John Heilemann: Bush v. Gore Ruling 'Pure Politics and Purely Corrupt'
With the Supreme Court about to decide the fate of ObamaCare, Americans are destined to hear all kinds of accusations about the so-called partisan nature of the conservatives on the bench.
New York magazine's John Heilemann did his part on this weekend's Chris Matthews Show claiming the Court's ruling in 2000's Bush v. Gore case "was pure politics and purely corrupt" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Kelly, is it your view, the same view that it would be viewed as a partisan ruling if they rule against it?
KELLY EVANS, CNBC: It's hard to see how the media rhetoric would be played out any other way, and certainly the Obama administration would try to play it that way and claim that it was a political rather than a legally based decision.
GLORIA BORGER, CNN: And that's a problem for the Court because you did have Bush v. Gore. This is, you know, health care reform is a political issue.
MATTHEWS: I wonder if they’re thinking like this, John, that they better not look partisan.
JOHN HEILEMANN, NEW YORK MAGAZINE: It's not comparable to Bush v. Gore. It’s not. A stolen election, which is what still many people think about that, is not the same as striking down this. This is, there is a Constitutional, a legitimate, very conservative Constitutional argument in play here. On Bush v Gore it was like, it was pure politics and purely corrupt.
Does Heilemann really believe there was no Constitutional argument in play with Bush v. Gore?
Let's remember on a 7-2 vote, the Court decided the Equal Protection Clause in the fourteenth amendment was being violated by the differences in how votes were being counted from one Florida county to the other.
Does Heilemann think Justices Breyer, Kennedy, O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, Souter and Thomas made this decision purely for political reasons without any knowledge of the fourteenth amendment?
The reality is that liberals like Heilemann didn't like this decision, or the 5-4 one concerning remedy, and have been grousing about it for over a decade.
Of course, if that case had been ruled in Gore's favor, Heilemann and his ilk would have considered it a scholarly decision completely lacking in partisanship.
The same is going to be true of the pending ObamaCare ruling.
If the Court upholds the law, the media will celebrate the wisdom of the bench as well as our entire judicial system.
But if any part of ObamaCare is struck down, the press will consider it "pure politics and purely corrupt."
Funny how that works.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Warning!! Alternate Universe Leakage!!
Submitted by wizardjr on Sun, 03/25/2012 - 10:36pm.
This asshat has no idea what actually happened otherwise he wouldn't make such an assinine statement.
Even more important than the 14th Amendment considerations, it was the blatant attempt by the Florida Supreme Clowns to change the election rules ex post facto. Even many of the libtard news mumblers of the day couldn't understand how you could change the rules AFTER the voting. The US Supremes threw out all that magical juris stupidity and with that, the vote counting was done in an orderly and proper manner after the rules existing at the time of the voting.
Of course the Goracle lost, so it must be due to 'illegal' actions of 'conservatives'.
Thank goodness that the Goracle lost. Otherwise, Nobel Prize
Submitted by Rush Fan on Sun, 03/25/2012 - 10:51pm.
winner and scientist Gore would not have been able to concentrate on solving the most important issue on this planet, the forthcoming
Global WarmingClimate Change calamity!"what still many people think"
Submitted by pockets64 on Mon, 03/26/2012 - 12:02am.
When you consider that the news agencies went back and counted the ballots in every way they could to try to favor Gore and they still came back with Bush as the winner and the press stayed quiet with their results, you stop caring "what still many people think."
Politics was in the Florida Supreme Court
Submitted by libBuster on Mon, 03/26/2012 - 9:45am.
I agree. The politicization of the issue came from the Florida Supreme Court. It failed to head the gentle dictum of the US Supreme Court and the well thought out ruling of its own Democratic Florida Superior Court judge.
At that point the Supreme Court had to get involved. The Florida Supreme Court was devising out of whole cloth a new vote counting scheme that would have emphasized cathing mythical misvotes in heavily Democratic Counties -- thereby giving he election to Al Gore.
The Florida Superior Court Judge followed the law in ruling against Gore. Quite simply nothing in the Florida Election code allowed for divining of voter intent. The machines functioned as designed. End of story. Next time, mark your ballot properly.
It was disgraceful.
I think HEIL-mann DID get his
Submitted by killa37 on Sun, 03/25/2012 - 11:09pm.
I think HEIL-mann DID get his statement worded correctly, but he missed by about 180 degrees. It WAS 'pure politics and purely corrupt', and ALGORE did try to 'steal' the election.............by sending an army of lawyers down to Florida the next day, and tie the results up for weeks, trying every legal manuvre in the books to get the results that they wanted. I think the end result has been verified time and time again, including by the MSM.
