1 00:00:16,271 --> 00:00:26,031 Speaker 1: Pushkin. Do you think the majority believed that there was 2 00:00:26,070 --> 00:00:29,630 Speaker 1: this equel protection thing or was there something else motivating them? 3 00:00:30,271 --> 00:00:34,271 Speaker 2: I have no idea. They must have believed in it 4 00:00:34,351 --> 00:00:38,911 Speaker 2: because they said it out in the opinion, but I 5 00:00:39,031 --> 00:00:41,751 Speaker 2: really find the opinion on persuasive. 6 00:00:45,751 --> 00:00:49,311 Speaker 3: Hey fiasco listeners, Welcome to the final bonus episode of 7 00:00:49,391 --> 00:00:49,711 Speaker 3: Bush v. 8 00:00:49,871 --> 00:00:50,071 Speaker 1: Gore. 9 00:00:51,631 --> 00:00:54,711 Speaker 3: As I've mentioned, we interviewed about sixty people for this series. 10 00:00:55,391 --> 00:00:58,671 Speaker 3: For obvious reasons, many of them were in Florida. We 11 00:00:58,751 --> 00:01:01,351 Speaker 3: traveled there for ten day blitz and tried to meet 12 00:01:01,351 --> 00:01:04,191 Speaker 3: our interview subjects in places that were convenient for them, 13 00:01:04,791 --> 00:01:07,191 Speaker 3: and for the most part, bat meant spending a lot 14 00:01:07,231 --> 00:01:10,631 Speaker 3: of time in law offices with glass enclosed conference rooms. 15 00:01:10,391 --> 00:01:11,751 Speaker 1: And long wooden tables. 16 00:01:12,631 --> 00:01:14,791 Speaker 3: But one of the interviews we did in Florida was 17 00:01:14,831 --> 00:01:18,791 Speaker 3: a little different. Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens 18 00:01:18,871 --> 00:01:22,791 Speaker 3: was living in a retirement community in Fort Lauderdale. He 19 00:01:22,871 --> 00:01:26,271 Speaker 3: was about to turn ninety nine. The person who arranged 20 00:01:26,311 --> 00:01:29,871 Speaker 3: the interview was Justice Stevens's daughter, Sue. We waited for 21 00:01:29,871 --> 00:01:31,911 Speaker 3: her in the lobby of the building, where the ceilings 22 00:01:31,951 --> 00:01:34,351 Speaker 3: were high and everything seemed to be made of marble. 23 00:01:35,631 --> 00:01:37,751 Speaker 3: After coming out to meet us. Sue took us over 24 00:01:37,791 --> 00:01:40,311 Speaker 3: to her dad. He was sitting on a couch looking 25 00:01:40,351 --> 00:01:43,311 Speaker 3: out a window. The first thing we saw as we 26 00:01:43,351 --> 00:01:47,351 Speaker 3: approached was the back of his head. 27 00:01:47,391 --> 00:01:49,871 Speaker 1: To meet you. Oh, thank you for seeing us. 28 00:01:50,191 --> 00:01:51,871 Speaker 2: I'm happy to do where. 29 00:01:52,631 --> 00:01:55,391 Speaker 3: It was a surreal moment. Here was someone whose impact 30 00:01:55,471 --> 00:01:58,631 Speaker 3: on the country was so enormous, whose mind had brought 31 00:01:58,671 --> 00:02:01,911 Speaker 3: about so much change and had affected so many people, 32 00:02:02,511 --> 00:02:05,511 Speaker 3: and yet he was just sitting there, human sized, wearing 33 00:02:05,591 --> 00:02:08,791 Speaker 3: khaki shorts at a polo, A true retiree. 34 00:02:10,191 --> 00:02:14,911 Speaker 2: Yes, well, let me walk him around. 35 00:02:14,951 --> 00:02:19,071 Speaker 3: And Stevens passed away in twenty nineteen. Today we want 36 00:02:19,111 --> 00:02:21,071 Speaker 3: to share part of the conversation we had with him 37 00:02:21,071 --> 00:02:24,151 Speaker 3: about his reflections on Bush v. Gore, in particular the 38 00:02:24,151 --> 00:02:26,591 Speaker 3: equal protection claim made by the majority in the court. 