Supreme Court Justice David Souter was so distraught by the Bush v. Gore decision that finally ended the Florida vote-recounting debacle that he nearly resigned.
Oh, if only he had! That would have given President Bush another justice to place on the court. Placing conservatives on the SCOTUS is the one really good thing President Bush has done.
If you do not wish to donate directly to Catholic Relief Services, to avoid getting on a mailing list, you may use the Network for Good site, through the button below, and your donation will be made anonymously to CRS, and you can get a year-end receipt for charitable donations from the Network for Good.
| DJIA | 10297.44 | ||
| NASDAQ | 2193.57 | ||
| S&P 500 | 1087.24 |
Which begs the question: why did he almost resign? It could be argued that Bush v Gore was wrongly decided, and two of the justices in the minority agreed that George Bush has a substantial due process complaint, but simply disagreed with the remedy.
But that Justice Souter was devastated by the decision, the only decision with which he disagreed so violently that it was reported that it made him consider quitting, I have to ask: was it the decision, or the fact that it meant George Bush would become president?
If it was the latter (and I suspect that it was), then Mr Souter should have recused himself from participation, because he was too obviously in favor of Vice President Gore to take a fair decision.
Dana: it could also be because he thought that some of those who were on the other side had betrayed their core legal principles in order to support their preferred candidate (I’m not saying they *had*, just that there is a plausible argument that they had, which Souter could have believed), resulting in him feeling as though the integrity of the institution had been betrayed.
That’s the charitable reading, at any rate.
What a weiner! The whole point of the Supreme Court is they’re supposed to make the tough decisions, to be the final authority on matters legal in this country. If he can’t handle being put in this position, then he should have quit, and maybe become a professional tiddlywinks player instead.
A: Your suggestion is a most charitable one!
My first comment was written before I left work. I knew that there were two justices who agreed that Governor Bush had an equal protection claim but disagreed on the remedy; it turns out that Justice Souter was one of them! His dissenting opinion is linked, and the point is made in part C.
What a weiner! The whole point of the Supreme Court is they’re supposed to make the tough decisions, to be the final authority on matters legal in this country.
Presumably a Supreme Justice has a certain commitment to the rule of law and, indeed, justice. I imagine seeing an ideal one has spent your entire lifetime committed to raped and pillaged by your immediate peers for short-term partisan political advantage is an upsetting event.
Some people take American idealism seriously, the fools.
Let’s see if I have this straight. Picking and choosing selective districts in Florida for recounts to attempt to change the outcome of a national election was not attempted for “short-term partisan political advantage” by the democratic party? And the later recounts made by private media firms that said Bush actually won those districts and the outcome would have been the same, has no bearing on the obvious correct decision made by the Supreme court, and is not a commitment to the rule of law?
So, if the SC had made their decision in the other direction, (even though Bush had won the state) would be some how justifiable?
Great argument Pho.
I expect all judges to have a commitment to the rule of law, which is why so many of the more liberal decisions on the court appear to me to be abominations. It’s funny, the same people who would say Souter had a “commitment to the rule of law,” which lead to his unhappiness with the Bush v. Gore decision think finding new rights in old words is a “commitment to the rule of law.”
For the record, I was unhappy with the holding in Bush v. Gore, that there simply wasn’t enough time to recount the votes. But I was also unhappy with the contortions the Florida Supreme Court had gone through to try to help Gore.
I addressed this in my review of Bill Sammon’s book “At Any Cost: How Al Gore tried to Steal the 2000 Election”. The point is, the Electoral College had to make a decision by mid December, the clock was running out, and somebody had to stop the nonsense and see to it that a winner was declared. In the absense of any other legitimate authority, that responsibility thus fell to the US Supreme Court, which, regardless of what the Florida Court thought, had the authority to render their decisions (wholely in favor of Gore) moot. Somebody had to cut the Gordian Knot, so to speak, or else Gore and Co. would have kept doing recount after recount well into the Spring of 2001.
Itr’s interesting that liberals, who heretofore had treated Supreme Court decisions like Gospel (Roe v Wade, banning prayer in school) suddenly changed their tune when it was their ox being gored. Justice? Idealism? Or just partisan politics as usual on the part of the Libs?
Sharon: funny, I have the same response to some conservative decisions.
I’m thinking, for example, of Bell v. Twombly, which appears to have abolished the notice pleading standard set by Conley and replaced it with something else — mostly out of a concern that notice pleading placed too high a cost on potential defendants, and a desire to shift that cost back onto plaintiffs.
That may or may not be a reasonable change; but it’s a policy decision which should have been made by the legislature. (Of course, you could make the same charge against Conley: it was a policy decision which should have been made by the legislature … but surely the fact that the court chose to appropriate the legislature’s power half a century ago doesn’t justify them doing the same thing now!)
Oh, don’t worry about a thing. Bush has packed the court with enough stiffs to ensure that the country will be screwed over for years to come.
Let’s see if I have this straight.
