Brad Miller: “the presidential election in 2000 was effectively decided by the Supreme Court. In his dissent, Justice Stephens said…”

“the presidential election in 2000 was effectively decided by the Supreme Court. In his dissent, Justice Stephens said: ``It is the confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law . . . Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear: It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.'' Mr. Speaker, Americans, Democrats and Republicans alike did accept the Supreme Court's decision and the legitimacy of President Bush's election. But, Mr. Speaker, what confidence will Americans have in judges nominated without consultation, without the advice and consent that the Constitution provides for, and confirmed by a bare majority despite strong objections to the impartiality of those judges, confirmed only by shamelessly ignoring the rules that have governed the Senate for more than two centuries? Mr. Speaker, why should Americans accept the decisions of those judges as legitimate? And, Mr. Speaker, just what will be left of the rule of law? ____________________”