39 00:02:27,711 --> 00:02:30,751 Speaker 3: As you'll hear, Justice Stevens never expected the Supreme Court 40 00:02:30,831 --> 00:02:33,271 Speaker 3: to play a role in the recount, and he didn't 41 00:02:33,311 --> 00:02:35,791 Speaker 3: think there was any reason for the Court to get involved. 42 00:02:36,631 --> 00:02:38,911 Speaker 3: But as you heard in episode six of our series, 43 00:02:39,471 --> 00:02:41,951 Speaker 3: the Bush campaign asked the U. S. Supreme Court to 44 00:02:41,991 --> 00:02:46,551 Speaker 3: stop or stay the process of recounting Florida's votes, arguing 45 00:02:46,551 --> 00:02:49,791 Speaker 3: that it could cause irreparable harm to their candidate. The 46 00:02:49,911 --> 00:02:53,071 Speaker 3: night before the Court met to discuss the stay, Justice 47 00:02:53,071 --> 00:02:56,270 Speaker 3: Stevens ran into his colleague Stephen Bryer at a party. 48 00:02:56,591 --> 00:02:59,351 Speaker 2: And I asked him how he felt about the issue, 49 00:02:59,551 --> 00:03:02,551 Speaker 2: and he said the same action that I did, that 50 00:03:02,591 --> 00:03:07,351 Speaker 2: there was no basis for us for interfering with the 51 00:03:07,431 --> 00:03:11,271 Speaker 2: recount because there was something of Florida courts could do, 52 00:03:11,951 --> 00:03:15,991 Speaker 2: and that there had been no showing of irreparable damage. 53 00:03:16,431 --> 00:03:21,111 Speaker 2: We chat about a short time at that party. 54 00:03:21,711 --> 00:03:25,191 Speaker 3: At conference the next day, Stevens and Bryer were blindsided 55 00:03:25,231 --> 00:03:27,591 Speaker 3: when five of the other justices voted to grant the stay. 56 00:03:28,671 --> 00:03:30,631 Speaker 3: Oral arguments in Bush v. Gore were just a few 57 00:03:30,671 --> 00:03:32,551 Speaker 3: days away, and Stevens was. 58 00:03:32,471 --> 00:03:37,591 Speaker 2: Horrified addressing this issue in this way would hurt the 59 00:03:37,591 --> 00:03:45,391 Speaker 2: Court's reputation, how well the Court generally avoids unnecessarily participating 60 00:03:45,711 --> 00:03:50,671 Speaker 2: in political controversies. And I thought, here it was entering 61 00:03:50,831 --> 00:03:54,431 Speaker 2: into uncharged territory. 62 00:03:55,351 --> 00:03:58,871 Speaker 1: Before oral arguments on Monday, did you think there was 63 00:03:58,871 --> 00:04:02,191 Speaker 1: a possibility that anyone who had ruled in favor of 64 00:04:02,231 --> 00:04:05,711 Speaker 1: the stay would be convinced to lift it. 65 00:04:07,231 --> 00:04:11,071 Speaker 2: I don't remember anticipating that. I really I think I 66 00:04:11,111 --> 00:04:13,311 Speaker 2: felt that the case had already been decided. 67 00:04:14,151 --> 00:04:16,671 Speaker 1: You felt it was already a fatal company. 68 00:04:16,751 --> 00:04:19,630 Speaker 2: Because there was no reason to grant a stay otherwise. 69 00:04:20,510 --> 00:04:28,591 Speaker 2: That was about an inappropriate decision in an extraordinary remedy 70 00:04:29,071 --> 00:04:31,391 Speaker 2: motion case that I can remember. 71 00:04:32,831 --> 00:04:37,511 Speaker 1: The majority felt that continuing the counting would cause irreparable 72 00:04:37,551 --> 00:04:42,191 Speaker 1: harm to candidate Bush and just I know that this 73 00:04:42,391 --> 00:04:44,151 Speaker 1: answer might seem obvious to you, but can you just 74 00:04:44,271 --> 00:04:46,151 Speaker 1: spell out from you why did you think there was 75 00:04:46,191 --> 00:04:48,111 Speaker 1: impossible for there to be a reparable harm from the 76 00:04:48,151 --> 00:04:48,951 Speaker 1: counting continuing. 