All you need to know about the case is contained in one simple sentence from the decision:
“Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities”
How rank does a judicial decision have to be for the authors to say “By the way – this can’t be used as a precedent”?…
Your “republic” is rotten from the inside, like a hollow tree. The modern Republican commitment to democracy over partisanship can be summed up fairly simply:
i, The modern Republican supports Bush vs Gore as just because the Republican Party says it was.
ii, The modern Republican supported the Iraqi elections as “legitimate” because the Republican Party says they were.
iii, The modern Republican supports overturning the Iraqi Parliament now because the Republican Party says it is a good idea.
iv, The modern Republican will defend each of those positions with high drama and ranting about “democracy” and “freedom” – only to drop the rhetoric immediately circumstances cnahge the partisan advantage.
And the Democrats ain’t that much better.
I asked in Justice Stevens sez, what happens when you get what you want, but you don’t get it in a manner of which you approve?
Both sides use the courts to achieve things which are the proper province of the legislature, but which they cannot get passed in the legislature. Conservatives would point to Roe v Wade and the Massachusetts same-sex marriage decision, but liberals could just as easily point to Seattle School District.
I think back to the ridiculous split-the-difference votes of Justice O’Connor, which yielded different Affirmative Action decisions in Gratz v Bollinger and Grutter v Bollinger, (the University of Michigan cases) which were then followed by a Michigan state referendum which outlawed all racial preferences by the state and state agencies. And it isn’t dificult to see that the Massachusetts same-sex marriage decision led to many state laws and referenda to prevent judges from taking what ought to be legislative decisions.
Too many of our judges think that it is somehow their job to decide what is just, in their view, rather than to apply the law as written by our democratically elected representatives.
Both sides use the courts to achieve things which are the proper province of the legislature, but which they cannot get passed in the legislature.
Feel free to name the other Supreme Court decisions where they said “BTW, you can’t use this principle we’re pulling out of our asses as a precedent…”
I mean, hell, people all over the world recognised that as a sure sign of corruption.
Where is your law degree from, Pho? I think people all over the world would recognize that “penumbras and emanations” is legalese for “pulling a decision out of their asses,” too. The reason the SCOTUS said their decision was limited to that case was because the circumstances were unique in U.S. history. It’s pretty difficult to make the argument that virtually every electoral problem should wind up in front of the Supreme Court for review. But I’m sure you will.
As for your tirade against Republicans:
1. The modern Republican Party supported Bush v. Gore because Al Gore’s egomaniacal pursuit of the presidency demanded that the Court step in and stop the stupidity so that a president would be inaugurated as required by the Constitution. Democrats excoriated Bush v. Gore because the Court didn’t allow endless recounts until Gore scraped up enough votes to win.
2. The Republican Party supported free elections in Iraq because that is the way democracies are supposed to work. Democrats and Leftists from outside this country had an agenda that Iraqis were incapable of democracy and therefore should have been left under Saddam’s boot.
3. Some Republicans support dissolving the Iraqi parliament because it is so dysfunctional that it isn’t able to perform its duties. Democrats and Leftists outside this country sneer and howl (again) that Iraqis are somehow inferior and unable to perform in a democracy.
4. Republicans defend their positions through logic and debates on democracy. Democrats and Leftists from outside this country bash attempts to improve any corner of the world in which America has an interest while displaying their own naked self-interest.
The problem for you, Pho, is I don’t see anything better from your country. Why don’t you spend time worrying about that instead of spewing stupidity about ours.
The reason the SCOTUS said their decision was limited to that case was because the circumstances were unique in U.S. history.
Nope. The reason stated, and I quote, was “…for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities”. The circumstances, as with any particular case, are unique – however the principles being applied in any case should be stated clearly.
They didn’t state what those principles were, they didn’t state what the complexities were which would prevent a precedent being set, and they didn’t even attempt to justify the statement about no precedent.
You’re talking out of your ass. Again.
1. The modern Republican Party supported Bush v. Gore because Al Gore’s egomaniacal pursuit of the presidency demanded that the Court step in and stop the stupidity so that a president would be inaugurated as required by the Constitution.
Who was the petitioner, Sharon?
2. The Republican Party supported free elections in Iraq because that is the way democracies are supposed to work. [...] 3. Some Republicans support dissolving the Iraqi parliament because it is so dysfunctional that it isn’t able to perform its duties.
Define “sovereign parliament”, Sharon.
Do *you* support the US dictating that the “elected soverign” parliament of Iraq be dissolved by fiat of the United States because the “elected sovereign” parliament of Iraq is not doing what the US whants that “elected sovereign” parliament to do?
Ah, the superior sneer of the left winger. An inadequate substitute, I guess, for a soul or conscience. CS Lewis aptly described your type as “Men without chests”, craven nihilists who sneer at everything because they themselves stand for nothing.
Democrats excoriated Bush v. Gore because the Court didn’t allow endless recounts until Gore scraped up enough votes to win.
