The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Justice Kennedy on Originalism and Bush v. Gore
Interesting tidbits in an interview with Adam Liptak
In advance of the release of his memoir, Life, Law & Liberty, retired Justice Anthony Kennedy sat down with Adam Liptak of the New York Times for an interview.
The book discloses (or perhaps confirms) that Justice Kennedy drafted the Court's opinion in Bush v. Gore. In the Liptak interview, Kennedy acknowledges the problems with opinions produced under time pressure:
In his book, Justice Kennedy disclosed that Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist had assigned him the majority opinion in Bush v. Gore, the 2000 decision that delivered the presidency to President George W. Bush. It was "a close case" and "a close call," he wrote, and he concluded that the majority opinion should be unsigned, which it was.
The court issued its decision, by a 5-to-4 vote on the key issue, the day after the case was argued. Justice Kennedy said that sort of quick action, like the court's recent spate of emergency rulings, was not ideal.
"The court just has to do the best that it can," he said. "But it does need time."
Justice Kennedy also offered these comments on originalism:
In the interview, Justice Kennedy said he had reservations about originalism, which seeks to interpret the Constitution as it was originally understood and has become the intellectual core of the conservative legal movement. Originalism is a starting place, the justice said, but it cannot be the whole story.
"The framers were not so self-assured that they thought they knew every component of liberty," he said. "The meaning of liberty is disclosed over time."
He acknowledged that his view empowered judges. "So what is it that prevents the court from ruling on every interesting and important and essential political and social issue of our times?" he asked, suggesting that there must be some constraints.
Asked to describe those constraints, he said, "You just have to, in case by case, decide whether or not this is absolutely essential to liberty."
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
Asked to describe those constraints, he said, "You just have to, in case by case, decide whether or not this is absolutely essential to liberty."
What a useful working standard for a judge to apply in interpreting the Constitution: his own personal feelings. We traveled a long way from Benjamin Cardozo's writing that prohibiting the government from re-trying a defendant who had been acquitted of a crime was not "of the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty" to Anthony Kennedy's writing that gay marriage was.
So Kennedy, who retired near the end of Trump’s term but with enough time for Trump and the Republican senate to confirm his replacement, voted for an authored one of the most partisan opinions in history and delivered the presidency to the Republicans?
That Kennedy was the real author of the opinion has been pretty much common knowledge since it was issued. It is neither particularly well-written nor well-reasoned, typical hallmarks of a Kennedy opinion. Rehnquist could not get Kennedy or O'Connor to sign on to his opinion that the Florida courts were unconstitutionally contravening the Florida legislature, so the resultant opinion was the cost of getting five votes.
"one of the most partisan opinions in history"
Reminder: The Court was 7-2 on the EPC violation, agreeing that the manner of the recount ordered by the Florida supreme court was unconstitutional.
It was only 5-4 on the remedy, the minority thinking there was still enough time for Gore to slip in one last flip of the coin.
You genuinely don't know what you're talking about, and like to keep repeating that, don't you?
There's ... oh, hell, there's actually a whole history that's interesting about this, but it's not even worth explaining. It is germane to the topic (Justice Kennedy) so for the actual honest brokers and people who want to learn...
Originally, Kennedy tried to write that eight justices agreed on the EPC- which pissed off Souter so much that he wrote a separate dissent so he couldn't be roped in.
Kennedy used that language to make it appear that the Court was in agreement, but if you look at the Court, they aren't in agreement, at all, on the EPC "violation." It was an artifact of three (then two) Justice trying to get Kennedy to agree to their side with a quick remand, rather than substantively agreeing on a violation.
But this requires actual legal analysis and thought, and isn't reducible to a lie that is easily repeatable by Brett whenever the topic comes up.
Protip- If I say, "Brett agrees with me," that doesn't mean that he does, even if I say it. You get that, don't you? Just checking.
Was there or was there not a SC ruling 7-2 that it as an EP violation?
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000/00-949
Look, I genuinely have read Bush v Gore multiple times, (Though it's been a while since the last, and, no, I don't plan to do it again just to humor you.) and, yeah, it WAS 7-2 on the EPC violation. This is not even controversial, save in the tautological sense that a few obsessives deny it.
