Stephens: Rationale for Bush v. Gore was “unacceptable”
http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/stevens_rationale_for_bush_v_gore_was_unacceptable/
Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said Thursday night that hes come to the realization that the rationale behind the courts Bush v. Gore decision that effectively decided the 2000 presidential election was really quite unacceptable because it differentiated between so-called hanging chads and dimpled chads. That distinction, he told a gala event for the liberal watchdog group Public Citizen in Washington, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. All votes should have been considered the same way, he explained.
Former Justice Sandra Day OConnor recently expressed regret that the court had taken up the case at all, and Stevens said he was pleased to hear about OConnors shift. The liberal Stevens wrote the dissent in that case.
Stevens, who retired in 2010 and is now 93, was introduced as a rock star at the event and received applause for holding the record for the most dissents written by a single justice a whopping 720. Excerpts from his stinging objection to the Citizens United decision were displayed on large posters around the room.