Some did, not all.
I was perfectly content with the result in the case, because I thought the results were within the electoral system’s margin of error, and so *any* result was fine; we couldn’t actually tell to a sufficient degree of certainty what the voters wanted.
But I was deepy troubled by the decision, because it seemed that all nine justices were abandoning their judicial principles to get the political outcome they wanted. I think it was bad law, and the little bit of legal training I’ve had since then hasn’t changed my mind.
Democrats and Leftists from outside this country had an agenda that Iraqis were incapable of democracy and therefore should have been left under Saddam’s boot.
I think that’s a slight mischaracterization: many Democrats and leftists were of the opinion that the US lacked the authority under international law to overthrow a sovereign government and create another, and that only the UN, or a revolutionary movement indigenous to Iraq, had the authority to do that.
Some Republicans support dissolving the Iraqi parliament because it is so dysfunctional that it isn’t able to perform its duties. Democrats and Leftists outside this country sneer and howl (again) that Iraqis are somehow inferior and unable to perform in a democracy.
They might be. I think the jury is still out on that question: will Iraq’s democracy survive without our army to support it? We won’t know that until it either falls or has stood on its own two feet for a time. The odds strike me as not being good: democracy has not flourished in that part of the world. But I also don’t think it’s our decision to make, whether or not to dissolve the Parliament; it’s a decision properly reserved to the Iraqis themselves.
Aphrael wrote:
Depends on how you look at it: was it bad law only because the SCOTUS got involved, or was it also bad law when the FLSC was involved as well?
From my perspective, Vice President Gore was attempting to use the Florida courts, where he had an advantage (six of the seven FLSC justices were Democrats, and the seventh was an independent) to manufacture new votes; when the Palm Beach County voting officials change counting criteria in the middle of the count, because they weren’t finding enough new votes for Mr Gore, I knew, immediately, that the process was corrupt, and was corrupt in favor of the Democrats — and I was not the only Republican to see it that way.
Seven SCOTUS justices agreed that Governor Bush had a valid equal protection claim; two of the seven (Justices Souter and Breyer) disagreed with the majority as to the proper remedy.
It was a decision I wish had never needed to be taken; I wish that George Bush’s victory had been so clear-cut as not to invite legal intervention. But in the end, we are much better off that George Bush was elected President.
Nope. The reason stated, and I quote, was “…for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexitiesâ€. The circumstances, as with any particular case, are unique – however the principles being applied in any case should be stated clearly.
Oddly, your reading problem surfaces. What do you consider to be “complexities” if not circumstances which rendered the situation unique? The point was to prevent Democrats (and possibly Republicans) from trying to force the judiciary to regulate every election.
Who was the petitioner, Sharon?
You don’t know? What is the relevance of this question? Is your “reasoning” that because the Republicans filed suit that they were somehow wrong to notice attempts by the Democratically-controlled FLSC and the Democratically-controlled districts in question to find enough votes to declare Al Gore the winner? Maybe where you come from, justice is a bit different. In this country, when you notice one side so corrupt and out of control that they attempt to steal an election, you have the right to call them on it.
Define “sovereign parliamentâ€, Sharon.
Why? I don’t agree with trying to dissolve the Iraqi parliament. I think it is up to them to solve their own problems. I don’t, however, see every failing of the Iraqi government as being a reflection on the U.S. Unlike you.
Do *you* support the US dictating that the “elected soverign†parliament of Iraq be dissolved by fiat of the United States because the “elected sovereign†parliament of Iraq is not doing what the US whants that “elected sovereign†parliament to do?
Nope. I do support the idea that America doesn’t have to remain in a place where the government doesn’t support our policies. But then, I notice critics of the U.S. tend to think we are supposed to support dysfunctional governments as long as we don’t have a national interest there.
But I was deepy troubled by the decision, because it seemed that all nine justices were abandoning their judicial principles to get the political outcome they wanted. I think it was bad law, and the little bit of legal training I’ve had since then hasn’t changed my mind.
I was dissatisfied with the second decision because I thought the arguments (“we don’t have time”) was extremely weak. It seems to me the Court had lost patience with the deceitful behavior of the FLSC and, rather than politely telling them to count the votes properly, they did it in a ham-handed fashion.
And I agree with Dana: we are far better off with George Bush as president than Al Gore.
I think that’s in large part right. The real villains here were the 7 Justices on the Florida Supreme Court, who were, in essence, just making up the state’s election laws on the fly, to the almost exclusive benefit of the Gore campaign. If I recall correctly from Bill Sammon’s book, there was an earlier US Supreme Court decision that went 9 – 0 against the Florida court, who proceeded to ignore it completely and went right on with approving Gore’s vote counting schemes.
Sharon, I’m going to
stealborrow some of your comments from #16 (As for your tirade against Republicans) and may post them to my site later. I will credit and link you to the appropriate sites. The context of your responses to our resident alien was excellent and to the point. Thanks!Rov