Oyez: Bush v. Gore
"Noting that the Equal Protection clause guarantees individuals that their ballots cannot be devalued by "later arbitrary and disparate treatment," the per curiam opinion held 7-2 that the Florida Supreme Court's scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional. Even if the recount was fair in theory, it was unfair in practice. The record suggested that different standards were applied from ballot to ballot, precinct to precinct, and county to county. Because of those and other procedural difficulties, the court held, 5 to 4, that no constitutional recount could be fashioned in the time remaining (which was short because the Florida legislature wanted to take advantage of the "safe harbor" provided by 3 USC Section 5). ..."
Now, go ahead and tell me that Oyez is an extreme right-wing source.
You are certainly correct on all counts, and, frankly, I was quite shocked and baffled by the reply you received. There's no need to rely on anyone's summary of the case, as anyone capable of understanding the English language can read Part III of Souter's dissent (joined by Breyer) on p. 134 of the opinion, in which he clearly states there is an Equal Protection violation.
I thought it was 7-2 on the EPC violation. Can you expand on why it wasn't (because I want to learn).
My google fails me but I read a article a while back that Breyer and Souter had floated the idea of a 9-0, yes there is an EPC violation, let's quickly send it back for more counting with these standards.
Their idea quickly fell apart, yet they were boxed in by their initial position of an EPC violation. IOW, they really weren't fully behind the idea but it lingered in their opinion as a result of their compromise proposal.
Kennedy wrote the per curiam opinion saying it was 7-2 (he originally wrote it was 8-1, until Souter blew up at him). But ... that wasn't actually true.
Let's ignore what actually happened, and try to understand why people keep repeating this. Why? Because it's what the per curiam opinion says! In other words, it's what Kennedy wrote.
The per curiam opinion states as follows:
"Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a remedy. See post, at 134 (SOUTER, J., dissenting); post, at 145-146 (BREYER, J., dissenting). The only disagreement is as to the remedy."
Cool story, bruh. But here's the problem- that's just Kennedy writing for five justices. That what FIVE JUSTICES (specifically, Kennedy) are saying is true- but four Justices do not agree with what he just said. They don't join that part of the opinion.
You see this a lot in opinions- "The dissent actually agrees with me, they just don't know it." The thing is, most of us are smart enough not to turn this into ... you know, the truth.
How do we know? READ THE ACTUAL OPINIONS.
They count Ginsburg as agreeing with them, right?
Well, Ginsburg authored her own dissent. Did you read it? It's part II. How does she start? "I agree with Justice Stevens that petitioners have not presented a substantial equal protection claim ..."
So let's be clear- Ginsburg is counted by Kennedy as a Justice who totally agrees with the EPC analysis, even though she says, specifically, that there is no EPC claim. Weird, huh?
It's maddening. READ THE ACTUAL DISSENTING OPINIONS. Just because Kennedy says seven justices agree DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY DO. Because there aren't seven justices agreeing with that part, and if you actually read what the other justices wrote, they didn't agree.
It's a stupid canard, repeatedly told, and it's tiring. But you have to actually read the friggin' opinions- the whole opinion. Which means the dissents. And the ONLY reason it exists was because people were trying to get a majority and the opinion was quickly released.
It's something people like Brett like to tell themselves to avoid acknowledging that it was a 5-4 opinion.
To make this point specifically clear, here's the pull quotes from the other justices who TOTALLY AGREED except for the remedies...
Ginsburg (see above)
Breyer- This is the start of his dissent..
"The Court was wrong to take this case. It was wrong to grant a stay. It should now vacate that stay and permit the Florida Supreme Court to decide whether the recount should resume."
Yep. Right on board with the EPC analysis, just a slight difference in remedy. Cool story, Kennedy.
Souter-
The Court should not have reviewed either Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd., ante, p. 70 (per curiam), or this case, and should not have stopped Florida's attempt to recount all undervote ballots, see ante, at 102, by issuing a stay of the Florida Supreme Court's orders during the period of this review, see Bush v. Gore, post, at 1046.
Stevens-
The Constitution assigns to the States the primary responsibility for determining the manner of selecting the Presidential electors. See Art. II, § 1, cl. 2. When questions arise about the meaning of state laws, including election laws, it is our settled practice to accept the opinions of the highest courts of the States as providing the final answers. On rare occasions, however, either federal statutes or the Federal Constitution may require federal judicial intervention in state elections. This is not such an occasion.
