Politicspoliticsnotoriousrbgginsburgbushgoretodissentsbushvgore

Sun Jul 12, 2015, 06:42 PM

Justice Ginsburg: Bush v. Gore Taught #SCOTUS Liberals to Stick Together on Dissents

The Bush v. Gore opinion was a five to four opinion. This case has influenced how some dissents are written http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74235

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Thursday provided an unusual peek behind-the-scenes at how the court did its work this term.

It’s true, she said, that the liberal justices tried to be disciplined about having their majority opinions and even their dissents, speak with one voice, in one opinion. “The stimulus,” she said, “actually began many many years before … when the court announced its decision in Bush v. Gore.” That was the decision in which the Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, put an end to the dispute over the 2000 election returns in Florida, resulting in George W. Bush becoming president.

The time pressure in the case was excruciating, with the court issuing an opinion just a day after oral arguments, and, as Ginsburg put it, the four liberal members of the court “were unable to get together and write one opinion.” Indeed, each wrote a separate dissent, resulting in such confusion that, as she pointed out, some early press accounts, erroneously reported that the decision was 7-2, not as it in fact was, 5-4.

After that experience, “we agreed,” said Ginsburg that “when we are in that situation again, let’s be in one opinion.” It’s important, she added, because the public and the lower courts need to know what the court has done or not done. And neither lawyers nor judges will stick with opinions that go on and on.

16 replies, 1064 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 16 replies Author Time Post
Reply Justice Ginsburg: Bush v. Gore Taught #SCOTUS Liberals to Stick Together on Dissents (Original post)
Letmypeoplevote Jul 2015 OP
FORD Jul 2015 #1
MeatSandwich Jul 2015 #7
nolidad Jul 2015 #2
Letmypeoplevote Jul 2015 #10
nolidad Jul 2015 #11
Letmypeoplevote Jul 2015 #12
nolidad Jul 2015 #13
Letmypeoplevote Jul 2015 #14
nolidad Jul 2015 #16
Banshee 3 Actual Jul 2015 #3
Ms.Eloriel Jul 2015 #5
Banshee 3 Actual Jul 2015 #6
graham4anything4HC45 Jul 2015 #4
nolidad Jul 2015 #8
graham4anything4HC45 Jul 2015 #9
Starbux Jul 2015 #15

Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Sun Jul 12, 2015, 06:57 PM

1. Too bad it didn't teach Sandy O'Connor to put her country ahead of her own selfishness.

 

She didn't want to retire in a Democratic administration, so she decided that overthrowing an election was a better idea. I know she regrets putting the Chimp in office, but it's way too late for that now. The damage is done. And who knows if it can ever be undone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FORD (Reply #1)

Sun Jul 12, 2015, 10:49 PM

7. How very *civil* of you. If that was said concerning a Democratic President, you'd be up in arms.

I know she regrets putting the Chimp in office

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Sun Jul 12, 2015, 07:11 PM

2. Boy how sad

They are just supposed to rule on the constitutionality of cases brought before them, not how to gang up to write a dissent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #2)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 07:59 AM

10. Dissents are vital part of the judicial process

Yesterday's dissents becomes tomorrows majority opinions. The Bush v. Gore case confused some who keep on claiming that it was a 7 to 2 opinion because the dissents were not clear. See
http://www.discussionist.com/?com=view_post&forum=1015&pid=425307 The four sane members of the court learned from this and are not writing more intelligent dissents that will not be as confusing to some

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Reply #10)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 08:28 PM

11. Boy many of you on the left

are just so overloaded with hate. Anyone who disagrees with some of you are just insane, dirt, trash, or ****************************************************************************************** (I left the commas out).

Too sad! The left seems to be losing control of civility ever since Reagan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #11)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 10:02 PM

12. Is Antonin Scalia Off His Rocker or Just a Sore Loser?

Dissents are an established part of the law and the operations of the judicial branch. There is an artv form to do effective dissents. Lately Scalia has been showing signs of senility and his dissents are getting really sad. This is a well written analysis of Scalia's temper tantrum that is well written and explains ow not to dissent http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/is_antonin_scalia_off_his_rocker_or_just_a_sore_loser_20150713

Raging in dissent for himself, Alito and his silent wingman Justice Clarence Thomas, Scalia sounded indeed like a character drawn from the pages of “Alice in Wonderland.” “Words no longer have meaning if an exchange that is not established by a state is ‘established by the State,’ ” he scolded. The majority’s holding to the contrary was little more than “interpretive jiggery-pokery,” he admonished in one sentence, while terming it “pure applesauce” in another.

