lawless courts & revisionist history
lesl at UDEL.EDU
Fri Dec 29 13:47:07 PST 2000
I write to comment on Frank's statement that use of the term "partisan" might
benefit from some tightening. As is common knowledge, both Stevens and Souter
were GOP appointments (and very likely voted for George W) yet voted against
the Bush-Gore 5. This is not so much a partisan split as a split between the
Court's conservative and moderate segments. Perhaps the best way to
characterize the split is to say that the strong conservativism of the five
caused them to more strongly want George W elected, so strongly that their
desire concerning the outcome powerfully shaped the way they saw the issues.
At least 2 of the 4 may well have voted contrary to their partisan inclinations
(and I do not refer to Breyer&Souter but to Souter and Stevens).
Frank Cross wrote:
> ... Second, the
> breakdown of votes is obviously partisan.
More information about the Conlawprof