That's the four dissenters. THEY ALL SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. Tell me again how, you know, they were totes on board?
Well, Ginsburg authored her own dissent. Did you read it? It's part II. How does she start? "I agree with Justice Stevens that petitioners have not presented a substantial equal protection claim ..."
Yet - the prior opinion was 7-2. Did Ginsberg change her mind? Did Ginsberg mistake what her vote was when the SC ruled the first time?
I have seen many accounts, since the beginning, and this is the first that I'm hearing it was ever "8-1." Maybe it happened. I haven't read everything about the case, obviously.
As noted in a reply, Souter and Breyer are the supposed "two" in the 7-2. Souter was in despair that he couldn't craft a compromise. His dissent might have originally been written as one, maybe. Once Kennedy and/or O'Connor refused to go along, he should have just let Stevens do the talking. Once he got nothing, talking about how it "seems" like there might be an EPC problem just helps the other side for no good reason.
Ginsburg, to toss it out there, was going to make her dissent even stronger, and then apparently her pal Scalia tweaked her, and she took out a comment.
Not wanting to take a case doesn't necessarily mean that you think -- if you are forced to decide -- the majority is wrong. It does suggest Souter/Breyer didn't think it was some red light flashing equal protection violation.
One thing that is interesting to me, which is often skipped over, is that Breyer joins Stevens' dissent in full. Stevens at one point talks in the alternative, so that might help explain how Breyer can also join Souter, but that often is skipped over.
I thought it was Breyer and Souter who made it 7-2 in the EPC violation per Part III of Souter's dissent:
To be sure, Souter lambastes the majority by saying the Court should not have granted cert because the EPC issue might have been resovled by Florida courts or Congress. But, I'm not seeing how that takes away from having 7 votes that the status quo in the cert granted by SCOTUS violated the EPC.
"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the electoral college."
"The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another."
It is an odd holding. First, it is unclear why the 14A wouldn't apply to a state held tourism award for best marketing campaign. A person has no right to the award, but once a contest is granted on equal terms, then the state cannot arbitrarily and disparately deny the award. It would seem that SCOTUS should decide every state function.
Second, the Plaintiff was George W. Bush, not one of his voters. If the injury was that a vote wasn't counted because of arbitrary reasons, then we had the wrong Plaintiff. Someone who alleged to have voted for Bush but did not have his vote counted because of an arbitrary or disparate reason would have a constitutional injury.
But, having someone else's Gore vote counted because of a manual recount does not seem to cure your "injury" of a properly cast Bush vote, nor does the fact that you failed to properly cast a Bush vote give you a federal remedy because some other guy's Gore vote is being given a second look.
The complaint seems to be one of two things: a) I properly cast my Bush vote yet it is being diluted because of a manual recount uncovering more Gore votes, or 2) I improperly cast my Bush vote but the Gore vote that was improperly cast will be counted and mine won't.
In either of those instances, the Court must be ruling that any electoral procedure must comply with some general rule of fairness supervised by it. There was no allegation that Florida discriminated based on any protected class or that it was somehow cheating---the whole complaint was that it just wasn't doing things fairly.
In my view, you had a plaintiff with no standing arguing for a third party right to general fair procedures in any government process. While that would be a welcome result for a lot of people, if applied generally it would make everything a federal case---if your kid didn't win the spelling bee, then go to federal court about the rules.
Partisan?
Overruling the Florida SC partisan rulings that Florida should disregard state law in the election contest of the election is partisan?
fwiw - the florida district court ruled correctly
The view from the gallery is that originalism is the construction of what is, and the struggle is in the construction. However, the federal government of today shows a cancerous growth, which means what was created can be destroyed too.
The Necessary and Proper Clause is the evil force of chaos.
That's what judges do.
They decide on a case-by-case basis, using their judgment. They have various criteria, but ultimately, there is a human side to judging. Tests like "of the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty" are not exactly free from personal variance.
court issued its decision, by a 5-to-4 vote on the key issue
The Court issued a 5-4 decision. Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer dissented. They did not "concur in part."
JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE GINSBURG and JUSTICE BREYER join, dissenting.
JUSTICE SOUTER, with whom JUSTICE BREYER joins, and with whom JUSTICE STEVENS and JUSTICE GINSBURG join as to all but Part III, dissenting.
