/cr.html). Both are members of the secret Council on National Policy, the Religious Right's central body devoted to establishing an American theocracy. The Rutherford Institute represented Paula Jones, and their legal term colluded with the Federalist Society "elves" (and Linda Tripp, Lucianne Goldberg, Ted Olson and Starr's team) to corner Clinton in the Jones deposition. Will the five felonious "Justices" strike again? Stay tuned.

The five renegade members of the Supreme Court who appointed Bush have now ruled that state employees with disabilities cannot sue their state employers. In authoring the majority opinion, Chief Injustice Rehnquist applied twisted logic by requiring an impractical level of proof by Congress in writing such laws. This stratagem is similar to the "differing standards" canard that the Five invoked in Bush v. Gore - and it shows absolutely no regard for "equal protection". The Felonious Five continue to shred logic and principle to further the Federalist Society's agenda of dismantling the federal government in favor of "States' Rights". Of course, when "States' Rights" inconveniently got in the way of putting their man in charge of the federal government, the Five Felons fabricated a one-time only exception - a ruling that will live in infamy.

An AP story covers Antonin Scalia's Friday night speech at Princeton and notes that the sounds of protestors could be heard even inside the room where Scalia was speaking. We hope that the noise becomes louder and louder each time the leader of the coup "imparts his wisdom" at colleges across America. Maybe, at some point, his effete legal sophistry will be drowned out by the clamoring voices of democracy.

In 1776, a revolution advanced the interests of liberty by creating “a more perfect union” founded upon the will of the people. Now Antonin Scalia tells us the revolutionary founders of this nation got it all wrong. The only thing that counts is the will of five partisans for the right wing, the will – and the votes -- of the people be damned.

"During the 1950s and '60s, the federal courts kept the civil rights movement alive with rulings that applied equal protection to African-Americans. The Rehnquist court, which includes the two justices whom President Bush has cited as his favorites, has engaged in what conservatives would call judicial activism if they didn't like the rulings. Based on what the court keeps saying, it's clear that the decision to call Mr. Bush the winner in December was selective application of equal protection." It's the new double standard for Supreme Court rulings. If it's a ruling the right wing five don't like, it's "judicial activism." If it's a conservative ruling that intrudes on the rights of Congress, it's "judicial restraint." It's just hypocrisy folks, just bald-faced hypocrisy. Read this editorial from the Palm Beach Post.

The Supreme Court turned down a case by attorney Frank Mandanici against Ken Starr for his handling of the contempt trial against Susan McDougal, his appearance before the House Judiciary Committee and his conflicts of interest, including Starr's ties to billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife. Of course, one of the main ties is that Starr is a prominent member of the Federalist Society, which is funded by Scaife. The legal "elves" that assisted Starr and Ted Olson behind the scenes were also Federalist Society members, including Ann Coulter, Richard Porter and George Conway. You don't suppose the fact that Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist and Kennedy are Federalist Society big wigs had anything to do with their decision. Ironically, Mandanici invoked the Bush v. Gore ruling as a precedent for the court to take his case. Their answer: unless your name is Bush, get outta here!

"If the Supreme Court's December decision handing George W. Bush the election tells us anything, it's that the Supreme Court is more secure and comfortable than it has ever been in pushing an agenda not only activist and conservative but blatantly partisan." So write two political scientists in a Newsday op ed.

"IF THE Supreme Court's December decision handing George W. Bush the election tells us anything, it's that the Supreme Court is more secure and comfortable than it has ever been in pushing an agenda not only activist and conservative but blatantly partisan. Bush vs. Gore illustrates the partisanship while the disdain-and frequency-with which the court demeaningly voids congressional legislation best evidences the activism. Despite the attack on state sovereignty in Bush vs. Gore, an attack the conservative justices needed to produce Bush's victory, it is federal authority that the William Rehnquist court's guns have primarily assailed. Those guns likely will continue to be leveled for judicial assault." Read on.

That's right! Tony, Bad Boy, Scalia is going to be delivering a lecture at Princeton University this Friday. Show up and tell him what you think of his being the ringleader in the successful coup.

Supreme Injustice Clarence Thomas carries the biggest shoulder chip since Richard Nixon. You'd think it might have shrunk a bit after he helped trash the Constitution and make the loser into the President, based on nothing but the raw exercise of power. But no, the man believes he is the soul of integrity and courage. Read his words carefully, and see if you can keep your lunch.

Supreme Injustice Clarence Thomas declared his dedication to Pat Buchanan's "Culture War" in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute. "Civility cannot be a governing principle of citizenship or leadership," he said, adding that "though the war in which we are engaged is cultural, not civil," one should not let principles be "cannibalized." Obviously Thomas is a partisan ideologue who has lost all objectivity and should be impeached. Even Maureen Dowd was unimpressed. "There is nothing like stealing a presidential election to put a little wind in a guy's sails," she wrote.