77 00:04:49,311 --> 00:04:54,271 Speaker 2: Well, the burden is on the petition to demonstrate irreparable harm, 78 00:04:54,511 --> 00:04:58,751 Speaker 2: and I didn't think they had done that. I don't 79 00:04:58,791 --> 00:05:04,710 Speaker 2: think that the movement bore his Harry sustained his burden, 80 00:05:05,391 --> 00:05:07,510 Speaker 2: And it didn't seem to me that getting the right 81 00:05:07,591 --> 00:05:11,671 Speaker 2: answer in a contested election could ever be an irreal harm. 82 00:05:11,991 --> 00:05:15,271 Speaker 2: That's what you're what you're trying to do in elections. 83 00:05:15,871 --> 00:05:17,871 Speaker 1: What did you make of the fact when you read 84 00:05:17,871 --> 00:05:21,751 Speaker 1: the briefs from both sides, especially the Bush side, that 85 00:05:21,791 --> 00:05:24,431 Speaker 1: they were suddenly focused on equal protection? 86 00:05:25,671 --> 00:05:28,991 Speaker 2: I really have very little memory of the equal protection 87 00:05:29,911 --> 00:05:32,271 Speaker 2: issue being in the case, and I think I hardly 88 00:05:32,311 --> 00:05:36,871 Speaker 2: mentioned it in my descent, it's just to me, in 89 00:05:36,911 --> 00:05:40,271 Speaker 2: an equal protection case, there are two groups and you 90 00:05:40,391 --> 00:05:43,071 Speaker 2: favor one group over the over the other, and that's 91 00:05:43,711 --> 00:05:47,351 Speaker 2: the violation of equal protection. But there was no showing 92 00:05:47,791 --> 00:05:51,951 Speaker 2: that any any practice in the election favored either of 93 00:05:52,031 --> 00:05:56,871 Speaker 2: the Democrats or the Republicans. They just were random results, 94 00:05:57,151 --> 00:06:01,711 Speaker 2: which I don't understand to violate the equal protection prohibition. 95 00:06:03,031 --> 00:06:06,551 Speaker 1: The argument, as I understood it, was that there was 96 00:06:06,591 --> 00:06:10,991 Speaker 1: an equal protection violation because different counties in the state 97 00:06:10,991 --> 00:06:14,471 Speaker 1: of Florida would be using different standards to count ballots, 98 00:06:14,511 --> 00:06:16,991 Speaker 1: and so if you lived in a county where people 99 00:06:16,991 --> 00:06:19,911 Speaker 1: were counting dimple chads, you had a different your vote 100 00:06:19,991 --> 00:06:23,031 Speaker 1: counted more, say, than someone who lived in a county 101 00:06:23,031 --> 00:06:24,591 Speaker 1: where they weren't counting dimple chats. 102 00:06:24,991 --> 00:06:27,311 Speaker 2: Well, there are two answers to that. First of all, 103 00:06:27,831 --> 00:06:31,630 Speaker 2: the law does not require a state to have the 104 00:06:31,711 --> 00:06:36,070 Speaker 2: same kind of voting equipment in every polling place, and 105 00:06:36,151 --> 00:06:41,671 Speaker 2: there's more variation between different kinds of counting machines than 106 00:06:41,711 --> 00:06:46,471 Speaker 2: there is between the standards, and that has never been 107 00:06:46,511 --> 00:06:51,871 Speaker 2: considered an equal protection violation. And if that's permissible, why 108 00:06:51,991 --> 00:06:56,231 Speaker 2: isn't a difference in counties produced by something like a 109 00:06:56,351 --> 00:07:01,431 Speaker 2: non uniform rule on county because there's no showing that 110 00:07:01,431 --> 00:07:06,031 Speaker 2: the disuniformity favored one side or the other. And so 111 00:07:06,231 --> 00:07:10,071 Speaker 2: that's