JUSTICE GINSBURG, with whom JUSTICE STEVENS joins, and with whom JUSTICE SOUTER and JUSTICE BREYER join as to Part I, dissenting.
JUSTICE BREYER, with whom JUSTICE STEVENS and JUSTICE GINSBURG join except as to Part I-A-l, and with whom JUSTICE SOUTER joins as to Part I, dissenting.
If you read Souter's dissent, he clearly does "concur" that there was an Equal Protection violation, but disagreed as to the remedy (this is the "Part III", joined by Breyer, but not Stevens and Ginsberg).
531 U.S. 98, 134 (2000) (Souter, J., dissenting) (citations and parenthetical omitted).
The florida election law at the time required the remedy (for the contest which is the challenge after the state certification) had to apply on a statewide basis. The protest is the portion of the challenge that can be done at the county/precinct level before the sec of state certification). Because the contest is after the sec of state certification, what ever remedy must be applied across the state - ie the recount of undervotes or over votes has to be done statewide. The district court ruling was that the plaintiff (gore) did not provide evidence that would put the election in doubt based the required statewide criteria. The evidence provided was only for those four counties which is not the entire state. The Florida SC ruling conflicted with the state election law.
A justice regularly formally "concurs in judgment" to show that they partially agree with the majority. When this occurs, it would be more accurate to say it was a "7-2" Court or whatnot.
Instead, Souter, as people who read the dissents will note, "dissented." His dissent might in some fashion agree* with the majority, but ultimately, he chose to dissent.
He noted early on:
As will be clear, I am in substantial agreement with the dissenting opinions of Justice Stevens, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer.
It is interesting that an alleged "7-2" Court (on half the battle) includes two justices who "substantially agree" with the other two dissenters (sic). If he wanted to "concur," he could have said so. Instead, he substantially agrees with Stevens and Ginsburg.
(Readers of the dissents will also note Breyer joins Stevens' dissent in full.)
==
* See loki's comment for some of the context & how Souter thinks it "appears" and "suggests" -- the tentative nature probably went into his preference that the case was not even taken
I thought "concur in the judgment" meant I agree with the result but disagree with the precedent-setting reasoning. Since Souter and Breyer did not agree with the result they could not concur in the judgment even if they agreed with part of the opinion.
They can "concur in part" to show they agree with part of the reasoning. So, for example, they can agree that a person had standing while disagreeing on the merits.
"The judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion."
This is the holding of the opinion. If you agree with that you either say nothing or concur with additional reasons why you support this result (like Rehnquist, Thomas, and Scalia did).
If you disagree with this result, then you dissent. If, like Breyer and Souter, you agreed with some of the reasoning and some of the statements, but disagreed with this holding, it is still a dissent.
"Retired Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the Supreme Court’s 2015 opinion declaring a right to same-sex marriage, recalled on Wednesday one of the poignant realities that influenced him – and why he believes the decision would never be overturned.
“A large part of the reasoning in the opinion, and the background of the opinion, was that I had not known how many children were adopted by parents” who were gay or lesbian, Kennedy said during an interview with CNN in his chambers. “At first, I thought there were 75,000 children or so. It’s in the hundreds of thousands.”
The court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges was rooted in Fourteenth Amendment guarantees of liberty and equal protection of the law. Yet Kennedy, who retired in 2018, told CNN his concern for adopted children “was a crucial part of my reasoning,” and he predicted that could ensure it endures."
At least he doesn't even pretend that Obergefell was based on the constitution. It's been very clear for decades that liberals, of which Kennedy is one, make decisions based on the results.
Even if you accept that the due process and equal protection clause require an adjustment to modern thinking, concern about the plight of adopted children isn't even close to an element.
At least Justice Kennedy openly acknowledges his regard of himself as a sort of oracle uniquely qualified to roll up the constitution, smoke it, and in the penumbras and emanations of the resulting haze, discern what should be done. It’s more a form of constitutionomany, reading the constitution the way a chiromancer reads palms, an augurer reads bird entrails, or a tessomancer reads tea leaves, treating the constitution as totem rather than as text.
That was beautiful (No Homo)
Well maybe a little Homo, you led that post like Kenny “the Snake” Stabler (Lefty btw) last minute TD pass in the “Sea of Hands” playoff win over Miami, 1974.
