Souter cries on the job

[heartsurgeon]

Geez, this doesn't sound like a healthy response to the work place..makes you wonder about psychological problems..

According to Jeffrey Toobin?s new book on the Supreme Court, Justice David Souter nearly resigned in the
Getty Images
wake of Bush v. Gore, so distraught was he over the decision that effectively ended the Florida recount and installed George W. Bush as president.

In ?The Nine,? which goes on sale Sept. 18, Toobin writes that while the other justices tried to put the case behind them, ?David Souter alone was shattered,? at times weeping when he thought of the case. ?For many months, it was not at all clear whether he would remain as a justice,? Toobin continues. ?That the Court met in a city he loathed made the decision even harder. At the urging of a handful of close friends, he decided to stay on, but his attitude toward the Court was never the same.?

for his own health, and the safety of the SCOTUS, I would support his prompt resignation.


If you are going to troll, don't make it so obvious

Anandtech Moderator
Hayabusa Rider.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
Geez, this doesn't sound like a healthy response to the work place..makes you wonder about psychological problems..

According to Jeffrey Toobin?s new book on the Supreme Court, Justice David Souter nearly resigned in the
Getty Images
wake of Bush v. Gore, so distraught was he over the decision that effectively ended the Florida recount and installed George W. Bush as president.

In ?The Nine,? which goes on sale Sept. 18, Toobin writes that while the other justices tried to put the case behind them, ?David Souter alone was shattered,? at times weeping when he thought of the case. ?For many months, it was not at all clear whether he would remain as a justice,? Toobin continues. ?That the Court met in a city he loathed made the decision even harder. At the urging of a handful of close friends, he decided to stay on, but his attitude toward the Court was never the same.?

for his own health, and the safety of the SCOTUS, I would support his prompt resignation.

A Souter resignation would never be something even to be considered by an ethical person until after GWB is no longer in office.

You are asking Souter to compound his original mistake?? Totally depressing and irresponsible.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon


for his own health, and the safety of the SCOTUS, I would support his prompt resignation.

But your not concerned about poor Pres. Bush's health enough to call for his resignation?

LOL, your so full of shit that it's pathetic.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon


for his own health, and the safety of the SCOTUS, I would support his prompt resignation.

But your not concerned about poor Pres. Bush's health enough to call for his resignation?

LOL, your so full of shit that it's pathetic.

:laugh:

:beer:

 

[Atomic Playboy]

After seeing what George and crew have done with the last seven years, one must respect the foresight of Justice Souter to realize how damaging that case was. It effectively placed into office a man who is responsible for sending our debt spiraling out of control while getting us involved in a quagmire of a war in a country we had no business invading. If the surviving four justices who sided with Bush don't cry themselves to sleep every night over the disaster they helped unleash upon the world, then they are devoid of any remnant of that human trait of compassion, so important in doling out justice. I would support their prompt resignations.

 

[heartsurgeon]

You are asking Souter to compound his original mistake??

my only concern is for the well being of Justice Souter, and whether an emotional unstable Justice is appropriate to have sitting on the court. I suppose impeachment proceeding based upon mental heath could be looked into. 2bin jokes about Souter having a "lighter side"

The author relates a story in which Souter played along with a stranger who mistook him for Justice Stephen Breyer. After the person asked him what the best thing about being on the court was, he replied: ?Well, I?d have to say it?s the privilege of serving with David Souter.?

an alternative explaination is that Souter is delusional...

 

[Moonbeam]

Justice O'Connor remarked of this stupendous Supreme Coup blunder, that it was not our finest hour. Somewhere, there should exist a factory that makes urinal mints for the masses, of the five who voted for Bush. These 5 put in place the nations greatest disaster, a catastrophe of unimaginable ramifications and proportions. The people of Florida voted for Gore as the ultimate recount of all the statewide legal votes revealed. There was only one way to fairly decide this case and that was to recount all the legal votes in the state. The court could have so ordered. The stain of this decision will last longer than the stain of a blue dress.

In an honorable world the fate of the five should have been Seppuku, no?

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

You are asking Souter to compound his original mistake??

my only concern is for the well being of Justice Souter, and whether an emotional unstable Justice is appropriate to have sitting on the court. I suppose impeachment proceeding based upon mental heath could be looked into. 2bin jokes about Souter having a "lighter side"

The author relates a story in which Souter played along with a stranger who mistook him for Justice Stephen Breyer. After the person asked him what the best thing about being on the court was, he replied: ?Well, I?d have to say it?s the privilege of serving with David Souter.?

an alternative explaination is that Souter is delusional...

