In the rush Tuesday night to read out the "important" parts of the Supreme Court's decision on Bush vs. Gore, all of the legal experts, commentators, etc., left out more than a few telling passages. In the interest of enlightening the public, I'd like to share a few of my favorites.

From the "per curiam" opinion:

"There comes a time to pay the piper. Ronald Reagan and George Bush (pere) put us here, and when one just doesn't know how to properly answer a vexing question, it is always best to err on the side of one's patron."

Or, if that isn't quite blatant enough for the thick-skulled:

"It doesn't matter if Al Gore has the better arguments--he does. He has the law and common sense on his side. but we find that the Vice President is a right bastard, and therefore has no right to occupy the White House. And you can't do anything about it."

Of course, Justice Antonin Scalia also told it like it was:

"In general, you know, I'm about as strong on states rights as the next guy. In fact, if Brown vs. Board of Education came to my desk today, I'd vote for the Topeka Board every single time. But when it comes to electing a third consecutive democratic administration, all judicial philosophy goes out the window. We've got to get the Hun out of the White House, no two ways about it. And anyway, I'm tired of having to educate new justices as to the right ways of the world."

Chief Justice Rehnquist was a bit more circumspect, drawing from an unlikely source--Lani Guinier:

"The reason the founding fathers set up the electoral college was to escape the tyranny of the majority. The common man is simply too stupid to make an educated choice for president. Every once in a while, the wisest of our nation must step forward to save the people from making a horrible mistake."

Clarence Thomas got a little more personal:

"Al Gore didn't vote for me, and I won't vote for him. Hey Al--I think I see a pubic hair on that beer you're holding!"

The dissenting justices were no less impassioned in the statements of their beliefs. Justice John Paul Stevens spoke for all four dissenters when he wrote:

"My distinguished colleagues in the majority are simply retarded. They think that it's appropriate for the Supreme Court to crown a president. They don't understand that such an action is appropriate only in the most extreme emergencies, say, the day after Pat Buchanan's election."

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg relied on her patrician charm:

"I can't believe I had to cancel a golf date to sit on this case. Tony [Scalia] had no business getting Sandy [O'Connor] and Weenie [Anthony Kennedy] to vote for a stay. It's all very silly."

Justice David Souter had some other concerns:

"How can our president negotiate properly with the Russians when he won't drink? Doesn't anyone remember when Reagan drank Gorby under the table back in 1986 and got that arms limitation treaty? And what about toasts? The president of the United States is going to toast with sparkling apple cider? How embarrassing. I don't see a President Bush possessing proper statesmanship skills."

Justice Steven Breyer probably summed up the feelings of slightly more than half of the nation when he said:

"I simply cannot countenance the idea of having yet another president who can't pronounce the word "nuclear." There's no 'nuke' in nuclear, alright? No 'nuke'! No 'nuke'!"

I hope these excerpts encourage the rest of the nation to delve deeper into the most important Supreme Court decision in history (at least, the most important decision delivered right before 10 p.m. EST on December 12, 2000).

Jon Worley is sad to see the Great Election of 2000 pass into the night. He can only hope that the cameras are on Strom Thurmond when he tries to cop a feel from Hillary Rodham Clinton. Talk about a smackdown.