Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Questions His Impartiality in High Court's 2000 Election Ruling
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGB8O8DOP0E.html ^

Posted on 10/24/2004 3:13:36 PM PDT by hipaatwo

STANFORD, Calif. (AP) - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer said he wasn't sure he was being truly impartial when the high court was asked to settle the disputed 2000 presidential vote in Florida. Breyer - named to the court 10 years ago by President Clinton - was one of the dissenting votes in the 5-4 decision that canceled a controversial recount in Florida, sending Republican George W. Bush to the White House instead of Democrat Al Gore.

"I had to ask myself would I vote the same way if the names were reversed," Breyer said Saturday at Stanford University Law School. "I said 'yes.' But I'll never know for sure - because people are great self-kidders - if I reached the truthful answer."

Breyer, a 1959 Stanford graduate, made the comments at a seminar on judicial activism with California Chief Justice Ronald George and federal Court of Appeals Judge Pamela Rymer.

The three said most jurists depend on the rule of law and legal precedent to make decisions - guidelines they acknowledged are subject to interpretation.

"Precedent and rule of law. They don't answer everything but they do give us a clue," Breyer said. "Judges whom I've met by and large try to find the answer. They come to different conclusions, but they try."

Breyer also said many jurists, himself included, take into account contemporary matters raised by the public, citing briefs from organizations defending affirmative action.

"Do I read the newspapers and try to see which way the political wind is blowing?" he said. "No. But we do decide through briefs that are submitted. ... They are people trying to tell us of the impact of our decisions in their bit of the world."


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 10/24/2004 3:13:36 PM PDT by hipaatwo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo

It would be nice if the Justice referred to the Constitution once in a while. He took an oath to it.


2 posted on 10/24/2004 3:15:34 PM PDT by shrinkermd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo
An excellent reason why the Court should not have heard Bush v. Gore to begin with.

The Florida mess should have been resolved by Congress, as the Constitution provides.

3 posted on 10/24/2004 3:16:57 PM PDT by Jim Noble (FR Iraq policy debate begins 11/3/04. Pass the word.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo

Of course he wasn't impartial. Liberal Judges are liberals first and seek to make their mark by "making" law in their own way.

He's apparently the last one to figure he's wasn't impartial in his 2000 election decision, and even then, he's still not sure.


4 posted on 10/24/2004 3:18:58 PM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #5 Removed by Moderator

To: Jim Noble
The Florida mess should have been resolved by the Florida Legislature or, failing that, Congress, as the Constitution provides.
6 posted on 10/24/2004 3:21:56 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters but PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

At least he's honest :)


7 posted on 10/24/2004 3:24:44 PM PDT by tgiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo; imintrouble
"Do I read the newspapers and try to see which way the political wind is blowing?" he said. "No. But we do decide through briefs that are submitted. ... They are people trying to tell us of the impact of our decisions in their bit of the world."
The truth is that liberalism is defined by the negative, superficial imperatives of journalism. And that, therefore, reading newspapers or listening to "the news" is a suspect activitiy for jurists, who subject themselves thereby to the blandishments of positive or negative PR.
Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate

8 posted on 10/24/2004 3:26:59 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters but PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tgiles

an honest jerkoff is still a jerkoff.


9 posted on 10/24/2004 3:26:59 PM PDT by satchmodog9 (Murder and weather are our only news)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: tgiles

After he's caught with his hand in the cookie jar.


10 posted on 10/24/2004 3:27:20 PM PDT by pipecorp ("never know where you're going till you get there." the philosopher Insectus Harem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
The Florida mess should have been resolved by Congress, as the Constitution provides.
==================================

I must respectfully disagree on that point, Jim. It would not have gotten that far. I had spoken with the office of Speaker of House Foley who was prepared to convene a special session of the legislature if the Supreme Court did not undo what the RAT partisan Florida Supremes had done. Fortunately, the GOP had the votes and would have given the electors to Bush as they had the authority to do.

11 posted on 10/24/2004 3:27:33 PM PDT by doug from upland (Michael Moore = a culinary Pinocchio ---- tell a lie, gain a pound.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo
"I had to ask myself would I vote the same way if the names were reversed,"

Sure I would (wink, wink).

Liberals consider idealogical positions much more important than the Constitution.

12 posted on 10/24/2004 3:27:53 PM PDT by mcenedo (lying liberal media - our most dangerous and powerful enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

Exactly. The correct decision in that case would have been for the U.S. Supreme Court to refuse to hear the case. The Florida legislature would have certified that state's electors, or else no Florida electors would have been certified at all -- in which case the U.S. Congress would have elected the President (since neither candidate would have had the required 270 electoral votes).


13 posted on 10/24/2004 3:31:59 PM PDT by Alberta's Child (I made enough money to buy Miami -- but I pissed it away on the Alternative Minimum Tax.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Victoria Delsoul

"Check this out" ping.


14 posted on 10/24/2004 3:33:00 PM PDT by Alberta's Child (I made enough money to buy Miami -- but I pissed it away on the Alternative Minimum Tax.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion; doug from upland
I don't think the Florida Legislature could have resolved the mess without help from Congress.