had very strange use of equal protection when you 112 00:07:10,111 --> 00:07:14,231 Speaker 2: don't have a minority that's entered by the rule they 113 00:07:15,191 --> 00:07:19,031 Speaker 2: lay and there's no evidence whatsoever that the use of 114 00:07:19,071 --> 00:07:24,951 Speaker 2: either dimple chads or whatever kind of chad it favored 115 00:07:24,991 --> 00:07:29,151 Speaker 2: either the Republicans or the Democrats. So there was no 116 00:07:29,391 --> 00:07:31,951 Speaker 2: basis for an equal protection challenge. 117 00:07:33,631 --> 00:07:35,111 Speaker 1: Why did the majority think there was? 118 00:07:35,871 --> 00:07:38,911 Speaker 2: If you can find out from their opinion, you're a 119 00:07:38,991 --> 00:07:43,071 Speaker 2: miracle worker. It does not provide an explanation. Just generally 120 00:07:43,111 --> 00:07:47,791 Speaker 2: said that the results are not completely uniform. But the 121 00:07:48,191 --> 00:07:52,191 Speaker 2: equal protection clause doesn't have a requirement that everything has 122 00:07:52,231 --> 00:07:57,991 Speaker 2: to be equal. They can't pick one side against another. 123 00:07:58,631 --> 00:08:00,351 Speaker 2: It's what the proper rule is. 124 00:08:02,271 --> 00:08:07,431 Speaker 1: To object to the statewide recount on equal protection grounds 125 00:08:07,431 --> 00:08:10,471 Speaker 1: seems to me like it in the sense state it's 126 00:08:10,511 --> 00:08:13,391 Speaker 1: an objection to all elections the way they normally happened. 127 00:08:13,671 --> 00:08:18,271 Speaker 2: Yes, I think that's right, And of course the case 128 00:08:18,311 --> 00:08:22,271 Speaker 2: has never been followed. Then that's probably why it really 129 00:08:22,351 --> 00:08:27,871 Speaker 2: is an exception from equal protection doctrine. That is traditionally applied. 130 00:08:29,151 --> 00:08:32,111 Speaker 1: Is it true that just as Suitor and Justice prior 131 00:08:32,631 --> 00:08:35,151 Speaker 1: signed on to the notion that there was a possible 132 00:08:35,271 --> 00:08:37,791 Speaker 1: violation of equal protection in the state wide they. 133 00:08:37,631 --> 00:08:41,310 Speaker 2: Did both, and they both indicated that their feelings that 134 00:08:41,471 --> 00:08:44,670 Speaker 2: it was a possible violation. And I've never been able 135 00:08:44,670 --> 00:08:46,111 Speaker 2: to understand why. 136 00:08:47,351 --> 00:08:50,191 Speaker 1: But they didn't join the majority on no question. 137 00:08:50,271 --> 00:08:54,591 Speaker 2: Can you explain that why they didn't join them? Apparently, well, 138 00:08:55,070 --> 00:08:57,670 Speaker 2: they thought the recount should go ahead, that even if 139 00:08:57,710 --> 00:09:03,551 Speaker 2: there was a violation, that they should continue with the 140 00:09:03,670 --> 00:09:08,231 Speaker 2: recount under uniform standards. They were not as clear as 141 00:09:08,271 --> 00:09:12,391 Speaker 2: I think the Florida is Freme Court was the fact 142 00:09:12,391 --> 00:09:15,431 Speaker 2: that the intended of the voter is a standard, and 143 00:09:15,631 --> 00:09:18,991 Speaker 2: is a uniform standard, which tricked trace hair of both 144 00:09:19,271 --> 00:09:22,830 Speaker 2: dimple chads and hanging chads and everything. If you can 145 00:09:22,910 --> 00:09:26,550 Speaker 2: tell who who the voter intended to vote for, that 146 00:09:28,751 --> 00:09:33,670 Speaker 2: is both the sensible standard and one that can be administered. 