article about justice stevens in the sunday nyt magazine.

[WalterMitty]

you all should go to nytimes.com  and read it.

i thought it was interesting.  he is one of my favorite justices on the court.

(i still bet he voted bush in 2000)

[Ebowed]

I'd like to read it, but I can't find it on the NYTimes site.  Link?

[Bacon King]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/magazine/23stevens-t.html?_r=2&ref=magazine&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[Ebowed]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/magazine/23stevens-t.html?_r=2&ref=magazine&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

thanks

[HardRCafé]

you all should go to nytimes.com  and read it.

i thought it was interesting.  he is one of my favorite justices on the court.

(i still bet he voted bush in 2000)

That's less likely than Dodd's victory over Hillary.

[Nym90]

you all should go to nytimes.com  and read it.

i thought it was interesting.  he is one of my favorite justices on the court.

(i still bet he voted bush in 2000)

I feel confident that the 9 justices voted the exact same way in both of the Bush V. Gore elections that year.

[WalterMitty]

you all should go to nytimes.com  and read it.

i thought it was interesting.  he is one of my favorite justices on the court.

(i still bet he voted bush in 2000)

I feel confident that the 9 justices voted the exact same way in both of the Bush V. Gore elections that year.

judging by some of his comments, i dont think stevens was a huge fan of president clinton.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

you all should go to nytimes.com  and read it.

i thought it was interesting.  he is one of my favorite justices on the court.

(i still bet he voted bush in 2000)

I feel confident that the 9 justices voted the exact same way in both of the Bush V. Gore elections that year.

judging by some of his comments, i dont think stevens was a huge fan of president clinton.

Gore wasn't Clinton, and that sure doesn't make him see Bush as better.

[WalterMitty]

you all should go to nytimes.com  and read it.

i thought it was interesting.  he is one of my favorite justices on the court.

(i still bet he voted bush in 2000)

I feel confident that the 9 justices voted the exact same way in both of the Bush V. Gore elections that year.

judging by some of his comments, i dont think stevens was a huge fan of president clinton.

Gore wasn't Clinton, and that sure doesn't make him see Bush as better.

of course he wasnt clinton.  he was worse.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Your opinion. Stevens certainly doesn't like Bush, and I have a tough time believing he voted for Dole. And of course, the fact that he ruled in favor of Gore.

[WalterMitty]

Your opinion. Stevens certainly doesn't like Bush, and I have a tough time believing he voted for Dole. And of course, the fact that he ruled in favor of Gore.

his legal ruling and his personal voting history are two completely different things.

read the article, brtd.  stevens certainly doesnt consider himself a 'liberal'

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

you all should go to nytimes.com  and read it.

i thought it was interesting.  he is one of my favorite justices on the court.

(i still bet he voted bush in 2000)

I feel confident that the 9 justices voted the exact same way in both of the Bush V. Gore elections that year.

Obviously the 5 partisan Republican hacks on the court voted for Bush.

Souter is definitely not a liberal, who knows who he voted for. Stevens is only the most liberal member of the court because of the total lack of liberals on the court.

[WalterMitty]

id be willing to bet that souter voted bush in 2000, out of loyalty, if nothing else.

[Ebowed]

Why don't you consider Souter a liberal?

[HardRCafé]

read the article, brtd.  stevens certainly doesnt consider himself a 'liberal'

Neither do half the kids here.

[WalterMitty]

back to bush v. gore.  wasnt part of that decision 7-2?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I don't see how someone could vote for Bush and then rule against him in the decision.

[Ebowed]

I don't see how someone could vote for Bush and then rule against him in the decision.

Legal reasons

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

None of the justices gave a crap about that, it was a completely 100% partisan decision down the line.

[opebo]

None of the justices gave a crap about that, it was a completely 100% partisan decision down the line.

You have just summed up the truth about the Supreme Court in every case, BRTD.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I don't see how someone could vote for Bush and then rule against him in the decision.

Stevens and Souter might be an old school basically extinct kind of Republican where you do the right thing, not what helps your horse the most. Only 5 of the 7 Republicans on the court cared more about appointing Bush President than counting the votes to see who actually won. Of course now that Weicker, Jeffords, Chafee and so on are no longer Republicans, maybe it stops making sense to call them Republicans.

[Ebowed]

BTW, could someone post the text of the article here, for those of us without a NYTimes log-in?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

BTW, could someone post the text of the article here, for those of us without a NYTimes log-in?

You don't need logins in more at the NY Times. That would be great if they were actually as liberal as people think. However, they charge you a liberal ad surcharge if you criticize the Bush administration (MoveOn got charged over twice as much as Giuliani for the same exact type of ad). Here's the link.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/magazine/23stevens-t.html


As for Giuliani, appearantly the really pro troop thing to do is never serve and blame the troops for the missing HMX explosives.

[Bacon King]

back to bush v. gore.  wasnt part of that decision 7-2?

yes, but not the part of the decision that decided the 2000 election. The 7-2 decision was that recounts had to be uniform throughout the entire state, overturning Florida law on the matter. The 5-4 decision was to disallow the continuance of the recounting process.