And in true Raiders fashion, lost the next week to the Steelers
Frank
It’s constitutional capnomancy.
Please help me understand something about Bush v. Gore. Most threads on the subject seem not to mention the overvote phenomenon. What I have seen—from a source I vaguely recall as Florida newspaper article researched and written after the election was over—suggested to me that the overvote phenomenon may have been what shaped the decision, as a decision to order an end to vote counting.
In a nutshell, if I understand correctly, an overvote occurred when a voter put two votes on one ballot. Many of those ballots would show a properly cast standard vote using the balloting form, plus an apparently properly applied write-in vote. The automated ballot counters were programmed to discard as invalid all such, "overvotes," to avoid ambiguities.
A problem arose during manual recounts, when some ballots were discovered to have been marked with a standard vote for one candidate, plus a write-in vote for the same candidate. Manual counters were reckoning that as an unambiguous single vote for the named candidate.
As it happened during the manual recounts, there were allegedly disproportionately more of those double votes turning up for Gore than for Bush, That made it look likely that if all the ballots were counted using the manual counters' ambiguity resolution standard, Gore would win.
The report I recall seemed to suggest somewhat vaguely that it was shortly after poll watchers noticed what was going on with overvotes that the Court ordered an end to the vote counting. That could have been consistent with public justifications for the decision, that it was unfair to apply different standards to just the subset of votes that got recounted. But at the same time, it could suggest an actually corrupt reason for why the startling outcome was an order to stop counting votes, instead of an order to take more time and keep counting them all.
If there are any Bush v. Gore buffs out there who care to straighten out what may be my tangled mis-recollections, I would welcome hearing what you have to say. Because the election was long over when I encountered that report, it did not then strike me as worth much effort to try to sort it out.
After all, a Court order to stop counting votes is arguably corrupt anyway, when it comes from a partisan division on the Court where the majority knows their preferred outcome will follow. But I find myself still curious now. The shock which Bush v. Gore delivered at the time has only grown since, as circumstances continued to magnify political consequences. If nothing else, the case and its circumstances stand as a museum-quality example to show the role mere happenstance can play in history.
Under florida election law in 2000, there are two points to challenge the vote count. A - The "protest" which is prior to the state certification and B - the "contest" which is after sec of state certification. ( I may have the "protest" and "contest " switched)
the first challenge can be made at the precinct level, including very cherrypicked precincts. Gore was successful in cherrypicking the precincts at this stage which was correct under florida law.
The second challenge is after the sec state certification and the evidence needs to reflect the entire state to put the election in doubt and the remedy must apply on a state wide basis. The district court ruled correctly that the evidence and the remedy was insufficient to put the election in doubt on a statewide basis.
I remember seeing pictures of the ballots from the hanging chads days. They were extremely easy to figure out. If anyone had difficulty following directions, they're not the type of person who deserves to have a say in how better men are governed.
FWIW very easy to get dimpled and hanging chads when punching multiple ballots at the same time.
There were reports that quite a few of the dimpled ballots had no scar marks on the chad from a stylis/pin used to punch the ballot.
Why would someone be punching multiple ballots at the same time? That would be the “Voter Fraud” that never happens.
"After all, a Court order to stop counting votes is arguably corrupt anyway, when it comes from a partisan division on the Court where the majority knows their preferred outcome will follow."
And it's not corrupt for a court to order repeated illegal recounts, when it comes from a partisan division on that court where the majority knows that their preferred outcome didn't happen on election night?
Understand that the recount that the Florida supreme court ordered was not in conformance to state law, which gave the SoS, not the court, authority to determine if a state wide recount was necessary.
Bellmore — I am not even slightly interested in formalist interpretations about how Rs properly rigged the game, so were entitled to get the win. I don't trust you as a source for that kind of judgment anyway, and post-hoc back-and-forth about election procedures strikes me as a leading cause of wasted time.
Even if I did trust you as a procedure expert, the only question which continues to interest me is what the actual vote count would have been state-wide, if all the votes had been recounted. With the election that close, was there ever any real possibility that could have been determined?
Stephen Lathrop : ".... what the actual vote count would have been state-wide, if all the votes had been recounted."