147 00:09:35,310 --> 00:09:36,991 Speaker 1: Did you ever look at one of those ballots and 148 00:09:37,070 --> 00:09:39,151 Speaker 1: see what the dimples look like? 149 00:09:39,631 --> 00:09:41,071 Speaker 2: I really didn't. 150 00:09:41,871 --> 00:09:44,431 Speaker 1: I think that. I think the controversy, right, was that 151 00:09:45,070 --> 00:09:48,190 Speaker 1: three members of a county canvassing board could look at 152 00:09:48,231 --> 00:09:51,151 Speaker 1: a single ballot and they'd see a dimple, and two 153 00:09:51,151 --> 00:09:53,631 Speaker 1: of them might say, well, clearly that person tried to 154 00:09:53,670 --> 00:09:55,790 Speaker 1: push the thing through and it didn't work, and the 155 00:09:55,830 --> 00:09:58,391 Speaker 1: other one would say, no, no, they that's that could 156 00:09:58,391 --> 00:10:00,271 Speaker 1: be They thought about voting for that person and they 157 00:10:00,271 --> 00:10:00,871 Speaker 1: decided not to. 158 00:10:01,351 --> 00:10:04,071 Speaker 2: Well, I don't think. I don't think in those countroversies 159 00:10:04,231 --> 00:10:07,431 Speaker 2: the question was who was who the voter intended to 160 00:10:07,511 --> 00:10:10,871 Speaker 2: vote for. The question was whether the dimple was a 161 00:10:10,950 --> 00:10:15,790 Speaker 2: sufficient evidence of that. But I don't think they were. 162 00:10:16,151 --> 00:10:20,151 Speaker 2: As far as I can remember, I don't remember any 163 00:10:20,310 --> 00:10:26,670 Speaker 2: controversies of individual balance being ambiguous as to as to 164 00:10:26,710 --> 00:10:27,670 Speaker 2: the intent of the voter. 165 00:10:29,670 --> 00:10:32,591 Speaker 3: More of my conversation with former Supreme Court Justice John 166 00:10:32,631 --> 00:10:34,110 Speaker 3: Paul Stevens after the break. 167 00:10:47,351 --> 00:10:49,351 Speaker 1: Do you remember just going back to Justice Suitor and 168 00:10:49,471 --> 00:10:54,950 Speaker 1: Justice Bryer's belief that there was a remedy here? What 169 00:10:54,991 --> 00:10:55,751 Speaker 1: were they imagining? 170 00:10:56,271 --> 00:10:56,790 Speaker 2: What were they? 171 00:10:57,111 --> 00:10:58,991 Speaker 1: Yeah, what was the remedy they were imagining? 172 00:10:59,310 --> 00:11:02,670 Speaker 2: They thought that the Florida Supreme Court should more clearly 173 00:11:02,790 --> 00:11:06,111 Speaker 2: state the intended as the best I can remember the 174 00:11:06,190 --> 00:11:09,310 Speaker 2: intent of the voter standard, But they didn't think there 175 00:11:09,351 --> 00:11:12,751 Speaker 2: was any necessarily obstacle to doing that. 176 00:11:14,590 --> 00:11:16,871 Speaker 1: What do you think would have happened if the Florida 177 00:11:16,871 --> 00:11:21,071 Speaker 1: Supreme Court had created a uniform standard and they had said, Okay, 178 00:11:21,111 --> 00:11:25,351 Speaker 1: dimples count or they don't count. Would that have been 179 00:11:25,430 --> 00:11:27,830 Speaker 1: struck down by the Bush people as a new law, 180 00:11:28,030 --> 00:11:29,830 Speaker 1: just like the certification deadline had been. 181 00:11:30,271 --> 00:11:31,590 Speaker 2: I have no idea. 182 00:11:32,070 --> 00:11:33,551 Speaker 1: It seemed like a trap a little bit. It says 183 00:11:33,590 --> 00:11:35,431 Speaker 1: you can't make up a new law, and you don't 184 00:11:35,430 --> 00:11:37,711 Speaker 1: have a standard, and you need a standard. But a 185 00:11:37,751 --> 00:11:38,991 Speaker 1: new standard would be a new law. 186 00:11:39,111 --> 00:11:43,550 Speaker 