The Nine . . Souter Wept, Another Regretted . . .?

Question

Jeffrey Toobin has released a new book called "The Nine" in which he reveals that Justice David Souter "wept" over the Gore v. Bush decision in 2000. He also alleges (his opinion based on interviews with those close to the Justices) that at least one other Justice "regretted" the decision. Since this was a 5-4 decision, one vote would have changed the course of US history. Does anyone have any real thoughts (other than the one liners which we all have thrown back and forth many times) as to where the country would be today had that one justice voted the other way?

Wittwwat-Have you read the book?

Answer 1

I'm not sure what you are looking for in terms of "real thoughts" about "where the country would be today" if the Bush v. Gore decision had not happened.

The Bush v. Gore decision is the reason why I decided to stop voting. It is manifestly impossible for me to take a guess "where the country would be" otherwise.

So Souter wept, eh? I think that's interesting.

Souter is a real problem for me to figure out. When he first started, during his very first term on the Court (the 1990-91 term), he was actually quite conservative. Souter voted with Rehqnuist, Scalia, O'Connor, and Kennedy far more often than he voted with Marshall, Stevens, and Blackmun during that first year. And he helped the conservative wing of the Court overturn precedents on some very important matters. But the second year -- right after Clarence Thomas replaced Thurgood Marshall, Souter's voting pattern started to drift a bit closer towards the liberal side. And then, by his fourth year (the 1993-1994 term) Souter was clearly with the more liberal wing of the Court, voting with Blackmun and Stevens more often than with the Rehnquist wing. And Souter has stayed with the liberal wing ever since.

I believe that when that kind of thing happens it's because the individual perceives that the Court is "going too far" in a particular direction. For example, back in the 1960s, Justice Hugo Black, who started out as a liberal, drifted toward the right wing of the Court, and it is clear to me that he did so because he perceived (correctly) that his fellow liberals had become too rambunctious and were going too far with some rather wild and undisciplined interpretations of the Constitution. So likewise, it appears to me that Souter has been thinking that, once Clarence Thomas had joined and had lined up with Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, and Kennedy, the Court has become too conservative and the conservative wing is getting too rambunctious.

One of the conservative five has regrets, eh? Good. It's probably O'Connor, but I wish it were Kennedy who felt some kind of pang of guilt. I hate him. If I ever saw him drowning, I'd throw him an anvil. I know that sounds harsh, but he is the worst member of the Court in my opinion. His writing is the worst. Too many lies; too much bald-faced hypocrisy.

Answer 2

Gore forced the issue into the court system when he should have conceded the election based on the historical value of saving ones face for the "next" election. True, Americans tend to honor incumbents with re-election, but NOT at the Presidential level. ( A lesson lost on Gore as Bush senior lost to Clinton as recent as 1992.)
Jimmie Carter lost his bid for re-election and Lynden B. Johnson was smart enough to know he wasn't going to make it if he chose to run again.
Clinton NEVER got over 50% of the popular vote, yet served twice as our President.
So America got "W" instead of an energized "Gore" in 2004. Nobody wanted a cry baby for President, not even Gore's own party. Hence, they turned to the far left, and put a "moveon.org" up against Bush and got beaten without the aid of the Supreme Court, which by the way interpreted the Constitution correctly in 2000..despite Soutor's weeping.

Answer 3

Just looking at the Bench -- we would not have Roberts and Alito on the Court -- and very likely would have a much more moderate Bench overall.

That's also one of the biggest -- yet most overlooked -- issues in the 2008 race -- who gets to appoint the next Supreme Court Justice. If a hard-line conservative gets the next appointment, the balance of the Bench will skew drastically to the right for the next several decades. Whereas a moderate or even a hard-line civil rights liberal would keep the balance roughly where it is now.

Answer 4

It doesn't get any sadder when the US Supreme Court decides there is no time for Democracy. The Supreme court decided there was not time to count the votes.

Maybe that sounds like a one-liner but is completely true.

What would have happened. We would have determined how to count the votes. We could pretend there was Democracy.

The votes were never all counted. Never. Bush went to court to stop the counts over and over and he succeeded. Even though as Governor of Texas, he signed into law manual recounts.

Answer 5

Toobin's book is fiction.

However; Al Gore got every recount he asked for and was attempting to extend the recount past the legal limit. It was the Supreme Court's responsibility to uphold the law and seal the election.

A Justice that allows his/her personal feelings to affect their decisions is dishonest and should either recuse, resign, or be removed from office.

Answer 6

I don't know since Gore would have gone catatonic on 9/11 and Lieberman is kind of hard to read...

Answer 7

He didn't weep when he gave away my personal property rights!

Answer 8

Socialist hell with terrorists at our doorstep and more 9/11's to remember.

Answer 9

I am glad a few of them have finally seen the light, it leaves us all hope....