Or an alternative explaination is that he wept for the wellbeing of this country and the questionable survival of 3 co-equal branches in the future due to the undermining of our democracy.

However, I guess only completely unitarian presidency toolboys, such as yourself, have no problem with that.

Thank goodness you'll never be able to work on the heart of this country, it'd be worse functioning than it currently is under Bush.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The people of Florida voted for Gore as the ultimate recount of all the statewide legal votes revealed.

There was only one way to fairly decide this case and that was to recount all the legal votes in the state. The court could have so ordered. The stain of this decision will last longer than the stain of a blue dress.

1. Not true. If it were the various news organizations which indenpendantly validated the election would have been screaming forever. What your repeating is nothing more than an effort to pass off the big lie, repeat it enough times that people think its true. It works for the tin foil hat / black helicopter fringe

2. then blame the Florida Supreme court. The US Supreme Court could not order a new statewide election, they could only void an obviously flawed Florida court ruling.


Just because Bush hasn't met your expectations does not mean that Gore would have either. Its part of the American make up to not like our leaders at all times. While I like some of Bush's policies there are many that make me want to see him out.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Well HS, it just proves Souter is still human, which is a good sign.

If our leadership, elected or not, didn't show some human qualities I think we would not be a country worth living in

 

[Stoneburner]

shivetya, the conclusion overall was that if Gore's selective recount had gone through he would have lost anyway but if there was a statewide recount he would have won.

Also, you're really missing the point when you're equating the bush regime to others in history. This has been an aberration, if not an abortion, of a presidency and Bush is locked in for one of the at least 3 worst presidents in history. He has 18 months or so to lock in that top spot. Sure you could write this off as partisan but the number of conservatives that claim his the Worst Ever is increasing daily.

As for the original topic, heartsurgeon you probably dont understand the law very well but lawyers of all stripes have called the Bush v. Gore decision a travesty. It was baseless and without precedent, and it was so questionable that the Supremes flatly said it would have no precedential value in the future. If the case had been decided on legal grounds it would have been a win for Gore. However, one of the anonymous decision writers flatly said that there would be "harm" to bush to have his legacy questioned if the recount went through (I think people suspect it was Scalia) which of course just begs the question why bush was assumed to be the winner anyway.

 

[nageov3t]

maybe souter was the only one on the court who realized what a travesty Bush v Gore was?

hell, I voted for Bush in that election and I still think that ruling was like the supreme court wiping their ass with the constitution.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The people of Florida voted for Gore as the ultimate recount of all the statewide legal votes revealed.

There was only one way to fairly decide this case and that was to recount all the legal votes in the state. The court could have so ordered. The stain of this decision will last longer than the stain of a blue dress.

1. Not true. If it were the various news organizations which indenpendantly validated the election would have been screaming forever. What your repeating is nothing more than an effort to pass off the big lie, repeat it enough times that people think its true. It works for the tin foil hat / black helicopter fringe

2. then blame the Florida Supreme court. The US Supreme Court could not order a new statewide election, they could only void an obviously flawed Florida court ruling.


Just because Bush hasn't met your expectations does not mean that Gore would have either. Its part of the American make up to not like our leaders at all times. While I like some of Bush's policies there are many that make me want to see him out.

Not for the first time, Shivetya is very wrong. Stoneburner accurately summarizes it.

The media-sponsored independent recount found that by the measure that would matter regarding democracy, who did the voters vote for, Gore won, period.

It is true that the legal situation led Gore to sue in only four counties and that had only those four counties been recounted he'd not have changed the result.

The election had a variety of other things that denied the voters the candidate they elected, some intentional and some not (bogus felon purge list=tens of thousands of blacks denied the right to vote, illegal denial of right to vote to felons from other states who restore the right to vote even after multiple ourt orders, the butterfly ballot, that sent thousands of Gore votes to Buchanan by accident, etc.)

IMO these reports make Souter the most qualified compared to the justices who are happy to have rigged the election for Bush.

 

[Pabster]

Oh, imagine. Souter (a liberal) and O'Connor (another liberal) disappointed with the outcome of the 2000 election. Cry me a river.