2: Yeah. Well I suppose that's right, But that's just speculation 187 00:11:43,790 --> 00:11:45,511 Speaker 2: for me. Yeah. 188 00:11:45,550 --> 00:11:47,631 Speaker 1: Do you think the majority believed that there was this 189 00:11:47,710 --> 00:11:51,151 Speaker 1: equal protection thing or was there something else motivating them? 190 00:11:51,790 --> 00:11:55,790 Speaker 2: I have no idea. They must have believed in it 191 00:11:55,830 --> 00:12:00,431 Speaker 2: because they said it out in the opinion. But I 192 00:12:00,550 --> 00:12:03,910 Speaker 2: really find the opinion on persuasive. 193 00:12:04,471 --> 00:12:06,591 Speaker 1: So I think to some people outside right, so many 194 00:12:06,590 --> 00:12:10,430 Speaker 1: Americans who saw this unfold, they see the same things 195 00:12:10,471 --> 00:12:14,190 Speaker 1: you see, and they go to the very simple explanation 196 00:12:14,271 --> 00:12:16,590 Speaker 1: that the five justices wanted Bush to win. 197 00:12:17,590 --> 00:12:22,110 Speaker 2: Well, I can't comment on that. I just don't know 198 00:12:22,670 --> 00:12:26,750 Speaker 2: that there was never any and never any such discussion 199 00:12:27,151 --> 00:12:28,271 Speaker 2: of which I was aware. 200 00:12:30,111 --> 00:12:32,631 Speaker 1: Those are all my questions. Would you be willing to 201 00:12:33,670 --> 00:12:36,631 Speaker 1: read from your descents a few things into the microphone. 202 00:12:36,631 --> 00:12:37,511 Speaker 1: Would that be okay? 203 00:12:38,751 --> 00:12:41,430 Speaker 2: I guess so if you got the descent there. 204 00:12:41,310 --> 00:12:46,750 Speaker 1: I have them. Yeah. So it is. 205 00:12:46,790 --> 00:12:50,430 Speaker 2: Confidence and the men and women who administered the judicial 206 00:12:50,511 --> 00:12:53,991 Speaker 2: system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. 207 00:12:54,670 --> 00:12:57,871 Speaker 2: Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence 208 00:12:58,151 --> 00:13:02,110 Speaker 2: that will be inflicted by today's decision. One thing, however, 209 00:13:02,271 --> 00:13:06,550 Speaker 2: is certain, Although we may never know with complete certainty 210 00:13:06,991 --> 00:13:10,470 Speaker 2: the identity of the winner of this year's presidential lesson, 211 00:13:10,991 --> 00:13:14,790 Speaker 2: the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. Is the 212 00:13:14,871 --> 00:13:19,271 Speaker 2: nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of 213 00:13:19,310 --> 00:13:23,791 Speaker 2: the rule of law. I respected dissent, Now that's true. 214 00:13:24,070 --> 00:13:26,311 Speaker 2: I think that's I think I hit it right on 215 00:13:26,471 --> 00:13:26,871 Speaker 2: the head. 216 00:13:28,430 --> 00:13:30,430 Speaker 1: And to be clear, not having spoken to you, I 217 00:13:31,351 --> 00:13:35,151 Speaker 1: gather you you didn't mean that the uh as you 218 00:13:35,151 --> 00:13:40,070 Speaker 1: put it. But the nation's confidence in the judge is 219 00:13:40,111 --> 00:13:42,511 Speaker 1: an impartial guardian of the rule of law. The reason 220 00:13:43,111 --> 00:13:45,151 Speaker 1: that would be damaged was. 221 00:13:45,111 --> 00:13:48,991 Speaker 2: Why, because the Flora judges were not trusted to be 222 00:13:49,111 --> 00:13:53,391 Speaker 2: capable of handling their own responsibilities. And then and they 223 00:13:53,391 --> 00:13:57,071 Speaker 2: should be presumed to be a competent of intelligent people, 224 00:13:58,070 --> 