Justice Stevens: Rationale for Bush v. Gore was “unacceptable”

[DonViejo]

The former Supreme Court justice speaks out on John Roberts and the case that decided the 2000 election

BY ALEX SEITZ-WALD

Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said Thursday night that he’s come to the realization that the rationale behind the court’s 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 O’Connor recently expressed regret that the court had taken up the case at all, and Stevens said he was “pleased to hear” about O’Connor’s 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.

The former justice also praised Chief Justice John Roberts as “intellectually honest” and an able jurist, even though the two disagree on most things. Stevens happened to be at the court on the day the Obamacare decision came down and he said he predicted that morning that Roberts would write the majority opinion to uphold the law. “I was confident that the chief, regardless of his own personal views — and I’m sure he was not happy about the outcome — that he would follow what the law required. And I was right on that one,” Stevens said.

###

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/stevens_rationale_for_bush_v_gore_was_unacceptable/

[Warpy]

1. I think his dissent will be read in law schools

as long as this country hangs together--and maybe beyond.

It was scathing.

[Gman]

2. I've always suspected the majority in the case also knew

The logic was completely flawed. Why else would the majority opinion have explicitly stated that the case could not be used as precedent?

[antigop]

3. exactly. nt

[Art_from_Ark]

5. The Equal Protection Clause was abused to provide "equal protection"

to only one party in the case.

[Gman]

8. My reaction was WHAT?

That kind of convoluted logic is why they specified the case could not be used as precedent. It was too FUBAR.

[BlueDemKev]

4. Thank you, Justice Stevens for your years of service of the High Court...

...and even more so for hanging on until the Bush II presidency ended before you retired!

God bless you, sir.

[SunSeeker]

6. A great man and a great jurist.

[lunatica]

7. I'm glad he's speaking about it

Someone has to start putting the unspeakable into words. Let's have a real debate about this. A knock-down-drag-out-debate!