Given I'm in the middle of a tedious meeting, I can't dig out the details. But a consortium of newspapers oversaw a full count with these (by memory) results:
1. Bush won by most count scenarios.
2. Gore won by some count scenarios.
3. Bush won by the count scenario in force at the time of SOUS intervention.
One significant question was overvotes. This involved ballots where a candidate was both marked (by whatever method) and the same candidate written-in as well. One the one side, this results in a spoiled ballot. One the other, there is a clear indication of voter choice which is the ultimate standard per Florida law. There was a hearing scheduled on the issue with Leon County Circuit Court Judge Terry Lewis. But that was on the day following the Supreme Court decision and was canceled. Lewis later suggested in an interview “he would not have ignored the overvote ballots”.
That would have swung the vote to Gore.
In the year following the election, the NYT, Washington Post, WSJ, CNN, AP, and other news outlets funded the 10-month Florida Ballot Project. The National Opinion Research Center (U Chicago) got access to the ballots separated by each county using the reprogramming of the software in their vote counting machines as they were planning to do before the stay. They then used the same standards each county indicated it would use in the report filed with Judge Louis by midday 12/9. All news organizations published the same numbers a year after the election, but they all made a mistake. The reprogramming of the machines (as described in the first chapter of a Florida Secretary of State report on Undervotes published before the election and available online at that time) signaled that each "undervote" ballot instead misfed into the machine and could not be read. The motor stops, a light goes on, and the operator opens the paper path and removes the "misfed" ballot. This produces a mixture of both undervotes and actual misfeeds. The news organizations reported 5252 "undervote ballots with a fully punched out hole for a candidate", which is a contradiction in terms. Several heavily Democratic counties apparently did not filter out the misfeeds, while most Republican counties did, and the reporters did not know to do the filtering themselves. Bush started on Nov 17 as 1120 votes ahead. The Democratic legal team could use the Protest statute to only count extra votes in the three most heavily Democratic counties (Broward, Palm Beach, and Miami-Dade) that generated 83% of the net Gore votes in the election and would generate 83% of the additional net Gore votes from manually inspecting ballots. By midday on 12/9 the last votes from Miami were reported and the final result of the Dem strategy is Gore got 895 new net votes reducing Bush to only a 225 vote lead. However, a statewide manual inspection of ballots ordered by the Fla SC should generate 100% of new net Gore votes from 15 counties, and 100% of an equal number of net Bush votes from 49 counties that voted Republican. Bush should go back to his original lead of 1120 votes (plus or minus the square root of the number of new votes counted leaving a fuzz factor of less than 135 votes). Miscounting the heavily Democratic extra misfed ballots, the NYT reported that without SCOTUS, Bush would have won by 493 votes (a number in the middle of nowhere). However, if you subtract out the net effect of the 5252 incorrectly double counted misfed ballots reported in the news story, the corrected final count is Bush wins by 1145 votes, 1120 plus an extra 25 which is dead on what the math projects for extra votes in an election that split 50-50 to an accuracy of 1/50th of one percent. So, Bush v Gore had no effect on the outcome because either Bush wins by the official vote total of 537 (1120 minus 583 new net Gore votes from only Broward) or else by 1145. There was never any way Gore could win a statewide count, although he came within 20% of victory by only counting extra votes in the three most populus and most heavily Democratic counties.
Left unaddressed by everyone (not to pick on Howard) is the problem that ballots with hanging chads couldn't accurately be recounted, because the very act of handling the ballots (for human or machine tabulation) could cause partially punched chads to more fully detach, thus changing what the ballots reflected. Not a big deal in a normal election, but in one this close…
You are right that "hanging chads" (officially referred to as "two corners detached chads") cannot be properly counted based on the misrepresentation of the Democrats that it was possible to count "new votes" from a population of ballots separated during a third pass through the machine, then adding the new votes to the machine count from the second pass. However, even with the equipment available at the time, an accurate total ballot count could have been generated by redoing the entire recount. Reprogram the machine to separate out misfeeds and undervotes. Run all the ballots through the machine and get a new machine count of the ballots that were not separated out in this pass through the machine. Then manually examine the separated ballots. Add the manual count to the new machine count and every vote is counted once correctly. However, the Democrats wanted to mislead the court into believing that there was a stable population of Undervote Ballots that you could separate out at any time and count. If they admitted that you had to rerun the Recount in a different way than provided by statute, the court might come to the realization that the Florida Supreme Court belatedly came to in their response 10 days later to the remand from Bush v Gore that, effectively, this thing is more complicated than they originally thought and should be left to the Legislature to correct the law.