00:14:01,990 Speaker 2: and they and they undermine that assumption on the boat 225 00:14:02,550 --> 00:14:06,511 Speaker 2: and the chiefs of his separate opinions saying that anything 226 00:14:06,590 --> 00:14:10,790 Speaker 2: that didn't qualify for machine ballots should not be a 227 00:14:11,070 --> 00:14:15,430 Speaker 2: legitimate vote, which the Court had set over and over again, 228 00:14:15,511 --> 00:14:19,071 Speaker 2: but well at least at least more than once. And 229 00:14:19,151 --> 00:14:22,791 Speaker 2: also the particular action they took in this case. 230 00:14:24,311 --> 00:14:25,871 Speaker 1: Can I tell you how I read it initially and 231 00:14:25,911 --> 00:14:27,631 Speaker 1: how I think a lot of people read that line 232 00:14:29,111 --> 00:14:31,751 Speaker 1: that you were saying that the nation's confidence in the 233 00:14:31,871 --> 00:14:33,991 Speaker 1: judge is an impartial guardian of the rule of law 234 00:14:34,751 --> 00:14:38,991 Speaker 1: was undermined because the majority in the Supreme Court had 235 00:14:39,071 --> 00:14:41,830 Speaker 1: ruled in a way that was not impartial. 236 00:14:42,631 --> 00:14:46,271 Speaker 2: Well, I didn't mean it that way. I meant to 237 00:14:46,311 --> 00:14:50,230 Speaker 2: say that their criticism of the impartiality of the Florida 238 00:14:50,710 --> 00:14:53,870 Speaker 2: course would have that effect. 239 00:14:55,151 --> 00:14:57,311 Speaker 1: What mark did the ruling leave on the court in 240 00:14:57,351 --> 00:14:57,871 Speaker 1: your view? 241 00:14:58,551 --> 00:15:01,870 Speaker 2: Well, I think it damaged a reputation of the Court 242 00:15:02,191 --> 00:15:08,590 Speaker 2: because I think it's such an agregiously mistaken opinion. But 243 00:15:09,111 --> 00:15:13,111 Speaker 2: we've had bad opinions over the years from time to time, 244 00:15:13,191 --> 00:15:15,870 Speaker 2: but this one was especially bad. 245 00:15:17,951 --> 00:15:21,111 Speaker 1: So what what what mark did it leave on the court? 246 00:15:21,311 --> 00:15:23,710 Speaker 1: I think there was a point where someone described it 247 00:15:23,710 --> 00:15:25,031 Speaker 1: as a wound on the court. 248 00:15:25,551 --> 00:15:27,590 Speaker 2: Well, yeah, I think it was, and I think it's 249 00:15:27,590 --> 00:15:30,990 Speaker 2: a wound from which they have not fully recovered. But 250 00:15:32,351 --> 00:15:35,110 Speaker 2: that's the judgment others going to make as well as 251 00:15:35,151 --> 00:15:35,791 Speaker 2: I can. 252 00:15:36,111 --> 00:15:38,470 Speaker 1: Can, just ask you to elaborate on why it costs 253 00:15:38,471 --> 00:15:39,071 Speaker 1: such a wound. 254 00:15:39,871 --> 00:15:45,071 Speaker 2: Well, because it was an important case and it was 255 00:15:45,111 --> 00:15:51,151 Speaker 2: the center of attention, and it did not comply with 256 00:15:51,231 --> 00:15:55,551 Speaker 2: the standards of excellence the Supreme Court were normally does 257 00:15:55,590 --> 00:15:57,750 Speaker 2: and should require. 258 00:15:58,991 --> 00:16:01,271 Speaker 1: And not because it was a partisan decision. But I 259 00:16:01,311 --> 00:16:04,391 Speaker 1: think I think the common wisdom, right is that it 260 00:16:05,791 --> 00:16:08,351 Speaker 1: damage the Court's reputation because it was a partisan decision. 