Breyer Questions Impartiality in 2000

[qwerty]

Breyer Questions Impartiality in 2000 (AP)

Mon Oct 25, 8:43 AM ET 

STANFORD, Calif. - U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) Justice Stephen Breyer (news - web sites) 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 (news - web sites) — 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 (news - web sites).

"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."

[Alcon]

He's pretty much saying that he's not 100% sure that he could ever make a truly impartial decision as a human with biases. I welcome his honesty.

[A18]

A state's courts are not above its legislature.

[Democratic Hawk]

How did the Supreme Court actually split in 2000?

5: Rehnquist, Day O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas

4: Stevens, Souter, Bader Ginsburg and Breyer

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Dave

[emailking]

That's correct.

[Will F.D. People]

How did the Supreme Court actually split in 2000?

5: Rehnquist, Day O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas

4: Stevens, Souter, Bader Ginsburg and Breyer

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Dave

I just want to point out that there were two decisions: a 7-2 decision saying that what Florida was doing was wrong, and a 5-4 decision saying it was too late to try again.

[elcorazon]

How did the Supreme Court actually split in 2000?

5: Rehnquist, Day O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas

4: Stevens, Souter, Bader Ginsburg and Breyer

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Dave

I just want to point out that there were two decisions: a 7-2 decision saying that what Florida was doing was wrong, and a 5-4 decision saying it was too late to try again.

Actually that's not quite right either; there were quite a few opinions and there was no opinion in which 7 of the 9 actually agreed.

[Bogart]

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/12/13/scotus.election.05/

Actually, the Court split 7-2 over the question of whether to reverse the decision of the Florida Supreme Court on whether some counties must be recounted to determine voter intent. The 5-4 split was over the remedy. They voted 5-4 to halt the manual recounts.

[J. J.]

What say you to Justice Olsen?

[Schmitz in 1972]

Good for him. Personally, I don't think a single justice on the bench was not acting partisanly to some extent in Bush v. Gore. Some like Breyer (kudos to him for being upfront, albeit a little late) and Souter acted less partisanly as illustrated by their joining of the majority in ruling that the Florida recounts were unconstitutional (this was the 7-2 vote).