His dissent in Obergefell on gay marriage the following day, which was joined by Thomas, was even more unhinged. It began with the implausible assertion that the “substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me.” Coming from the pen of someone who in the past has compared homosexuality to murder, polygamy and animal abuse, and equated homosexuals with drug addicts and prostitutes, the claim not only seemed untrue, but also could be taken as a clinical sign of dissociation.

Demonstrating that the majority’s opinion was in fact of the utmost personal importance, he branded the opinion as “a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power.” Lamenting the end of federalism and states’ rights, he charged that “ system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.”....

Unable to break with his obsessions about same-sex marriage, Scalia once more excoriated the Obergefell majority in open court during the final session of the term. In a free-wheeling rant delivered while he was supposed to be reading from his concurring opinion in Glossip, according to Slate.com columnist Dahlia Lithwick, he shouted, “Last Friday, five justices of this court took the issue” of same-sex marriage away from the voters.

Still, even if these are the ravings of a jurist in need of psychiatric attention, they signal something more profound for the future of American constitutional law. Simply put, Scalia’s hyper-dramatic antics and fulminations signify the demise of the foundational legal principles he has championed throughout his extensive career: the theories of “originalism” and “textualism.”...

With his churlish response to Kennedy, the long arc of Scalia’s tenure is now clearly bending toward travesty and, even more importantly, isolation. He’s become the judicial equivalent of the proverbial old man screaming at the neighborhood kids to get off his lawn. He may be crazy or angry or a little of both. What matters most is that he’s on his way to becoming irrelevant.
I am not the only one commenting on Scalia's poor erratic and sad behavior.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Reply #12)

Tue Jul 14, 2015, 07:02 PM

13. Well even if his dissents are lucid and I am not saying this one wasn't

Anyone on the left is going to say he is senile and off his rocker. They can't just disagree, they have to go after the person!! Poor poor form.

But he wrote his own dissent! The left is ganging up to co write. Once again it is not enough to just disagree, the left has to set up for future crushing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #13)

Tue Jul 14, 2015, 07:23 PM

14. Scalia has been showing signs of senility for some time now

I love the way that conservatives ignore the facts

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Reply #14)

Wed Jul 15, 2015, 05:47 AM

16. You are a doctor??

Tell you what I will take a senile Scalia over a rational Ginsberg!! She told an audience that if she were forming a govt. she would not use the American Constitution!!! The very document that she is to defend by oath!!! HMMM Wonder if I can trust her to determine the constitutionality of laws!!!!

http://dailysignal.com/2012/02/08/justice-ginsburg-i-would-not-look-to-the-u-s-constitution/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Sun Jul 12, 2015, 07:14 PM

3. Interesting so instead of country, Fringe LW says screw that and vote party

But then hardly a surprise they hate the USA

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Banshee 3 Actual (Reply #3)

Sun Jul 12, 2015, 08:53 PM

5. Oh God. What garbage.

Why don't you edit it? I'm sure you can cram a few more totally irrelevant, illogical and misguided RW talking point lies in there. For example -- don't you think it must be Obama's fault?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ms.Eloriel (Reply #5)

Sun Jul 12, 2015, 09:03 PM

6. I use standard LW dogma in describing the opposing side as you and many other LW do

So do pretend you are Shocked, Shocked like Captain Renault

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Sun Jul 12, 2015, 07:48 PM

4. I love and support Justice Ginsburg, who was appointed by the Clinton's and they got her confirmed

and she would gladly nominate all her choices as such.

Whereas Bush nominated and would do so again Sam Alito after the bad decision of 2000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything4HC45 (Reply #4)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 06:13 AM

8. `Get over your Bush derangement syndrome

As liberals love informing the world: Scotus is far more wiser than us so when they rule that settles it!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #8)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 06:23 AM

9. the first ruling 7 to 2 sent it back to Florida for final say in Florida. The 5 to 4 said time over

The 5 to 4 never should have been added, and it was the reason Souter left the court in protest the
minute he could when President Obama took office.

Justice cried on 12/12/2000 and they say David Souter was in tears. So was I

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Tue Jul 14, 2015, 07:29 PM

15. SC selected a President, overturning democracy in America.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Politicspoliticsnotoriousrbgginsburgbushgoretodissentsbushvgore