261 00:16:08,351 --> 00:16:09,551 Speaker 1: But that's is that not how you feel? 262 00:16:10,151 --> 00:16:15,470 Speaker 2: No, well, I suppose that may have been infected it 263 00:16:15,511 --> 00:16:19,431 Speaker 2: to some extent, but it is basically was the poor 264 00:16:19,590 --> 00:16:23,791 Speaker 2: quality of the decision that I think and the fact 265 00:16:24,031 --> 00:16:28,591 Speaker 2: it showed disrespect for state court judges, which I think 266 00:16:28,791 --> 00:16:35,191 Speaker 2: was an extremely unfortunate development from what French there. I 267 00:16:35,231 --> 00:16:39,391 Speaker 2: don't think the court and judges generally have thoroughly recovered. 268 00:16:41,271 --> 00:16:44,590 Speaker 1: There's a famous line in the majority opinion that says, 269 00:16:44,911 --> 00:16:48,071 Speaker 1: our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the 270 00:16:48,111 --> 00:16:52,151 Speaker 1: problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities. 271 00:16:52,551 --> 00:16:54,431 Speaker 1: So they're saying this will not be precedent. 272 00:16:54,511 --> 00:16:57,951 Speaker 2: Really, Well, I hadn't really thought about that, but it 273 00:16:57,991 --> 00:16:59,791 Speaker 2: was pretty obvious anyway. 274 00:17:00,151 --> 00:17:03,351 Speaker 1: Yeah, what are people to make of the inclusion of 275 00:17:03,391 --> 00:17:05,031 Speaker 1: this very unusual line. 276 00:17:06,991 --> 00:17:10,311 Speaker 2: Well, I guess it's just the same thing they make 277 00:17:10,351 --> 00:17:12,630 Speaker 2: of granting a stay when there was no basis for 278 00:17:12,751 --> 00:17:18,190 Speaker 2: Granning to stay. It's just an unfortunate development, and frankly, 279 00:17:18,271 --> 00:17:25,470 Speaker 2: I think it undermined the published confidence in the court 280 00:17:25,590 --> 00:17:30,630 Speaker 2: and in state courts generally, because the court really showed 281 00:17:30,671 --> 00:17:36,231 Speaker 2: disrespect for the Florida Supreme Court, which I think was unjustified. 282 00:17:37,471 --> 00:17:43,270 Speaker 1: One last question for you, nineteen years later, is this 283 00:17:43,551 --> 00:17:47,150 Speaker 1: ruling less of a tragedy than you thought at the 284 00:17:47,150 --> 00:17:48,711 Speaker 1: time or more more? 285 00:17:49,511 --> 00:17:57,910 Speaker 2: I think it really really is an unacceptable decision, and 286 00:17:57,991 --> 00:18:00,071 Speaker 2: I think the more I've thought about it, the more 287 00:18:00,471 --> 00:18:04,191 Speaker 2: I've been puzzled about how it was reached and why. 288 00:18:05,191 --> 00:18:09,110 Speaker 2: I just don't know. It's just something that seemed to 289 00:18:09,150 --> 00:18:11,351 Speaker 2: be say, asked her what had happened? 290 00:18:21,911 --> 00:18:24,910 Speaker 3: And that is it for this season of fiasco. We 291 00:18:24,991 --> 00:18:27,830 Speaker 3: hope you enjoyed these bonus interviews. This will be our 292 00:18:27,911 --> 00:18:30,311 Speaker 3: last episode for a little while, but keep an eye 293 00:18:30,311 --> 00:18:32,710 Speaker 3: out for more seasons of Fiasco that we'll be putting 294 00:18:32,791 --> 00:18:33,390 Speaker 3: in this feed. 295 00:18:37,911 --> 00:18:38,951 Speaker 1: Fiasco Bush v. 296 00:18:39,110 --> 00:18:42,910 Speaker 3: Gore is produced by Prolog Projects and distributed by Pushkin Industries. 297 00:18:43,431 --> 00:18:47,150 Speaker 3: The show is produced by Mattelin, kaplan Ulla Culpa, Andrew Parsons, 298 00:18:47,150 --> 00:18:50,791 Speaker 3: and me Leon Nafak. We had additional editorial support from 299 00:18:50,830 --> 00:18:54,031 Speaker 3: Lisa Chase and Daniel Riley. Thanks for listening.