It is true that "Double Bubble overvotes" in scanner ballots, where a person votes normally and then also writes in the name of the same candidate were more Democratic, along with "Wrong Pen Inc undervote" scanner ballots where the voter used his own pen to mark the ballot not knowing that certain commercial pen inks are transparent to the particular wavelength of infra-red light used to count scanner ballots. However, when the news organizations examined all the ballots, other new scanner ballot votes were more Republican and that overall, the extra votes from scanner ballots split 50-50 just as the extra votes from punch cards.
Ironic that “W” could only beat that walking Wax Figure AlGore by 538 Votes, “45/47/48?” Beat Sleepy Joe by 500,000 and Common Law by 1.5 million votes (but there was no fraud in 2020!)
Whenever I hear the term Originalism I'm reminded of this scene in "This is Spinal Tap"
Ours go to 11!
"The meaning of liberty is disclosed over time." On the face of it, this is such a weird, grandiose phrasing. But the more I think about it, the more Kennedy-esque it seems.
He might have said that, as our social and political consensus evolves, so does our collective view about what liberty means. Obergefell would seem like a pretty good illustration of that. Had Obergefell been decided the way it was 100 - or even 50 - years earlier, it likely would have engendered massive opposition, a la Roe. But it was met with a shrug. The court was basically codifying what most politically engaged people had already come to accept, and what many others didn't care enough about to oppose.
But Kennedy's phrasing is different. It suggests that the concept of liberty recognized in the constitution is actually static. It's just "disclosed" gradually, over time. And to whom is it disclosed? Nine people in robes. This is essentially a religious construct. The nine philosopher-kings receive wisdom from on high and deliver that wisdom to the rest of us, one opinion at a time.
This is utter garbage as an interpretive philosophy but it sounds plausible - even elegant - if you don't think about it too much.
"The court was basically codifying what most politically engaged people had already come to accept, and what many others didn't care enough about to oppose."
I certainly disagree with this. When confronted with the issue, people in over 30 states amended their state constitutions to expressly prohibit gay marriage. A federal law (DOMA) was passed overwhelmingly. There was wide opposition.
Polls said that such opposition was dwindling by the time of Obergefell and a few states had legalized gay marriage. But nothing about that equals or suggests that once momentum gets started in one direction that it is game over for democracy. What else do we say that once 11 states legalize something, then the other 39 have to follow suit?
Simply because there was not armed revolution over Obergefell, that people generally had more important things to worry about, doesn't mean that a democratic choice should be taken away because it strikes Anthony Kennedy as particularly special.
I would suggest looking at his jurisprudence as a whole not how he phrased it in one interview. He did not think liberty was "static."
It is also not simply "disclosed" to people in robes. As he noted in Lawrence v. Texas:
They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.
The Constitution is not just applied by judges. The people as a whole apply the Constitution. The Constitution has to be applied in a myriad of ways by state and federal officials. It has to be applied by the people overall in various respects, including by juries.
Their understanding of terms like "due process" and "equal protection" and the nature of "free speech" or "religion" or "reasonable and unreasonable searches" (e.g., the power of wives to make decisions contrary to their husband during entry into a home) develops over time.
This is not a "religious" concept. Judges apply the Constitution so are -- along with the rest -- interpreting the document differently than someone might two hundred years ago.
Kennedy's philosophy was cited by loads of justices and judges over the years, including people like John Marshall Harlan II.
It is far from "garbage." It is a basic sensible means of doing things that the average person accepts too.
"Asked to describe those constraints, he said, "You just have to, in case by case, decide whether or not this is absolutely essential to liberty.""
So, according to Kennedy at no time prior to Obergefell was there liberty, either in this country or in England? Not in 1776, not in 1681, or not in 2004?
As gay marriage is "absolutely essential" to liberty, no society without legal gay marriage can ever claim that they have liberty?
That is a rather astounding proposition. Even if true (which it isn't) then our founding fathers did not establish a society with absolute liberty. By failing to recognize gay marriage as a fundamental right, they by Kennedy's definition, established a society with a defect in liberty.
And that is the society in which a judge should constrain his rulings to reflect, not to improve upon with his own ideas.
