U.S. Supreme Court Justice Questions His Impartiality in High Court's 2000 Election Ruling

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGB8O8DOP0E.html ^

[hipaatwo]

STANFORD, Calif. (AP) - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer 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 - 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.

"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."

[Jim Noble]

Exactly. The correct decision in that case would have been for the U.S. Supreme Court to refuse to hear the case

The Supreme Court will come to regret, if they are capable of regret, agreeing to hear this nonjusticeable case.

[Constitution1st]

The Supreme Court rarely, if ever, decides not to hear a case; in the past, ir happened much more, and should be happening much more today, but the Supremes abuse their positions.

We need to start impeaching judges that do not uphold their oaths. It is imperative.

[Buckeye Battle Cry]

Stephen Breyer is the absolute worst thing Bush 41 ever did. It is THE stain on his legacy.

One more reason to take down Daschle. He was integral to the effort to con 41 into nominating this Momma's Boy panty waist.

[Constitution1st]

So this means we can expect him to recuse himself if this same problems occurs in 2004? We need to keep this little item close at hand, to put in his face if it ends up at the Supreme Court. I do not think he has an ounce of integrity; he would sell out the USA in a heartbeat. He is an enemy of the Constitution.

[SedVictaCatoni]

The Supreme Court rarely, if ever, decides not to hear a case

You must be joking. The Supreme Court refuses to grant cert thousands of times a year.

[politicsfan]

Stephen Breyer is the absolute worst thing Bush 41 ever did. It is THE stain on his legacy.

Stephen Breyer was appointed by Clinton in 94 not Bush.

[vpintheak]

I was just thinking the same thing.

[RightFighter]

Stephen Breyer is the absolute worst thing Bush 41 ever did. It is THE stain on his legacy.

I think you must have been thinking of David Souter when this thought crossed your mind.

[mhx]

was one of the dissenting votes in the 5-4 decision that canceled a controversial recount in Florida

7-2 decision.

[calex59]

the issue should have been settled on the first recount. There is no provision to keep recounting until you get the answer you want, which of course, what the Dems planned. How many recounts do you suppose we would have gone through if we hadn't finally gone to the courts?

[Poodlebrain]

"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."

This is the most frightening thing I've read in quite some time. I was under the impression briefs were read for their legal arguments, not their predictions of future events. Deciding cases based on their potential impacts, as argued by special interests, instead of applying the law is the definition of judicial activism. I can't believe Breyer would admit his judicial activism publicly.

[Bonaparte]

"Stephen Breyer is the absolute worst thing Bush 41 ever did. It is THE stain on his legacy."

You're thinking of Souter. Breyer was appointed by Clinton in 1994.

[reg45]

Impeach Bryer

[reg45]

Impeach Breyer

[Trailerpark Badass]

Shouldn't he recuse himself from the Court if he is unable to set aside his personal biases?

[hipaatwo]

You'd think so wouldn't you. But hey he's a Dem appointee, which in their world means ABOVE the law.

[epow]

Shouldn't he recuse himself from the Court if he is unable to set aside his personal biases?

Of course he should, but fat chance of that happening. Breyer wants to be ready in case Kerry needs his vote.

[gortklattu]

He's a personal friend of Al Gore's. As such, he should have recused himself.

[Congressman Billybob]

Justices Scalia and Thomas would not have said such a thing about their decision-making on the Court. But you are quite right. If either of them had publicly questioned their impartiality like this, the MSM would have shouted it from the rooftops.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "A Political Addict Prepares for Winter"