A Draft Resolution of Congressional Censure
Against Kennedy, O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, and
Thomas
|
|
| Why Censure? Letter of Introduction The Counts of Censure I. Applicable Laws and Principles II. The Legal Controversy in Florida III. The U.S. Supreme Court's Intervention IV. The U.S. Supreme Court's Decision V. The Anomalous Nature of the Per Curiam Rulings VI. The Tragic Impact of the Supreme Court's Rulings VII. The Voice of Memory Therefore it is resolved that . . . Act Now PDF Version of Resolution Acknowledgments Dedication Media Contact Us |
May 24, 2002 - 21:00 (FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE) Contact 1: Eric C. Jacobson (ecjla@aol.com) Contact 2: David Harnden-Warwick (davidh-w@attbi.com) Further information: www.censurethefive.org --- ATTENTION LEGAL AND POLITICAL CORRESPONDENTS AND EDITORS --- JUSTICE DEPARTMENT INVESTIGATION INTO FLORIDA VOTING IRREGULARITIES DURING CAMPAIGN 2000 DOESN'T GO FAR ENOUGH CONGRESS HAS YET TO REBUKE JUSTICES RESPONSIBLE FOR BUSH V. GORE OUTRAGE (Culver City, CA) May 24, 2002 -- The Supreme Court Five Censure Campaign on Friday called upon Congress to join in the Justice Department's investigation of the 2000 presidential election by documenting alleged judicial malfeasance associated with the decision of Bush v. Gore. The 5-4 decision handed down on December 12, 2000 effectively ended the bitterly contested race between Republican candidate George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore. The Supreme Court Five Censure Campaign charges that the five justices responsible for the majority opinion in Bush v. Gore intentionally fixed the outcome of the 2000 election in contravention of applicable laws and are guilty of other ethical and prudential lapses deserving of censure by the United States Congress. "Let's not forget that at the time Bush v. Gore was decided, it was understood by all concerned that 175,000 ballots remained uncounted," said Eric C. Jacobson, a Culver City public interest lawyer who is urging Congress to censure Justices Kennedy, O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas for their actions in Bush v. Gore. "The Supreme Court was legally obliged to remand Bush v. Gore to Florida for a new recount to be completed by the only relevant deadline, January 6, 2001," Jacobson said. "Their failure to do so was not just erroneous, it was willful misconduct easily warranting Congressional censure or worse, impeachment." The Supreme Court Five Censure Campaign favors censure over impeachment in order to spare the American people from lengthy and costly Senate trials. The five-justice majority in Bush v. Gore claimed that Florida officials had selected December 12th as the absolute deadline for concluding the presidential vote count. A suggested draft resolution the campaign has posted online at www.censurethefive.org cites a concurring opinion of Florida Supreme Court Justice Leander Shaw that disputes this. In Shaw's little known opinion, issued ten days after Bush v. Gore, the 71-year-old jurist concluded that the Bush v. Gore majority's discussion of December 12 resulted from a misreading of the Florida Supreme Court's opinions in the 2000 election's legal imbroglio. Jacobson and David Harnden-Warwick, the chief organizer of the lobbying campaign, believe the five justices' misreading was intentional. "The Electoral College votes are not tabulated by Congress until the January 6th following the previous Election Day," says Harnden-Warwick. "A first-year law student would have known that the advance intent of the Florida legislature was to obtain an accurate and complete presidential vote count when there was still plenty of time left to do so." Mr. Jacobson said he founded the Supreme Court Five Censure Campaign in early 2001 out of concern that, left unchallenged, the Bush v. Gore decision threatened the American tradition of peaceful transfer of presidential power through quadrennial elections. "In America, the voters decide who serves as president, not the Supreme Court. Congress must not let Bush v. Gore stand unrebuked," Jacobson warned. "Otherwise, present or future Supreme Court justices might try this partisan stunt again in the event another close presidential election is litigated in federal court." The five justices themselves have never directly responded to the many vocal critics of their actions in Bush v. Gore. |