Compiled By GayToday
| Political statements such as this image being circulated over the Internet exhibit the legitimacy questions Bush will face over the next four years thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions
New York, New York—A full page New York Times protest ad appeared January 13 on page
A-7 in that newspaper. Its bold headline read: “554 Law Professors Say” but on the professors'
Web site, www.the-rule-of-law.com legal scholars signing a document harshly critical of the
United States Supreme Court's Election 2000 decision had already risen to 585 by nightfall.
"We've put the law professor's encouraging statement near the top of our Freedom Ride Web site
www.oralmajorityonline.com " veteran Florida gay activist Bob Kunst told GayToday.
The Freedom Ride will leave January 17 at 6:30 p.m. from the Miami-Dade Government Center.
"The bus is nearly full," explained Kunst, "and the media's clamoring to cover our protest in
Washington, D.C. while Bush gets illegitimately inaugurated."
Kunst complained, however, about that same media:
“It is very sad that such news must appear in a paid ad. The New York Times and every
other damn newspaper in America should have been carrying the law professors' big news among
their top stories.
“But no, U.S. media is mostly owned by greedy big business tycoons and their “don't rock our
boat” corporatocracy. But anyway, its great that the legal scholars have spoken the truth,
that they aren't ignoring this stinking Bushit and that that they've joined the 13 brave protesting
members of Congress, that there are plenty of patriots who truly object to this Inaugural farce.”
The January 13 ad reads:
554 LAW PROFESSORS SAY
By stopping the vote count in Florida, the U.S. Supreme Court used its power
to act as political partisans, not judges of a court of law.
We are professors of law at 120 American law schools from every part of the country,
of different political beliefs. But we all agree that when a bare majority of the U.S. Supreme
Court halted the recount of ballots under Florida law, the five justices were acting as political
proponents for candidate Bush, not as judges.
It is not the job of a federal court to stop votes from being counted.
By stopping the recount in the middle, the five justices acted to suppress the facts. Justice
Scalia argued that the justices had to interfere even before the Supreme Court heard the
Bush team's arguments because the recount might "cast a cloud upon what (Bush) claims
to be the legitimacy of his election." In other words, the conservative justices moved to
avoid the "threat" that Americans might learn that in the recount, Gore got more votes than
Bush. This is presumably "irreparable" harm because if the recount proceeded and the truth
once became known, it would never again be possible to completely obscure the facts. But it
is not the job of courts to polish the image of legitimacy of the Bush presidency by preventing
disturbing facts from being confirmed. Supressing the facts to make the Bush government
seem more legitimate is the job of propagandists, not judges.
Related Stories from the GayToday Archive:
The Supreme Court & the Religious Right
American Myth of a
Non-Political Court System Melting Fast
The Threat: Nine Secretive Judges
and a Bush Presidency
Law Professors for the Rule of Law
Historic Protest: Inaugural Freedom Ride Information
People for the American Way Foundation
GayToday does not endorse related sites.
By taking power from the voters,
the Supreme Court has tarnished its
own legitimacy. As teachers whose lives
have been dedicated to the rule of law,
Behind the message in this ad appear the names and university/college affiliations of the hundreds of
legal scholars who've signed it.
The ad was paid for by People for the American Way Foundation.