And, for those who weren't real happy with GW Bush..............just let your mind entertain the thought of ALGORE as President.
Or John 'why the long face' Kerry, for that matter. Or................jeez...................who do we have now??? Boy Barry Soetoro Baraka Hussein Obama - the biggest scam ever perpetrated on the American people in the history of this country, and also the most dangerous threat to the USA in the HISTORY of this country!!!!
And if HEIL-mann thinks that the 2000 elections were fraught with monkey business (oh, god, is that a 'racist' statement??), I'd advise him to keep a sharp eye on the one coming up later this year............
Here come
Submitted by bmacdmac on Sun, 03/25/2012 - 11:11pm.
the excuses. Morons know full well they have a hard road ahead so the excuses start even before the first day.
Doesn't anyone remember. . .
Submitted by rick.bren on Sun, 03/25/2012 - 11:56pm.
. . .that when the "unbiased press" did a count and recount, Bush won the Florida vote? Didn't think so. . .
Here
Submitted by grammajane on Mon, 03/26/2012 - 12:00am.
we go again. Bring Pres. Bush into this election and bash and slam him again. He has been the most decent ex-Pres. saying nothing about the cry baby in the WH now and all the hate and lies coming from 99% of the media. If they want to blab about corruption, maybe Fast and Furious, Sylonder,The new black panthers and daily lies coming from the radicals, could be discussed on these nobody watches shows with complete nobodies taking part.
You got that right
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Mon, 03/26/2012 - 6:44am.
You are right about Bush. Carter and Clinton can't keep their mouths shut, and neither will Obama if he (hopefully) loses in November. Bush, for all his flaws and faults, has so much more class than these loud mouthed, whiny leftists.
It's still up to congress to repeal ObamaCare
Submitted by lrgon on Mon, 03/26/2012 - 5:43am.
That the Supreme Court judges will call the entire bill unconstitutional would be great for the country.
The Supreme Court caved in to FDR's demands and left most of the New Deal in tact despite it's unconstitutionality.The courts have bowed to political pressure and I suspect they will with Obamacare.
That states have made a push in their legislatures to "nullify" Obamacare and that is a welcome sign. http://www.facebook.com/ChooseFreedom.StopObamaCare
U.S. District Judge Roger K. Vinson which the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld in part, and is the case the Supreme Court will be hearing today (Monday 26), doesn't expect Obamacare to simply go away.
"Reversing what is presently in effect (and what will be put into effect in the future) may prove enormously difficult....the Executive Branch seeks to continue the implementation, in part, for the very reason that the implemented provisions will be hard to undo once they are fully in place."
Hey, John, 2012 called: they
Submitted by bretzysdude on Mon, 03/26/2012 - 6:31am.
Hey, John, 2012 called: they asked that you get over it.
warning shots
Submitted by MidAmerica on Mon, 03/26/2012 - 6:40am.
They know they won't persuade Roberts and Alito but they want to make sure 'their' justices toe the line. The worst case scenario for them is for the court to rule in an overwhelming majority against obamacare. if that happens, using a negative ruling as a political weapon will be neutralized.
For Sure
Submitted by KornKing on Mon, 03/26/2012 - 6:58am.
With the "left" it's always "pure politics" whenever rule of law is involved
What we need on SCOTUS is
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Mon, 03/26/2012 - 7:37am.
What we need on SCOTUS is common sense.
Oh, shut up, Hell-man...
Submitted by DumbCanuck on Mon, 03/26/2012 - 7:55am.
About 40 years ago, the SCOTUS made a decision that people even today are still questioning, saying that decision is "pure politics" and "corrupt".
So get over it already.
What Hell-man is trying to do is set up the narrative for when the SCOTUS DOES INDEED OVERTURN Obama-care, as is right now a distinct possibility, as a court ruled by "politically corrupt" conservative activist judges.
Sure, John. And when it comes time to sell that snake oil, I'm sure there will be plenty of people in long lines waiting to buy it.
"There... Are... Four... Lights!"
Whether it's "pure politics and corrupt"
Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 03/26/2012 - 8:07am.
or a reaffirmation of the constitution will depend on the ruling.
Heilemann knows "which is which."
So does Bob Beckel
Submitted by Model850 on Mon, 03/26/2012 - 4:37pm.
Already on The Five Beckel has said a couple of times that if the court rules against Obamacare it will be a "hack" decision. Undoubtedly he will hail it as an incredibly sagacious ruling if it goes "his" way.
With Kagen still on the court
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 03/26/2012 - 8:09am.
