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."
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.
I see, never mind the Constitution but what people Democrats are trying to tell them.
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.
Yes, that's a very good point.
We have the same abuse by our 9th Circuit here in Crapifornia. And the lawyers benefit either way.
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.