John Paul Stevens: Bush v. Gore Decision Rationale Was 'Unacceptable'

[CreekDog]

32. What are you going on about? Stevens voted AGAINST the decision which put Bush in the White House

why are you commenting ignorantly?

no one is forcing you to post on a topic you know nothing about, why are you?

there's nothing wrong with not knowing how each Justice voted on Bush v. Gore, *if you don't actually comment* on that vote!

jeez, before you embarrass yourself more, read some information about the decision:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore

In brief, the breakdown of the decisions was:

Seven justices (the five Justice majority plus Breyer and Souter) agreed that there was an Equal Protection Clause violation in using different standards of counting in different counties.[3]

Five justices agreed that December 12 (the date of the decision) was the deadline Florida had established for recounts (Kennedy, O'Connor, Rehnquist,[31] Scalia and Thomas in support; Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter and Stevens opposed).

Three justices (Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas) argued that the Florida Supreme Court had acted contrary to the intent of the Florida legislature. However, four justices (Breyer, Souter, Ginsburg, and Stevens) specifically disputed this in their dissenting opinions, and the remaining two Justices (Kennedy and O'Connor) declined to join Rehnquist's concurrence on the matter.

Justice Stevens' dissent (joined by Justices Breyer and Ginsburg) concluded as follows:[37]

What must underlie petitioners' entire federal assault on the Florida election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make the critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their position is wholly without merit. The endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.