<p>My claims are not unsubstantiated. “You have the right to your own opinions, but not your own facts”. Also, Bill you also know that Sup. judges are supposed to step down from a case if they have a stake in it, the exact term leaves me… BUT both Scalia and Thomas had members of their household working for the BUSH crowd.</p>
<p><a href=“Bush v. Gore - Wikipedia”>Bush v. Gore - Wikipedia;
<p>"Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.[38] "
---- majority opinion
The court’s defenders considered this a reasonable precaution against the possibility that the decision might be read overbroadly,[39] arguing that in the short time available it would not be appropriate to attempt to craft language spelling out in greater detail how to apply the holding to other cases. Critics, however, interpreted the sentence as stating that the case did not set precedent in any way and could not be used to justify any future court decision, and some suggested that this was evidence the majority realized its holding was untenable.[40] It was seen by many as a departure from the stare decisis principle.</p>