A Quote by Vincent Bugliosi

If it's a close election, then it's better for the Supreme Court to pick the president, whether or not he won the election. It's just insane on its face. — © Vincent Bugliosi
If it's a close election, then it's better for the Supreme Court to pick the president, whether or not he won the election. It's just insane on its face.
Whether it's before the election or after the election, the principle is the American people are choosing their next president and their next president should pick this Supreme Court nominee.
Governor Gray Davis has asked the California state Supreme Court to delay the October recall vote because he says that's not enough time to put on a fair election. Hey, let me tell you something. If we didn't need a fair election to pick the president of the United States, we don't need a fair election to pick the governor of California.
If the Left can unilaterally impeach and try to remove a president during an election year, a Supreme Court justice can certainly be appointed during an election year.
It's been 80 years since the Senate has confirmed a Supreme Court nominee who was nominated during an election. And particularly when the court hangs in the balance, it makes no sense whatsoever to give Barack Obama the power to jam through a judge in the final election year.
One of the reasons this election is so important is because the Supreme Court hangs in the balance. We need to overturn that terrible Supreme Court decision, Citizens United, and then reform our whole campaign finance system.
No matter whether the Constitution follows the flag or not, the Supreme Court follows the election returns.
This [2016] election is about the people being crushed by Obamacare. And it's about defeating ISIS and appointing a Supreme Court and a Supreme Court Justice - it could be four or five - who will defend and protect our Constitution.
I represented the 4th District of South Carolina... from the election '92 until election '98. And then I was out six years and then came back for another six years between the election 2004 and the election 2010.
I will say one thing has changed dramatically which is this Supreme Court vacancy, and it will reshape the race on my side, because I'd rather lose an election than lose the Supreme Court.
Osama bin Laden put out a new video. The timing of this video has some people upset, three days before we vote. It looks like he's trying to influence the election. And I'll tell you, it's not going to work. Americans know Osama bin Laden does not pick our president. The Supreme Court does.
My positions on gun safety have remained consistent over the years, and have been on my website for years. Whether I'm in a tough re-election race, an easy re-election race, or if it isn't an election year, whether there's a high-profile tragedy in the news or otherwise, my position remains unchanged and on my website.
Well, just as the Supreme Court follows the election returns, you can bet that the bureaucracy does as well.
If there were two candidates, a Democrat and a Republican, who each committed to the same kind of fundamental reform, then the election would be an election between the vice presidential candidates. It'd be just like the regular election, except it would be one step down.
I do honestly believe the Republicans have reformed and want to do better. But whether they have done it in time to win the election is another thing. The old voter is getting so he wants to be saved before October every election year.
This is America. We don't call an election before we know who won. That, after all, is the job of the Supreme Court.
In the 2000 presidential election, Al Gore got more votes than George W. Bush, but still lost the election. The Supreme Court's ruling in Florida gave Bush that pivotal state, and doomed Gore to lose the Electoral College. That odd scenario - where the candidate with the most votes loses - has happened three times in U.S. history.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!