JUSTICE WILLIAM REHNQUIST: And is it critical to your argument that we try to appear impartial?  I do not see the necessity.  The media will report us as impartial and judicious regardless of our actual ruling.

JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: DAMN RIGHT!  The media isn't going to let the truth get in the way, so long as we support THEIR candidate, and overturn the Florida Supreme Court's opinion.

OLSON: No, I think that it is, particularly in this case, where you have huge corporations, that it might be difficult to completely obscure the truth.  Too many uncontrollable variables.  And certainly it is true that corporations can employ their own processes to suppress this information, including terminating journalists who step out of line, and, as our friend Mr. Mellon-Scaiffe did, offering huge bribes to individuals to come forward with stories damning to the Democratic party and its leaders.

SCALIA: Is it your theory, in other words, that although these media conglomerates are huge corporations with many employees, that they have a means to suppress any information proving our bias and animus?

OLSON: No, we do not contend that they can suppress all of it ... In the context of this case, we're saying that they can suppress a great deal, and minimize the damage caused by what does leak, and…

SCALIA: Mr. Olson .. I know you rely very heavily on media interests to control the news product accessible by Americans, but even if they didn't, it is not as though there is a higher court the Democratic Party can appeal this to.  I mean, it is not as though they can say, "That's not fair!  We're taking this to the Supreme Court!"

[LAUGHTER]   

OLSON: Well, I still believe it would be in all of our interests to try to at least make this look good.  Even though we all know how you are going to rule, it is our position that you should go through the motions, for the PR benefits that would create.  If one looks at, for example, at the impeachment process in 1998, the media was clearly on the side of the impeachers.  And yet, they were still unable to secure support for impeachment from a majority of Americans, because the process was seen as partisan .  Your Honors need only consider the House Impeachment Managers, some of whom were defeated in this election cycle.  We cannot afford to let this happen again.  You must give your imprimatur of legitimacy to The Dummy's Presidency.  Otherwise, we will have serious issues in the next election.

REHNQUIST: What's the timetable here?  We stopped the counting, like you asked, to make sure that the clock ran out on any chance the Vice President had to get the ballots counted manually…

OLSON: And we really appreciate that…

[LAUGHTER]

REHNQUIST: That's right, and we are willing to work within your timetable now.  So, do we need to delay our decision?  On this matter?  Until after the 18^th?

OLSON: Well, I think that, Your Honors, if you rule against everything that could allow the votes to be counted, and you do so quickly, that would also be really good for our guy.

REHNQUIST: It may well be, and I, you know, I will grant you, for the sake of argument, that since we are going to rule that your guy gets to be President no matter who the people actually voted for, that the timetable is moot.

OLSON: Well, I am hoping to convince you that you should wait at least a few days before ruling so people don't realize that you wrote your opinions before you even heard any of the arguments in this case.

REHNQUIST: You've convinced us certainly that there is a danger of being seen as the partisan whores we are.

OLSON: It is, we submit, an utter necessity that you appear to be impartial and judicious.

REHNQUIST: But, Mr. Olson, we're back to the… didn't we agree that that makes no real difference since our decision cannot be gainsaid by any other government body?

OLSON: That's correct.  (continued on next page)

ACTIVIST ALERT:  Grab Bush's Electors
NEXT:  MORE REPORTS FROM THE FRONT