"As I have said before, I consider the need to increase judicial salaries to be the most pressing issue facing the federal judiciary today," Supreme Injustice William Rehnquist said on Tuesday. Sorry, Bill - the most pressing issue is to expose the Federalist Society conspiracy that stole the Presidential election and has corrupted the rule of law in America.

Antonin Scalia was the architect of the Supreme Court's treasonous decision in Bush v. Gore. He is making his first public appearance since his Coup d'Etat on Wednesday, February 14, 4pm at the SMU School of Law, 6101 Bishop Blvd in Dallas. If you are in the area - or know anyone who is - let's make this the biggest protest in Dallas history.

Unindicted Co-conspirator William Rehnquist visited the University of Arizona's law school and was met by 250 protesters outraged over his role in stealing the Presidency. Protesters held signs saying, "How can you sleep at night?", "Impeach Rehnquist", "Chief Injustice" and "Supreme Ripoff", and the protests were the lead story on local TV news. This may be the first time in history that SWAT teams were deployed to protect a Supreme Court Justice. Let's protest the Gang of 5 whenever they leave their bunker and visit the people whose democracy they destroyed.

DeLay "is not a lawyer but, I'm told, an exterminator by profession," Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said. DeLay once ran an exterminating business in Texas. "I suppose I might someday end up on his list of impeachment targets – perhaps even for reasons beyond my control," said Ginsburg, who noted she once was misquoted in a news report as saying the Constitution was outdated. "With all due respect to critics like Mr. DeLay, casual use of impeachment would disserve not only the federal judiciary but also the constitutional principles that have seen the United States through its worst crises," Ginsburg said. (From an AP story.)

The partisan Republican majority on the Supreme Court - not the voters - made Bush President. Therefore Bush should not be allowed to appoint more Republican Justices. When Abraham Lincoln was assassinated, the Republican Congress refused to allow Andrew Johnson to appoint more Justices, so there were only 7 when he left office. In light of the Ashcroft debate, it's clear that the Republicans will march in lockstep behind any Bush Supreme Court nominee, no matter how extreme. So the Democrats must simply make it clear: there will simply be No New Justices until a President is elected by the voters.

"When William Rehnquist swore in George W. Bush as president on Jan. 20, the U.S. Supreme Court chief justice completed a near-decade-long struggle by conservative jurists to put their political allies in control of the U.S. government – a victory that marks a radical shift in American democracy." So says Robert Parry in an important article tracing the invisible hand of right-wing judges (no doubt members of the Federalist Society) in manipulating American politics at the very highest level.

An inside report says the bitter feelings left behind by the Supreme Court's election of Bush have not softened. Amazingly, the right-wing Justices and their clerks still say their outrageous decision was lawful. But O'Connor has had it, and may retire this summer. The Bush mantra is "No More David Souters," so we can expect Bush to nominate another far-right extremist like Scalia or Thomas - keep an eye on Edith Jones. Whoever it is, the next Supreme Court appointment will be the Mother of All Supreme Court Nomination Battles.

Terrance Sandalow, dean emeritus of the University of Michigan Law School, is a judicial conservative who supported Robert Bork and opposed Roe v. Wade. But he joined 554 law professors from 120 law schools in signing a full-page New York Times ad protesting the Supreme Court's decision to stop the Florida recount. "Only Bush's political influence was threatened, and correcting that is not a function of the Supreme Court," says Sandalow.

Vincent Bugliosi's scathing condemnation of the Supreme Court's ruling in Bush v. Gore is a must read. "Considering the criminal intention behind the decision, legal scholars and historians should place this ruling above the Dred Scott case (Scott v. Sandford) and Plessy v. Ferguson in egregious sins of the Court. The right of every American citizen to have his or her vote counted, and for Americans (not five unelected Justices) to choose their President was callously and I say criminally jettisoned by the Court's majority to further its own political ideology. If there is such a thing as a judicial hell, these five Justices won't have to worry about heating bills in their future. Scalia and Thomas in particular are not only a disgrace to the judiciary but to the legal profession, for years being nothing more than transparent shills for the right wing of the Republican Party."

In an unbelievable speech, Chief Justice Rehnquist referred to another election that was stolen from the Democrats as grounds for "settling" this one. In fact, Democrats.com and BuzzFlash.com posted a commentary several weeks back by conservative pundit Kevin Phillips. Phillips argued that the 1876 election was stolen from the Democrats and that the Supreme Court would rue the day that another one was stolen from the voters in 2000. Rehnquist, however, cites the 1876 election theft from the Democrats as an EXAMPLE of how well court intervention worked! These guys are so brazenly mugging democracy -- and the Democratic leadership sits on their hands and remains silent. Won't anyone beside Kevin Phillips denounce Rehnquist for justifying two grand thefts, muggings if you will of the American electorate? This is the result of the Democrats letting the Republicans get away with highway robbery time and time again without denouncing them. Does anyone for a moment believe that Scalia, Rehnquist, Thomas, Kennedy, and O'Connor would have voted 5-4 to stop the vote if Bush were demanding a recount? Please! Rehnquist is a political hack in a black robe.