The Fla Supreme Court was SO out of control, I think they would have ordered Harris to certify a Gore slate, and the Legislature would surely have appointed a Bush slate.

The Joint Session in January 2001 would have received two sets of Florida EVs, and would have had to chhose-which they would have done, in Bush's favor.

The USSC taking up a political question was a big mistake, IMO.

15 posted on 10/24/2004 3:33:03 PM PDT by Jim Noble (FR Iraq policy debate begins 11/3/04. Pass the word.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: tgiles

I think if he were really honest he would have said, "my votes on the Supreme Court have nothing to do with the law or the constitution. I simply vote for the most liberal position."


16 posted on 10/24/2004 3:36:53 PM PDT by yarddog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo

If scalia or thomas said this It would be the lead story tonight on 60 minutes.


17 posted on 10/24/2004 3:38:15 PM PDT by TheRedSoxWinThePennant (Remember the Red Sox won the pennant on George Bush's watch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

According to Foley's office, they believed that they had the ability to solve it and the Florida Supremes would not have been able to intervene. Perhaps they were wrong. Theoretically, the USSC could have refused to hear it, the Legislature would have given the electors to Bush, the Florida Supremes could have exceeded their authority, and then what? What if the Florida Supremes ordered the electors to be given to Gore? It seems that it would then have to go to the USSC. All hell would have broken loose if the Florida Supremes ordering electors to be given to Gore, the USSC refusing to hear it, then a Republican congress overturning them in awarding the electors. I think that would have caused riots in the streets.


18 posted on 10/24/2004 3:39:59 PM PDT by doug from upland (Michael Moore = a culinary Pinocchio ---- tell a lie, gain a pound.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
I think our Judges are hopelessly corrupt. They see an opening to overrule the voice of the people and do it. That's not going to last much longer. They seem to believe that they will ride roughshod over the majority of our citizens, but in the end, the people will rule. But what to do to clean out ideologues, and who decides? Can we put it to the voters?
19 posted on 10/24/2004 3:40:03 PM PDT by JesseJane (~On November 2, keep in mind what mattered most on 9-11.~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
"The Fla Supreme Court was SO out of control, I think they would have ordered Harris to certify a Gore slate, and the Legislature would surely have appointed a Bush slate."

And the Legislature's would have been chosen. NO state supreme court has authority to have any say on the slates of electors. Only the state legislature does.

20 posted on 10/24/2004 3:41:31 PM PDT by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Exactly. The correct decision in that case would have been for the U.S. Supreme Court to refuse to hear the case

The Supreme Court will come to regret, if they are capable of regret, agreeing to hear this nonjusticeable case.

21 posted on 10/24/2004 3:42:10 PM PDT by Jim Noble (FR Iraq policy debate begins 11/3/04. Pass the word.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
The Supreme Court rarely, if ever, decides not to hear a case; in the past, ir happened much more, and should be happening much more today, but the Supremes abuse their positions.

We need to start impeaching judges that do not uphold their oaths. It is imperative.

22 posted on 10/24/2004 4:06:44 PM PDT by Constitution1st (Never, never, never quit - Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo

Stephen Breyer is the absolute worst thing Bush 41 ever did. It is THE stain on his legacy.

One more reason to take down Daschle. He was integral to the effort to con 41 into nominating this Momma's Boy panty waist.


23 posted on 10/24/2004 4:09:54 PM PDT by Buckeye Battle Cry (The Measure of a Man is the Willingness to Accept Responsibility for Consequences of his Acts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo

So this means we can expect him to recuse himself if this same problems occurs in 2004? We need to keep this little item close at hand, to put in his face if it ends up at the Supreme Court. I do not think he has an ounce of integrity; he would sell out the USA in a heartbeat. He is an enemy of the Constitution.


24 posted on 10/24/2004 4:15:17 PM PDT by Constitution1st (Never, never, never quit - Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Constitution1st
The Supreme Court rarely, if ever, decides not to hear a case

You must be joking. The Supreme Court refuses to grant cert thousands of times a year.

25 posted on 10/24/2004 4:17:31 PM PDT by SedVictaCatoni (<><)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye Battle Cry
Stephen Breyer is the absolute worst thing Bush 41 ever did. It is THE stain on his legacy.

Stephen Breyer was appointed by Clinton in 94 not Bush.
26 posted on 10/24/2004 4:26:39 PM PDT by politicsfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd

I was just thinking the same thing.


27 posted on 10/24/2004 4:27:28 PM PDT by vpintheak (Liberal = The antithesis of Freedom and Patriotism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye Battle Cry
Stephen Breyer is the absolute worst thing Bush 41 ever did. It is THE stain on his legacy.

I think you must have been thinking of David Souter when this thought crossed your mind.

