Retired Supreme Court Justice David Souter died yesterday at the age of 85.

[In It to Win It]

Mark Joseph Stern
‪@mjsdc.bsky.social‬

From the Supreme Court: Retired Justice David Souter died yesterday at the age of 85.

[ms liberty]

1. RIP

[hlthe2b]

2. Ahh.. I am saddened to hear this.

RIP, Justice Souter

It will be interesting to see if he is (allowed) to lie in state at the Capitol, as I believe is traditional or if Trump and Congressional MAGA will prevent that.

At any rate, I HONOR him.

[Kid Berwyn]

3. He was in the right side of history.

GEORGE W. BUSH, et al., PETITIONERS v.
ALBERT GORE, Jr., et al.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

[December 12, 2000]

Justice Souter, with whom Justice Breyer joins and with whom Justice Stevens and Justice Ginsburg join with regard to all but Part C, dissenting.

The Court should not have reviewed either Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd., ante, p. ___ (per curiam), or this case, and should not have stopped Florida’s attempt to recount all undervote ballots, see ante at ___, by issuing a stay of the Florida Supreme Court’s orders during the period of this review, see Bush v. Gore, post at ____ (slip op., at 1). If this Court had allowed the State to follow the course indicated by the opinions of its own Supreme Court, it is entirely possible that there would ultimately have been no issue requiring our review, and political tension could have worked itself out in the Congress following the procedure provided in 3 U.S.C. § 15. The case being before us, however, its resolution by the majority is another erroneous decision.

As will be clear, I am in substantial agreement with the dissenting opinions of Justice Stevens, Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer. I write separately only to say how straightforward the issues before us really are.

There are three issues: whether the State Supreme Court’s interpretation of the statute providing for a contest of the state election results somehow violates 3 U.S.C. § 5; whether that court’s construction of the state statutory provisions governing contests impermissibly changes a state law from what the State’s legislature has provided, in violation of Article II, §1, cl. 2, of the national Constitution; and whether the manner of interpreting markings on disputed ballots failing to cause machines to register votes for President (the undervote ballots) violates the equal protection or due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. None of these issues is difficult to describe or to resolve.

Continues…

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZD1.html

[2naSalit]

4. ...