"This is the first time in the history of our nation that a coup d'etat has taken place--within our own borders. As defined in the dictionary, a coup d'etat is a violent or illegal change in government. We have experienced it in other countries; Chile, for instance. Augusto Pinochet's was a military coup. The coup that has brought us a new chieftain was civilian in form. As to its violence, it was not viscerally so, though some might maintain that depriving a citizen of his/her vote may be considered a violent act in a democracy." So writes celebrated Chicago author Studs Terkel in this Chicago Tribune op-ed piece.

Anthony Lewis weighs in on the Supreme Court ruling, and no one says it better.

"JUSTICE SCALIA. Ruthie, zip it. Mr. Boies, as you surely have noticed by now, I am the Big Brain here. So I will explain what should be res ipsa loquitor, not to mention a priori. We stopped the vote-counting because if we did not, Al Gore might have won. Then I would never have had a chance to be chief justice." By Maureen Dowd

What must underlie petitioners' entire federal assault on the Florida election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make the critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their position is wholly without merit. The endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law. I respectfully dissent.

From the Washington Post, "And when Justice Antonin Scalia, the court's conservative heavyweight, stepped in to add a fine point to Bush lawyer Theodore B. Olson's argument, he sounded almost as if he had joined the Republican team: "It's part of your submission, I think," Scalia prompted, "that there is no wrong when a machine does not count those ballots that it's not supposed to count." Read the whole article.

You have to be a Republican to make yourself immune from conflicts of interest. If Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas were Democrats, the GOP would have had their hides for carpets by now.

"The decision of the US Supreme Court to halt the Florida recounts is wrong in law, wrong in respect of the Constitution, and wrong in terms of plain common sense. Justice John Paul Stevens, in his dissenting opinion, made the point that in ordering the recounts to resume last Friday, Florida's top court acted in accordance with state law and precedent." That's what the British Guardian newspaper thinks. Why can't we have a newspaper like that over here, instead of all the Bush groupie dunderheads running the American press?

Why has Justice Antonin Scalia refused to recuse himself from ruling on the election matter, when it has been reported that he holds a personal animus against Al Gore, the Vice President, a party in this case? It is not as though a liberal journalist reported this information. This story was broken by ROBERT NOVAK, a confirmed and "respected" conservative journalist, in a MAJOR national newspaper, over six months ago. This is to say nothing of his son's legal firm representing George Bush.

The influence of the right-wing Federalist Society on the judiciary is far-reaching - and profoundly disturbing.

This is what Eric Zorn, a Chicago Tribune columnist, has to say about Antonin Scalia's logic. 'Allow me to paraphrase: "Most people are too stupid to understand or accept a ruling we might make voiding the recount if it were to be completed. So we must stop it this instant, lest the unruly, unsophisticated masses ever get the idea that Vice President Al Gore actually won the election because he got more votes than Bush in Florida--as well as the rest of the country. It would perturb them to see Bush inaugurated, and this might make it difficult for Bush to be an effective and respected president."'

Well, for one thing, as we know, Scalia's son works for the law firm of Bush's chief lawyer, Ted Olson, who also happens to be a key facilitator in the efforts to impeach Clinton. There is even a report that Scalia has another son working for Bush's lead lawyer in Florida. And Sandra Day O'Connor has some reasons to side with Bush too. If these two were Democrats the DeLay, Limbaugh crowd would have their scalps by now.

"Down the recount path lies clarity and democratic legitimacy. Down the other path lies a retreat from democracy, and chaos. Unless one of the five justices who stopped the recounts yesterday has the prudence to switch sides in the final decision, we will face the spectacle of a narrow conservative majority on the Supreme Court allying itself with a political campaign to stop the people from knowing how the voters of Florida really cast their ballots. That cannot be good for the court, or for our country." From E.J. Dionne, Jr., in the Washington Post

First of all, let's remember that Gore is projected to beat Bush in the popular vote by over 400,000. Gore's vote keeps growing as a absentee ballots in Democratic leaning states continue to be counted. Then, Gore won in Florida, if all the votes were counted. The five conservative justices, led by right wing zealot Antonin Scalia, showed their partisan stripes today when they politicized the nation's highest court by stopping the Florida recount. Four justices dissented, criticizing the pro-Bush majority ruling. As the Washington Post reports, Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and David H. Souter, argued that it was the majority that had acted "unwisely," and "cast a cloud on the legitimacy of the election": "As a more fundamental matter," Stevens wrote, "the Florida court's ruling reflects the basic principle, inherent in our Constitution and our democracy, that every legal vote should be counted."

In his opinion written for the majority, Antonin Scalia said that the Supreme Court needed to protect George W. Bush from having his presidency harmed by a vote count. As is often the case with the GOP, the argument is so brazenly anti-democratic, so monarchical in its premise, that most Americans will be too stupefied to call the five conservative justices for what they are: judicial hacks doing the bidding of the son of the man who appointed them or the President who that man served. Eric Alterman tells it like it is in this commentary.