Heartsurgeon makes a good point. Perhaps Souter isn't mentally stable enough to continue his duties on the bench. O'Connor got out, after all...

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: loki8481
hell, I voted for Bush in that election

Sure you did.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
shivetya, the conclusion overall was that if Gore's selective recount had gone through he would have lost anyway but if there was a statewide recount he would have won.

Also, you're really missing the point when you're equating the bush regime to others in history. This has been an aberration, if not an abortion, of a presidency and Bush is locked in for one of the at least 3 worst presidents in history. He has 18 months or so to lock in that top spot. Sure you could write this off as partisan but the number of conservatives that claim his the Worst Ever is increasing daily.

As for the original topic, heartsurgeon you probably dont understand the law very well but lawyers of all stripes have called the Bush v. Gore decision a travesty. It was baseless and without precedent, and it was so questionable that the Supremes flatly said it would have no precedential value in the future. If the case had been decided on legal grounds it would have been a win for Gore. However, one of the anonymous decision writers flatly said that there would be "harm" to bush to have his legacy questioned if the recount went through (I think people suspect it was Scalia) which of course just begs the question why bush was assumed to be the winner anyway.[/q



Yes, it certainly does.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Oh, imagine. Souter (a liberal) and O'Connor (another liberal) disappointed with the outcome of the 2000 election. Cry me a river.

Heartsurgeon makes a good point. Perhaps Souter isn't mentally stable enough to continue his duties on the bench. O'Connor got out, after all...

O'Connor was widely considered a moderate member of the bench, she just LOOKS liberal if you're so far to the right you think Hitler was a communist.

And give me a break, like you guys have any business whining about party lines...if Souter was a conservative, he could be brain dead and you'd still support him staying on the bench.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Oh, imagine. Souter (a liberal) and O'Connor (another liberal) disappointed with the outcome of the 2000 election. Cry me a river.

Heartsurgeon makes a good point. Perhaps Souter isn't mentally stable enough to continue his duties on the bench. O'Connor got out, after all...

By that reasoning, then Bush isn't mentally stable enough to continue his duties, right?

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: loki8481
hell, I voted for Bush in that election

Sure you did.

And just how do you know? Many may have voted for the chimp and now have come to see their ways. Bush didn't get elected with his current low 30% ratings so that means that many who voted for the bastard have changed their minds (damn flip floppers).

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
shivetya, the conclusion overall was that if Gore's selective recount had gone through he would have lost anyway but if there was a statewide recount he would have won.

.

wear your tinfoil hat much? Post links from respected news organizations which determined that outcome. It took many variations, none supported by election law, for one organization to make Gore win, but again only if the rules were changed - as in relaxed to the point that how someone voted was up to interpretation.

Gore lost. He tried to steal an election because of stupid advice of his lawyers. The reason probably was because they felt entitled to win and just could not comprehend they didn't.

Regardless, its a past issue and has no bearing on this issue, which is the reaction of one justice. Perhaps we should ask Justices to recuse themselves if they are emotionally charged by the issue at hand?


Are they to rule on law or emotion?

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Craig234
IMO these reports make Souter the most qualified compared to the justices who are happy to have rigged the election for Bush.

Nothing civil with that attitude, and nothing civil should be in the response. :|

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
shivetya, the conclusion overall was that if Gore's selective recount had gone through he would have lost anyway but if there was a statewide recount he would have won.

.

wear your tinfoil hat much? Post links from respected news organizations which determined that outcome. It took many variations, none supported by election law, for one organization to make Gore win, but again only if the rules were changed - as in relaxed to the point that how someone voted was up to interpretation.

Gore lost. He tried to steal an election because of stupid advice of his lawyers. The reason probably was because they felt entitled to win and just could not comprehend they didn't.

Regardless, its a past issue and has no bearing on this issue, which is the reaction of one justice. Perhaps we should ask Justices to recuse themselves if they are emotionally charged by the issue at hand?


Are they to rule on law or emotion?

I don't have any of the old sources considering the matter is nearly 7 years old, but I'll eagerly await the sources you are going to provide.

