Whereas on December 9, 2000, five justices of the United States Supreme Court improvidently and with unfathomable contempt for the framework of separated powers undergirding the system of constitutional governance upon which the United States of America was founded (as explained further in Part IV below), sought to and did influence—wholly illegitimately and, it can be reasonably inferred, out of intemperate partisan passion—the outcome of the 2000 presidential election by granting a writ of certiorari and a temporary restraining order peremptorily staying the ongoing manual recount of the undervotes in the state of Florida by a per curiam edict;

Whereas on December 12, 2000, after receiving extensive briefs and hearing oral argument and having ample time to reconsider and correct their grievous error, five justices of the United States Supreme Court compounded the same by issuing a per curiam ruling purporting to deem unconstitutional (on equal protection grounds) the procedures and standards governing the recounting of ballots employed by Florida under its December 8, 2000 Florida Supreme Court ruling (Bush v. Gore, No. 00-949, U.S. Dec. 12, 2000);

Whereas said December 12, 2000 United States Supreme Court per curiam ruling further pivotally asserted—falsely—that the Florida Supreme Court had determined that the Florida Legislature intended that manual recounts be completed by December 12, 2000 (even if that meant certifying an inaccurate count) so as to enable the state to be protected under "safe harbor" provisions of 3 USC, Sec. 5 (provisions insulating a state's slate of electors from Congressional objection if the selection process was regularly completed by December 12, 2000); viz.:
 

The Supreme Court of Florida has said that the legislature intended the State's electors to 'participat[e] fully in the federal electoral process,' as provided in 3 U. S. C. §5. [cites omitted.] That statute, in turn, requires that any controversy or contest that is designed to lead to a conclusive selection of electors be completed by December 12. That date is upon us, and there is no recount procedure in place under the State Supreme Court' s order that comports with minimal constitutional standards. Because it is evident that any recount seeking to meet the December 12 date will be unconstitutional for the reasons we have discussed, we reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida ordering a recount to proceed. (Per Curiam, Bush v. Gore, No. 00-949 U.S., Dec. 12, 2000, p. 12)

The falsity of this pivotal assertion was subsequently attested to by a distinguished member of the Florida Supreme Court, Justice Leander J. Shaw, Jr., whose rebuke to the U.S. Supreme Court majority is especially noteworthy in that Justice Shaw was one of the 3 Florida Supreme Court justices who dissented in the Florida Supreme Court's 4-3 ruling in favor of Albert Gore on December 8, 2000; viz.
 

[December 12th] certainly was not a mandatory contest deadline under the plain language of the Florida Election Code (i.e., it is not mentioned there) or this Court's prior rulings. [FN 12:] Contrary to the ruling of the United States Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore No. 00-949 (U.S. Dec. 12, 2000) our prior opinions discussed Title III vis-a-vis the Florida Secretary of State's authority to reject late returns arising from a pre-certification protest action, not vis-a-vis a court's obligation to stop a recount in a post-certification contest action [cites omitted]. To mix these two actions is to confuse apples and oranges. (J. Shaw, concurring opinion, pp. 7–10 @ p. 10, Gore v. Harris, Supreme Court of Florida (on remand from Bush v. Gore), December 22, 2000.)

Whereas, on the basis of said false assertion (that the Florida Supreme Court found that the legislature of Florida intended any manual recount be completed by December 12, 2000 so as to enable the state to claim the benefit of the "safe harbor" provisions of 3 USC, Sec. 5 even if that meant certifying an inaccurate count), said United States Supreme Court per curiam ruling mischaracterized—and intentionally spurned as legally impermissible—the reasonable proposal of dissenting Justice Breyer that the state of Florida be given the opportunity to cure the federal constitutional defects purportedly present in Florida's procedures and standards governing the recounting of ballots by December 18; viz.:
 

JUSTICE BREYER's proposed remedy—remanding to the Florida Supreme Court for its ordering of a constitutionally proper contest until December 18—contemplates action in violation of the Florida election code, and hence could not be part of an appropriate' order authorized by Fla. Stat., Section 102.168(8)(2000). (Per Curiam, Bush v. Gore, No. 00-949 U.S. Dec. 12, 2000, p. 12.);

Whereas the willful inclusion of said false assertion (that the Florida Supreme Court found that the legislature of Florida intended any manual recount be completed by December 12, 2000 so as to enable the state to claim the benefit of the "safe harbor" provisions of 3 USC, Sec. 5 even if that meant certifying an inaccurate count) and mischaracterization (that Justice Breyer's proposed remedy of ordering a constitutionally proper recount contest until December 18 contemplated action in violation of the Florida Election Code) in the United States Supreme Court's per curiam ruling appeared to signal the Court's resolve to settle the 2000 presidential election in favor of the Republican candidates for President and Vice President in any event, sooner or later;

Whereas, since it was reasonably foreseeable that including said false assertion and said mischaracterization in the United States Supreme Court's per curiam ruling would effectively deny the Democratic Party's candidates for President and Vice President all remaining avenues of action save for concession (and in view of the other anomalous factors further detailed below in Part V), we are forced to conclude that the Supreme Court's ruling was consciously and explicitly willed to overturn the hallowed process wherein the American people, mediated by the Electoral College on a state-by-state basis, choose the head of the Executive branch of government by a free and fair democratic election;

Whereas the inclusion of said false assertion and said mischaracterization in the United States Supreme Court's per curiam ruling did, for all intents and purposes, force the Democratic Party's candidates for President and Vice President to concede the 2000 presidential election;

Whereas the Supreme Court's per curiam ruling thwarted the accurate ascertainment of the will of the voters of the state of Florida as to which candidate for President of the United States (and his electors) a majority of Florida voters supported, pursuant to the procedures and standards governing the recounting of ballots mandated by the Supreme Court of Florida, the highest authoritative judicial body therein;

Whereas the Supreme Court's per curiam ruling, in so thwarting the ascertainment of the will of the voters in the state of Florida, decided the outcome of the presidential election in favor of the Republican Party candidate for president, a candidate who lost the popular vote by 543,895 votes nationwide and is virtually certain to have also lost the deciding popular vote in the state of Florida based on the published conclusions of numerous careful, unbiased, and responsible inspectors of disputed ballots since made available for individual review under the state of Florida's "sunshine" laws (e.g., Palm Beach Post, 27 January 2001; Washington Post, 27 January 2001; Orlando Sentinel, 28 January 2001);
 

Next page: IV. The U.S. Supreme Court's Decision
 
The Counts of Censure
I. Applicable Laws and Principles
II. The Legal Controversy in Florida
III. The U.S. Supreme Court's Intervention
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 . . .