This can go either way. Repeal maybe the only option. Besides, if Obama follows a contrary ruling, it will be for the first time!
palin
Submitted by ferv888 on Mon, 03/26/2012 - 8:08am.
and this from the guy who says the HBO movie was fair and balanced
This is going to be all about Kennedy
Submitted by c5then on Mon, 03/26/2012 - 8:55am.
Kagan, Ginsburgh, Sotomajor and Breyer will almost undoubtedly rule the individual mandate as constitutional under the Commerce Clause and thus uphold the law.
Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito will almost undoubtedly rule that the individual mandate is unconstitutional and the law will be struck down because of the lack of a severability clause.
That leaves Justice Kennedy as the swing vote. So it will come down to his view on whether the Commerce Clause gives Congress the authority to force people to engage in commerce as part of their regulatory power. Another interesting issue that might be brought up (but maybe not) is that the business of health insurance is decidedly NOT interstate commerce because Congress has specifically forbidden it to be. Each company that sells health insurance is forced to create a wholey owned subsidiary in each state that they do business in. It is illegal (by congressional act) for a resident of Illinois to buy health insurance from an Indiana insurer. So then....can Congress regulate it?
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
BUSH STILL WON
Submitted by Ra on Mon, 03/26/2012 - 9:23am.
Bush still won thank GOD!
The irony of Heilmann's claim
Submitted by Galvanic on Mon, 03/26/2012 - 1:24pm.
Heilmann and the so-called "progressives" demand that the Supreme Court BE POLITICAL -- that's the idea behind activist courts directing social change. These people don't want Federal courts ruling strictly on the Constitutionality of laws, but on extra-Constitutional concepts like 'social justice' and 'economic justice.' Progressives insist that time has changed so many circumstances that the Constitution is obsolete and needs to be interpreted in new ways.
It was under judicial activism that the Warren Court stretched the power of the Commerce Clause to desegregate the South in the '50s and '60s. The Warren Court wasn't the first to exented the Commerce Clause, but they were one of the more active in doing so.
To the progressives, the SCOTUS is politicized whenever it strictly interprets the Constitution and shoots down social engineering laws, but acting Constitutionally when it expands the power of the legislative and executive branches and upholds social engineering laws.
Oh, but don't forget "Game Change" on HBO was "balanced",
Submitted by drsamherman on Mon, 03/26/2012 - 9:27am.
or so that nitwit tried to bamboozle the American public. Funny how HBO only used the Sarah Palin part of the book and not John Edwards & mistress, or the destruction of Hil Clinton by the Chicago mob.
If the left is going to keep up the political nostalgia ploy with the "invalid elections" nonsense, perhaps we can go back to JFK's sudden victory from the Illinois "resurrection election" or any of LBJ's cemetery elections.
Looking partisan?
Submitted by Galvanic on Mon, 03/26/2012 - 10:04am.
MATTHEWS: I wonder if they’re thinking like this, John, that they better not look partisan.
Do Supreme Court justices making rulings based on whether they will appear to be partisan or not?
Considering that almost two-thirds of Americans want Obamacare repealed, I think that's the last thing they're worried about.
Gore lost by...
Submitted by P. Aaron on Mon, 03/26/2012 - 10:57am.
...535 votes. We're done here.
Of course
Submitted by misterbee241 on Mon, 03/26/2012 - 11:06am.
John wouldnt be saying that about Bush/Gore if his side won. He'd be hailing SCOTUS for upholding democracy and the constitution.
This story was the start
Submitted by sherlock1 on Mon, 03/26/2012 - 11:44am.
This story was the start of my awakening from the thrall of the MSM. I voted for Gore because I accepted the narrative about Bush being stupid. I accepted the narrative about Bush taking the election to the courts and being "selected". I started wondering a bit when I was told how Florida Secretary of State Catherine Harris' wearing of excessive makeup proved that she was throwing the election to Bush. I was relieved when the NYT, Boston Globe, LAT, WAPO et al. hired a big accounting firm to look into who really won.
Of course 9-11 came along and most of us forgot about that last item. But I didn't. When the results finally surfaced a year later, they showed that Bush had really won. But it didn't really "surface" because it was buried by all the papers quite effectively, and to this day most people don't know it happened, and even many media personalities repeat the "fact" that Bush "stole" the election.
As a result of this, I started critically questioning everything I saw in the media, and it did not take long before it became obvious that they could not be trusted to report the facts without introducing their biases in favor of the liberal left. This has only gotten worse over the years, to the point where I cannot help but regard the media as dangerous enemies of our society.