John Paul Stevens: Bush Appeal To Supreme Court Was 'Frivolous'

[ba1614]

You know it's a slow news day when someone wants to rehash this worn out shit.

It's not rehash when a former Supreme Court Justice who was involved in the decision finally makes a personal public statement about it.

You mean tries to sell a book about it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

For anyone interested, the following link (including several related links) is worth viewing:

Gore Won Florida

Bush had more votes...but Gore won?

 

[Lakhota]

You know it's a slow news day when someone wants to rehash this worn out shit.

It's not rehash when a former Supreme Court Justice who was involved in the decision finally makes a personal public statement about it.

uh, yeah, it is.

definitely a slow news day when anybody solicits stephens opinion on anything.

the overwhelming reaction to this was probably *who?* followed by *shrug*

Do you feel the same way about Justice Stephen Breyer?

 

[Amelia]

For anyone interested, the following link (including several related links) is worth viewing:

Gore Won Florida

Wasn't true on Page 1.

Not true on Page 2.

 

[Amelia]

You know it's a slow news day when someone wants to rehash this worn out shit.

It's not rehash when a former Supreme Court Justice who was involved in the decision finally makes a personal public statement about it.

You mean tries to sell a book about it.

 

[ladyliberal]

We could relitigate the 2000 US presidential election, but I'll stick to the original forum topic.

When Stevens refers to the Bush legal team's claim as "frivolous" he means that he finds their legal argument not only incorrect but obviously so. Obviously, the claim wasn't frivolous in the sense of having little chance of success- it did succeed.

Stevens' characterization of the claim as frivolous did not prevail in the Supreme Court, but his side did command four votes. Criticizing the analysis, if not the result, of the majority ruling in Bush v. Gore places Stevens not merely with three of his fellow justices (and with the Florida Supreme Court) but with a firm majority of legal scholars analyzing the case after the fact (Bush v. Gore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

 

[del]

It's not rehash when a former Supreme Court Justice who was involved in the decision finally makes a personal public statement about it.

uh, yeah, it is.

definitely a slow news day when anybody solicits stephens opinion on anything.

the overwhelming reaction to this was probably *who?* followed by *shrug*

Do you feel the same way about Justice Stephen Breyer?

i will when he retires.

why, is he butt hurt about bush's stay as well?

don't any of these people own a calendar?

 

[Mad Scientist]

who btw got a d in nat science.

And who flunked out of Divinity School?

 

[Liability]

Upon further reflection, it sure is nice (and historically true, to boot) that President Bush won Florida.

But, it's not exactly news.

Oh, and Justice Stevens is a yutz.

 

[Conservative]

No surprise to me! Al Gore was cheated and robbed.

get over it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frivolous because Bush won

 

[Amelia]

Frivolous because Bush won

Totally agree.

I bet he would have felt differently if he had been in the majority.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

By Luke Johnson

Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens writes in his new memoir, Five Chiefs, that the George W. Bush campaign's 2000 appeal to the United States Supreme Court over the Florida recount was "frivolous" and never should have been granted.

He recalls bumping into Justice Stephen Breyer at a Christmas party and the two having a brief conversation about the Bush application to halt the recount by issuing a stay. "We agreed that the application was frivolous," he writes. "To secure a stay, a litigant must show that one is necessary to prevent a legally cognizable irreparable injury. Bush's attorneys had failed to make any such showing."

By a five-to-four vote, the court granted the stay. "What I still regard as a frivolous stay application kept the court extremely busy for four days," he writes. He adds that no justice has ever cited the opinions that provided the basis for their ruling.

Indeed, the court -- unusually -- limited its decision "to the present circumstances," meaning that it did not want it to become a precedent.

More: John Paul Stevens: Bush Appeal To Supreme Court Was 'Frivolous'

Really??? The Huffington Post bringing something up that happened 11 years ago is frivolous. It's been decided already. It's beginning to look like someone's been holding onto a burdening discussion, much rather shared from the view of a long reclining sofa.