If you had read what I had written you'd not have responded in such an asinine way. Was he being emotional because of a case because he hated the result or because he felt the Highest Court in the land had sold out the rule of law for political expediency? You're not a lawyer and I doubt you cavort much with lawyers (besides maybe a "wide stance" issue here and there) but most CONSERVATIVE lawyers will tell you that Bush v. Gore was wrongly decided. I don't think that's quite strong enough... Bush v. Gore was an abortion of an opinion that it was officially anonymous and the majority STATED it would have no precedential value.

Either know what you're talking about or stay quiet. You're questioning a man's mental health because of something you fail to understand. I wonder if you or heart surgeon asked Boehner to step down for constantly breaking into tears?

 

[Lemon law]

Unlike the Stain on the little blue dress, it does not take a DNA test to prove who is responsible. And Souter is one of the five. Souter now has second thoughts and feels guilt. Who among us does not have regrets and wished they could replay a decision? Its proved to be a very expensive decision and perhaps the biggest blunder in the history of the USA.

I hardly think Souter will even notice that some at P&N have called on him to resign. He may consult with friends when considering such decisions but I hardly think heartsurgeon is on Souters friends or christmas card list.

Nor can we refight the SC decision that gave the election to GWB.

As far as I know Souter is a staying and I hope he does. End of story.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
Geez, this doesn't sound like a healthy response to the work place..makes you wonder about psychological problems..

According to Jeffrey Toobin?s new book on the Supreme Court, Justice David Souter nearly resigned in the
Getty Images
wake of Bush v. Gore, so distraught was he over the decision that effectively ended the Florida recount and installed George W. Bush as president.

In ?The Nine,? which goes on sale Sept. 18, Toobin writes that while the other justices tried to put the case behind them, ?David Souter alone was shattered,? at times weeping when he thought of the case. ?For many months, it was not at all clear whether he would remain as a justice,? Toobin continues. ?That the Court met in a city he loathed made the decision even harder. At the urging of a handful of close friends, he decided to stay on, but his attitude toward the Court was never the same.?

for his own health, and the safety of the SCOTUS, I would support his prompt resignation.

Would you also support Bush's prompt resignation for his own health reasons and the saftey of the Executive branch?
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2092253&enterthread=y

Of course you wouldn't...because you're a partisan hack.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The people of Florida voted for Gore as the ultimate recount of all the statewide legal votes revealed.

There was only one way to fairly decide this case and that was to recount all the legal votes in the state. The court could have so ordered. The stain of this decision will last longer than the stain of a blue dress.

1. Not true. If it were the various news organizations which indenpendantly validated the election would have been screaming forever. What your repeating is nothing more than an effort to pass off the big lie, repeat it enough times that people think its true. It works for the tin foil hat / black helicopter fringe

2. then blame the Florida Supreme court. The US Supreme Court could not order a new statewide election, they could only void an obviously flawed Florida court ruling.


Just because Bush hasn't met your expectations does not mean that Gore would have either. Its part of the American make up to not like our leaders at all times. While I like some of Bush's policies there are many that make me want to see him out.

Not for the first time, Shivetya is very wrong. Stoneburner accurately summarizes it.

The media-sponsored independent recount found that by the measure that would matter regarding democracy, who did the voters vote for, Gore won, period.

It is true that the legal situation led Gore to sue in only four counties and that had only those four counties been recounted he'd not have changed the result.

The election had a variety of other things that denied the voters the candidate they elected, some intentional and some not (bogus felon purge list=tens of thousands of blacks denied the right to vote, illegal denial of right to vote to felons from other states who restore the right to vote even after multiple ourt orders, the butterfly ballot, that sent thousands of Gore votes to Buchanan by accident, etc.)

IMO these reports make Souter the most qualified compared to the justices who are happy to have rigged the election for Bush.

The election was not rigged by the SCOTUS

The Fla Supreme Court issued a flawed ruling.
The SCOTUSnullified that ruling.
The SCOTUSalso issued a ruling that Fla had to meet their own laws in determining the selection to the electoral college - it could not be put off.

As previous stated by others, had Gore not attempted to cherry pick and asked for a full recount, things might have been different.

People are attempting to blame the SCOTUS fora ruling that they were obligated to make because they refuse to accept the fact that Gore screwed up. They want someone else to blame.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Craig234
IMO these reports make Souter the most qualified compared to the justices who are happy to have rigged the election for Bush.

Nothing civil with that attitude, and nothing civil should be in the response. :|

The post is perfectly civil. Incivility is not defined as opinions you disagree with. What are you on about now?