28 posted on 10/24/2004 4:31:07 PM PDT by RightFighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo
was one of the dissenting votes in the 5-4 decision that canceled a controversial recount in Florida

7-2 decision.
29 posted on 10/24/2004 4:46:21 PM PDT by mhx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

the issue should have been settled on the first recount. There is no provision to keep recounting until you get the answer you want, which of course, what the Dems planned. How many recounts do you suppose we would have gone through if we hadn't finally gone to the courts?


30 posted on 10/24/2004 4:57:16 PM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo
"Do I read the newspapers and try to see which way the political wind is blowing?" he said. "No. But we do decide through briefs that are submitted. ... They are people trying to tell us of the impact of our decisions in their bit of the world."

This is the most frightening thing I've read in quite some time. I was under the impression briefs were read for their legal arguments, not their predictions of future events. Deciding cases based on their potential impacts, as argued by special interests, instead of applying the law is the definition of judicial activism. I can't believe Breyer would admit his judicial activism publicly.
31 posted on 10/24/2004 5:00:25 PM PDT by Poodlebrain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye Battle Cry
"Stephen Breyer is the absolute worst thing Bush 41 ever did. It is THE stain on his legacy."

You're thinking of Souter. Breyer was appointed by Clinton in 1994.

32 posted on 10/24/2004 5:22:35 PM PDT by Bonaparte (twisting slowly, slowly in the wind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo

Impeach Bryer


33 posted on 10/24/2004 5:24:39 PM PDT by reg45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo

Impeach Breyer


34 posted on 10/24/2004 5:24:58 PM PDT by reg45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo

Shouldn't he recuse himself from the Court if he is unable to set aside his personal biases?


35 posted on 10/24/2004 6:44:22 PM PDT by Trailerpark Badass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Trailerpark Badass

You'd think so wouldn't you. But hey he's a Dem appointee, which in their world means ABOVE the law.


36 posted on 10/24/2004 6:48:03 PM PDT by hipaatwo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

Comment #37 Removed by Moderator

To: Trailerpark Badass
Shouldn't he recuse himself from the Court if he is unable to set aside his personal biases?

Of course he should, but fat chance of that happening. Breyer wants to be ready in case Kerry needs his vote.

38 posted on 10/24/2004 6:53:47 PM PDT by epow ( This just in: No WMD found in goose's nest.... Kerry lied and geese died..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo

He's a personal friend of Al Gore's. As such, he should have recused himself.


39 posted on 10/24/2004 7:04:41 PM PDT by gortklattu (check out thotline dot com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheRedSoxWinThePennant
Justices Scalia and Thomas would not have said such a thing about their decision-making on the Court. But you are quite right. If either of them had publicly questioned their impartiality like this, the MSM would have shouted it from the rooftops.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "A Political Addict Prepares for Winter"

40 posted on 10/24/2004 7:08:19 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob (Visit: www.ArmorforCongress.com please.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: JesseJane
They seem to believe that they will ride roughshod over the majority of our citizens, but in the end, the people will rule.

I'd have to take the position that there are appropriate sets of circumstances where courts are empowered to overrule the will of the majority, be it a body of legislature or the voters themselves, because fundamental rights are protected, and where the majority votes to usurp them anyway, courts can rightly reverse that.

There is a lot of abuse of that power though, and it seems like we see it in Oregon on a regular basis, where our mostly leftist Supreme Court can be counted on to overturn each and every good law (or even constitutional amendments) passed by the voters that somehow limits the power of the government, based on imagined effects to rights that do not exist.

This year we will be passing what we call Measure 36, which will put in the state constitution that a marriage is between one man and one woman. I fully expect our Supreme Court to declare this constitutional amendment unconstitutional, just like they have all the others.

41 posted on 10/24/2004 8:03:34 PM PDT by Clinging Bitterly (Most 1973 typewriters didn't, and in 2004 this tag line still won't superscript!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
"Do I read the newspapers and try to see which way the political wind is blowing?" he said. "No. But we do decide through briefs that are submitted. ... They are people trying to tell us of the impact of our decisions in their bit of the world."

I see, never mind the Constitution but what people Democrats are trying to tell them.

42 posted on 10/24/2004 9:05:06 PM PDT by Victoria Delsoul (Kerry's total disregard for the troops' safety is of no consequence to him - Vietnam, and now Iraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo
Breyer also said many jurists, himself included, take into account contemporary matters raised by the public, citing briefs from organizations defending affirmative action.

Right! And precisely the reason why scumbags like Breyer can never again be confirmed to the highest court in the land as long as there are at least 40 Republican Senators. The Constitution should never be "interpreted" based on the chic political correctness of the day, contrary to what Breyer and other liberal judicial activists believe.

43 posted on 10/24/2004 9:15:31 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Victoria Delsoul

Yes, that's a very good point.


44 posted on 10/24/2004 10:20:20 PM PDT by Alberta's Child (I made enough money to buy Miami -- but I pissed it away on the Alternative Minimum Tax.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Dave in Eugene of all places

We have the same abuse by our 9th Circuit here in Crapifornia. And the lawyers benefit either way.


45 posted on 10/25/2004 6:54:41 AM PDT by JesseJane (~On November 2, keep in mind what mattered most on 9-11.~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson