BuzzFlash Interview with Charles O. Porter

	Failure Is Impossible
From BuzzFlash © 2001, BuzzFlash	Topic Index	Home

Exclusive Interview With The Oregon Democrat Who Started The Supreme Court Impeachment Drive

FORMER OREGON CONGRESSMAN STARTS THE BALL ROLLING ON IMPEACHING THE SUPREME COURT FIVE WHO ANOINTED BUSH

This coming Sunday, July 22, the Oregon Democratic Party is likely to become the first state organization to call for the impeachment of the five Supreme Court justices who put Bush in the White House. The drive was started by former Congressman Charles Porter, of Eugene Oregon, who served in the House of Representatives in the second term of the Eisenhower administration.

Porter, who practices law in Eugene, talked with BuzzFlash about his resolution and drive to impeach the felonious five.

BuzzFlash: What led you to initiate a resolution for the Oregon State Democratic party to call for the impeachment of the five Supreme Court justices who ruled in favor of Bush in Bush vs. Gore?

Charles Porter: Well, first I became outraged at their opinion and I wanted to do something about it. I have always been an activist, one way or the other, and it was so extreme and the fact that people weren’t picking up on it, that they wanted to close the door and forget it. And people didn’t understand that the Supreme Court could be corrected by impeachment.

BuzzFlash: Was it your personal reading of the opinion, that was delivered under the cover of darkness, that led you to this? Did you review the majority opinion in Bush vs. Gore?

Charles Porter: I did, but I did not put myself up as the authority because, although I went to Harvard Law School and was a clerk on the 9th Circuit of Appeals after I got out of law school and I’ve tried a lot of cases and lots of pretty good ones in my day, I do not regard myself as a Constitutional law expert. But when you have their opinion looked at by law review articles and experts, it is devastating. The Supreme Court ruling was lacking in any scholarship or consistency.

It’s just an awful opinion. It won’t stand up at all, and as you know, or maybe you don’t know, a great many professors signed an advertisement that appeared in the New York Times in January and was added to later, saying that this was a political opinion and not a legal opinion. And you take an oath when you’re a judge at any rank, that you’re going to follow the law. They didn't follow the law, and it’s just outrageous that such an opinion would be made for a purely political reason, to help Mr. Bush be assured that he’d get the job. But even if he does have the job because he got more votes and was entitled to the twenty-five electoral votes in Florida, that doesn’t take the Supreme Court off the hook.

If the court itself made a terrible error, they committed a criminal act. If they had taken machine guns and gone in and taken these ballots by force, that would have violated state law. They violated the law with the decision they made, and they can be prosecuted when the impeachment is over. They can be prosecuted in court for that.

BuzzFlash: Would you have to prove for the criminal prosecution that there was a conspiracy? I mean, any judge can have a ruling anyone might disagree with and you could say it was bad legal thinking.

Charles Porter: That’s my point about the experts. These lawyers are experts in the law. Most of them are Constitutional lawyers. An article in the Yale Law Review has loads and loads of very fine authorities making the point so that it can’t be refuted that it was not an opinion on the law. And that’s what these lawyers who signed these petitions, and there are a great many lawyers who did that, from one hundred and twelve law schools all over the country. Those people have tenure, most of them do, if they don’t have it, they want it, and they don’t make such opinions public if they aren't sure their right, because want to go on in their career as law teachers. So that deserves a lot of weight.

BuzzFlash: Have you read Vincent Bugliosi’s book, "The Betrayal of America?"

Charles Porter: Yes.

BuzzFlash: He makes the argument, I think this is reflective of where the American public has been at, that the large majority of Americans simply cannot believe or could not believe that this lofty court, our greatest court in this country, whose justices are supposed to have the good of the country at heart, that there can be five justices who would abandon their responsibilities to the law and make a decision to appoint one of two candidates for President because they prefer that candidate. Bugliosi spends some time talking about the issue of character. When you’re on the court, you’re just another person, he points out. They’re just people on the court, and this is an issue of character in this case. Bad character prevailed and most of the population just looks at the court in disbelief that they could render such a decision with such political goals. What do you say to our readers as an attorney who’s been in court and as a congressman? How will Americans come over to your perspective given that they hold the Supreme Court with such high regard?

Charles Porter: Well, they have to be told the facts. Clarence Thomas, for instance, had a conflict of interest very clearly and he should have recused himself and not sat in on this case, but he knew that if he didn't join the opinion they wouldn’t have the five votes. Well, he has a particular guilt in this matter, and it showed that it was a conspiracy. When they get together and have an opinion and they work on this, that comes under conspiracy. But even if you couldn’t prove a conspiracy individually, we know that they wrote a political opinion, because the facts are so clear that no reasonable person could believe that they were doing anything else than helping George Bush become president, making sure he’d become president.

BuzzFlash: I believe Scalia, when the original court order was handed down to stop the recount in Florida, said that one of the reasons this needed to be done, perhaps even the leading reason, was a continued count might cause irreparable harm to George W. Bush. I guess from my own perspective, it’s so brazen a statement that it seems to indicate a political intent.

Charles Porter: Well Vincent pointed out that Gore was the injured party. By a long shot. So they just turned it upside down and brazened it out.

BuzzFlash: Would that statement in and of itself be something that could indicate intent for the purpose of the impeachment process? That the Supreme Court stopped the recount because it would "harm" the reputation of George W. Bush when he assumed the presidency?

Charles Porter: Well, obviously it was voted upon politically and that’s what a judge is not supposed to do. He is supposed to judge on the law, the decided cases, the statutes and everybody knows that, or they should know it, and when they do something politically, like Scalia, when he boasts about it, that he does sometimes, that is so brash and so despicable that it makes me choke with rage.

BuzzFlash: The exact words I have here. Scalia said the recount needed to be stopped because it would “threaten irrefutable harm to the petitioner (i.e., Bush) by casting a cloud on what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election."

Charles Porter: I just laughed helplessly. You know, I have to say something here about where we’re starting from. We’re starting from less than ground zero. We don’t have even one member from the Congress of the United States favoring impeachment. We’ve got a long ways to go and people have to get outraged. They have to march in the streets and they have to say this will not stand.

BuzzFlash: And what is the next step of the Executive Committee of the Oregon State Democratic Party?

Charles Porter: The next thing that happens is on Sunday, July 22, when they are going to have a meeting of the Democratic members of the state committee, the leaders of the various counties and the members from the national committee will be there also, and I’m going to make a speech there and they are going to have a vote on this, and the chairman assures me that it is going to be, if not a unanimous vote, an almost unanimous vote, and then we’ll be the first state to call for impeachment of the five justice, and we’re going to challenge other states to get in line and come out for this.

But then the next question is we got to get focused on our members of Congress who aren’t believers at this point and say, “You’d better become a believer, because people are getting very much aroused and you’d better vote majority in the House to bring the articles of impeachment.” And go over to the senate and get your two-thirds of those who show up for the vote and some who wouldn’t show up, I’m sure. But two-thirds and then you’ve accomplished what must be accomplished.

This is the worst crisis in my opinion that this country has faced, in terms of maintaining us as a democracy. Because if they can get away with this, this is something they can say they’ve got a right to go in and stop the count of the votes, then the election is a farce. It’s in the hands of the manipulators and we might as well do what half the nation does right now and not vote. And that would be a tragedy.

BuzzFlash: What are some more things Democratic activists can do?

Charles Porter: The usual thing that our political system demands: you have to get a lot of money because campaign finance reform has not quite gone far enough. You’re going to have to have money to get your message out. That has to happen. They have to raise money to do it. We have to get it from every party, not just from the Democrats. But the Democrats are the ones who must take the lead on this because Republicans haven’t shown any sign of supporting it at this time.

BuzzFlash: Now once the July 22nd resolution passes, assuming it does, would that be something where people could write to their congressman saying here is the resolution from the Oregon State Democratic Party. We urge you to proceed to support impeachment proceedings. That sort of thing.

Charles Porter: Well, that’s what should happen, but more than just writing they should go and see the members of congress in their local offices and look them in the eye and say, “How do you answer this? How do you defend what these five people did?” Stand up and say what they believe. Not "just let’s get through with it," which is the usual thing Republicans say, cause they don’t want to talk about it, for a good reason.

BuzzFlash: You should be very proud. It’s a courageous step that needed to be done, so thanks again.

Charles Porter: Not at all. I’m glad to have a chance to talk to people about it and I hope they will be looking into it and acting accordingly.