Um, in the first two of those times we had actual legal slavery. So claiming it's astonishing to think that we didn't have liberty back then is kind of weird.
I agree that there was no widespread formal acceptance of same sex marriage at the time Obergefell was decided. I did not mean to defend either the proposition that the court should find new constitutional rights every time something new starts becoming popular or that, when Obergefell was decided, there was evidence that society as a whole had somehow elevated same sex marriage to a constitutional right. I think Obergefell was wrongly decided.
I was just trying to give an example of what I think would have been more plausible as an interpretive philosophy: the idea that society's view of liberty might shift over time, making it legitimate for the court to recognize different liberty interests. The quick acceptance of Obergefell seems to me a point in favor of that approach, which strikes me as better than Kennedy's conception of the nine justices as liberty whisperers.
The right to marry was recognized as a fundamental aspect of liberty guaranteed under the Due Process Clause more than a century ago in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923):
The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967), quoting Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541 (1942). Accord: Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 383 (1978).
In Zablocki SCOTUS opined:
434 U.S. at 384 [emphasis added].
In Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), the Supreme Court invalidated a Missouri marriage regulation which prohibited prison inmates from marrying unless the prison superintendent has approved the marriage after finding that there are compelling reasons for doing so -- and generally only pregnancy or birth of a child was considered a "compelling reason" to approve a marriage. Id., at 96-97. The Court ruled that this regulation impermissibly burdened the right to marry because, even under the reasonable relationship test, the marriage regulation did not withstand scrutiny. Id., at 97.
The constitutional right at stake in Loving was not "interracial marriage." The right at stake in Zablocki was not "deadbeat marriage." The right at stake in Turner was not "prison marriage." The right at stake was the Due Process right to marriage -- "the most important relation in life," and "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress," Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205 and 211 (1888). Similarly, the right at stake in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), was not "same sex marriage"; it was simply marriage.
And contrary to the dire predictions of the Chicken Littles in 2015, the sky has not since fallen.
"Similarly, the right at stake in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), was not "same sex marriage"; it was simply marriage."
A same sex marriage is a contradiction in terms. The very definition of a marriage, for thousands of years and implicit in all of the cases you cites, requires an opposite sex nature of the parties involved.
Under your view, I could call any sort of relationship I desire to form a "marriage" and then, based on the case history you cited, demand a fundamental right to engage in it on that authority. That is pure question begging.
"'The framers were not so self-assured that they thought they knew every component of liberty," he said. "The meaning of liberty is disclosed over time.'
He acknowledged that his view empowered judges. ..."
Article. II., as amended by Amendment XII., could have been followed to determine the Bush v Gore election; and
Article. V. was the framers' acknowledgement that they "were not so self assured". ...
What is Anthony Kennedy's basis for thinking "judges" should usurp the limited policymaking decision Powers given by the People to the Legislature and Executive ?
This pervasive, narcissistic personality disorder among Article. III. supreme and inferior Court judges is what will ultimately cause the collapse of the USA: They ("judges"; generally unqualified) individually and collectively believe that they have been anointed to 'divine' answers to every controversy even when there is clearly no jurisdiction or the alternative available is "very messy".
Article. III. judges are increasingly behaving as if the USA had no "supreme law of the Land", and they were empowered to govern as if building the foundation of a legal system.
Yes of course, that is exactly how we got Obergefell.
Ok yeah, you just have to decide if it's absolutely essential to liberty, bro.
What a joke. An embarrassment.
I just repaved my front walk. The city required me to get a building permit. I think it is "absolutely essential" to liberty that a homeowner should be able to improve his own private property without requiring permission from the government and the payment of a fee.
Under Kennedy's formulation, if I just convince 5 SCOTUS justices of my position, I win. I don't need original intent, the text, the history. Just the subjective view of judges that my proposed course of conduct is "absolutely essential" to liberty.
Regardless of whether Bush v. Gore was decided correctly -- it wasn't -- it remains a dreadful irony of history that George W. Doofus would not have assumed office if thousands of Jews in Palm Beach County had not mistakenly voted for a Nazi.
Substantively, if the purpose of elections is to measure collective preferences, the FL election was practically a draw, so either outcome would be consonant with collective wishes. Procedurally, the agreed-in-advance procedures were used to resolve the election. Of the many things to get angry about, this is not my top one, even though I voted for Gore and think he'd have been a much better president.