Posted on 08/11/2007 7:30:15 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
SAN FRANCISCO - The Supreme Court's most recent term was a difficult one, Justice Stephen Breyer said Saturday, because he found himself on the losing end of several key cases.
"I was in dissent quite a lot and I wasn't happy," Breyer said at the American Bar Association's annual meeting.
Breyer was one of four liberal justices who dissented in cases involving abortion rights, school integration and pay discrimination.
In the school case, in which the court struck down student assignment plans in Louisville, Ky., and Seattle, his frustration bubbled over in a lengthy dissent that was twice as long as any he had written in his 13 years on the court.
Yet with the passage of some time, Breyer said the court's term underscored his faith in the rule of law.
"When I look at it objectively, I think how I wish I'd won, but I also think, not a bad system," Breyer said.
"I'm not going to be in the majority all the time. How I wish I were, but that's the system. That's called the rule of law," he said.
Earlier, addressing another ABA audience, Breyer said the major division in the world is between people committed to resolving disputes through a system of laws and those who are not.
“I was in dissent quite a lot and I wasn’t happy,”
I didn’t have enough room to put up a ‘Waaaa Waaaaa’ alert. :-)
Cheers and here’s to a lot more gooseeggs for the lefties on the court and in Congre$$.
Here's wishing that sentiment is true for most of his tenure.
Fundamentally the man is a fascist who will always rule in favor of the strong against the weak.
Then do the country a favor and quit.
Maybe he should step down while W is still president.
“abortion rights”... and might the little child have any “life rights”?
Poor Stephen wasn’t happy? Too GD bad. I see he wasted no time complaining to the MSM. Maybe they’ve got an opening for him at the World Court.
ROFL!
He wasn't happy, that's so sad. He'd better get used to that, there's going to be a lot more unhappy days. :-)
Well, at least he’s not whining about Stare Decisis.
“I was in dissent quite a lot and I wasn’t happy,”
quit.
He’s not happy now, wait till he stands before the Judgment Seat and all the souls of those he murdered.
If you don’t like it, quit.
Bush 1 & Gore 0
Bush 1 & Kerry 0
To the victor go the spoils... now don't go away mad... just go away and cry in your Cheerios with your turn-coat "partner" David Souter.
Louder: “QUIT!”
Isn’t Breyer the pinhead that wants America to be more like Europe and Africa? I think it’s time for the boy to pack it in and go “spend more time with the family.”
A Clinton appointee, of course. Just like that extremist harridan who used to be a big wig with the ACLU, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. They are two of the most anti-constitution jurists in American history.
It's ok. He has former Justice O'Connor to keep him company. She's always been obsessed with the idea of turning America into a socialist state on the european model. Our Constitution forbids it but that never stopped her from demanding it in her public statements and even in her written opinions. She's even screeching about it in her (thank God!) retirement.
It is a frightening thing that the nation is one justice away from discarding the Constitution completely in favor of helter skelter rulings based on the chic political correctness of the day and camoflaged in arcane “penumbras” and arbitrary, mumbo jumbo-laden “updates” of the intent of the framers.
In other words, we are one justice away from chaos.
Wouldn't want you to be unhappy. Why not quit?
It's a terrible thing when a person is unable to think, only feel; it's a dangerous thing when it's a SC Justice.
WELL.....if your that “unhappy” leave, and don’t let the door hit you on the a$$ on the way out, and remember it’s only going to get worse......for you.....hehehehe.......:)
Justice Breyer did not HAVE to dissent, you know.
In fact, if he held true to the principles he was SUPPOSED to have brought to the Supreme Court, he would return to using the logic of the law as it is set forth in the Constitution, and not go off on these “one-eyed logic” tactics to find a right or interpretation that is at odds with a couple of hundred years of interpretation and the body of established opinion that have arising in earlier rulings on the meanings of the Constitution.
And just because the ruling made at some earlier time has been generally adopted, does not mean the reasoning used then is valid today. Otherwise, we would still be saddled with the Dred Scott decision.
He’s a real whiner.
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.