$4.00/gallon gas? Get over it. Almost 4,000 dead in Iraq? Get over it. Subprime mortgage crisis? Get over it. Unimaginable national debt? Get over it. That is what Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told the American people last week. I have to reiterate, a Supreme Court Justice, in as many words, gave the finger to those who struggle day in and day out as a result of the policies of George W. Bush. Aren't these supposed to be the most venerable and nonpartisan people in our political system of checks and balances? Well, theoretically, but we're all too familiar with how much attention the Constitution is paid these days.
Still, to read that Scalia, with all seriousness, replied, "Get over it" in response to a question about his vote back in the disastrous Bush v. Gore case is shameful. This came during a Q & A segment following an address he gave at Princeton:
Following the address, Whig-Clio President Molly Alarcon asked Scalia questions submitted in advance by students, including one by sophomore Forest Sebastian regarding the Supreme Court's decision in the 2000 presidential election to halt the recount of ballots in Florida.
"Oh, get over it. It's eight years ago," Scalia said, eliciting laughter and applause from some in the audience.
"We were the laughing stock of the world. The world's greatest democracy that couldn't conduct an election," said Scalia, who maintained the majority of citizens were grateful for the ruling.
Wow. I don't even know where to start. He's right about one thing: we were the laughing stock of the world, but not because we couldn't conduct an election. We were the laughing stock of the world because 9 politically-appointed people, in an election that saw over 100,000,000 votes cast, chose our next President and rejected the candidate that garnered more total votes. Oh, let's not forget that Gore would've actually won a recount should the Florida Supreme Court ruling (hey, they are only in favor of states rights when it's politically convenient) have been upheld.
We still are the laughing stock of the world because said President thinks he can wage unilateral wars with little-to-no international authority or assistance. Why is it that the international community is paying so much attention to our 2008 race? Because they can't wait for this presidency to be over and they can't wait for someone to fix the international mess that Bush has left his successor!
He then has the audacity to claim that the majority of citizens were grateful for the ruling. Yes, we the people will forever be grateful for the Court's decision to hand us Mr. 19%. Isn't there some kind of clause in the Constitution requiring Supreme Court Justices to, I don't know, know the definition of simple words like "majority?"
Shame on you Justice Scalia, shame on you. In contrast, Justice Souter almost resigned after the 5-4 Bush v. Gore ruling and remains shattered by the outcome of that dreadful and historically-altering decision:
"He came from a tradition where the independence of the judiciary was the foundation of the rule of law. And Souter believed Bush v. Gore mocked that tradition. His colleagues' actions were so transparently, so crudely partisan that Souter thought he might not be able to serve with them anymore. Souter seriously considered resigning. For many months, it was not at all clear whether he would remain as a justice. ... At the urging of a handful of close friends, he decided to stay on, but his attitude toward the Court was never the same. There were times when David Souter thought of Bush v. Gore and wept."
Justice Souter is a man who clearly cares about his country; he's aware of the millions who have lost their jobs, lost their health care, lost their homes, and been sent to war, and the man regrets that the Court could have prevented it. Justice Scalia, with his six-figure salary and high prestige, holds no such regret. Not an ounce of remorse. Hell, it was eight years ago, let's just all get over it.
Thankfully, some in the media aren't buying into Scalia's mockery. The Times (Trenton, New Jersey) editorial board had this to say about the Justice's recent appearance and statement [emphasis mine]:
That obiter dictum of "get over it" has been his stock re tort whenever he's asked about Bush vs. Gore, the 2000 decision by the Supreme Court that put George W. Bush in the White House despite the majority of votes cast for Al Gore.
Because of the interest in the legal reasoning involved in that case, and what has happened since, we can't help but think that Justice Scalia's caustic stock phrase is injudicious.
While we have certainly gotten over that Mr. Gore was not declared president, we will never get over the fact that Mr. Bush was. That reality is going to haunt and hound us for ages as we struggle to pay for the fiasco he foisted upon us.
Some consequences of the wayward war in Iraq are irreparable. There is the loss of life and limb and livelihood thou sands of young Americans and their families have had to bear. And there is the diminishment of the United States in the world and in history as a land of law and justice.
Ladies and gentleman, this is Exhibit A as to why we need to elect a Democrat this November - we cannot, under any circumstances, afford two more Scalia's on the bench. We cannot afford, eight years from now, to look back on November 2008 and say "if only we didn't implode and give the election to McCain." Obama supporters better rally around Hillary should she be the nominee and Hillary supporters better rally around Obama should he be the nominee. If we don't, we may never get over what will come as a result of it.