david savage, it s the 20th anniversary of bush v. gore and here we are in the midst of sorting through another close election. we asked you, because you have been covering this supreme court since 1986 for the los angeles times, to come back and look back in time with us at that 2000 election. what we were going through then as comparison to what is happening now and also some of the lessons that were learned. so let s start with the cord itself in 2000. the rank was court, nine members and seven of them have been appointed by republican presidents. how did they align ideologically? it s pretty much a five to four conservative court. justice scalia was a prominent figure. it s sort of leaned right. there are several moderate republicans. we do not see a lot of that. john stephens, david sutter and ruth ginsburg and steven briar where the sort of four on the left. it was a conservative but it was also an interesting. the court is never 100% predictable. i always found eve
here we are in the midst of sorting through another close election. we asked you because you ve been covering this supreme court since 1986 to come back and look back in time with us at that 2000 election. what we were going through then as comparison to what s happening now and also some of the lessons that were learned. let s start with the court itself in 2000. nine members of the court and seven of them have been appointed by republican presidents. but how do they align id logically? david: it s sort of a 5-4 conservative court. rehnquist was a leader. justice scalia was a leader of that court. ohn stephens, david sutter and ruth ginsburg and steven briar, on the left. so it leaned conservative. but it was also an interesting you know, the court the court is never 100% predictable. i found that justice kennedy and justice connor were middle of the road conservatives. and you could not predict them in all sorts of cases. would you say a bit more about william rehnqui
do you make of the white house statement that this impeachment probe is constitutionally valid- invalid and violates due process. i may not use those words but i would say it s constitutionally very troubling. to elaborate, the framers were ambivalent about impeachment power, debating whether to create it at all and who should exercise it. they understood that tremendous potential for misuse given the british parliamentary practice and the difficulty in cabining it a bit. they moved it to high crimes and misdemeanors, mentioning treason and bribery. what they expected was the house to unfold things with a certain decorum, follow certain procedures many i wouldn t use the word due process. i wouldn t think that applies in a constitutional sense. paul: that s what i want to focus on, david. seems to me, you look at the language of the constitution, what it says is the house has the power to impeach, high crimes and misdemeanors and so on but it doesn t say how it goes about i
statement that this impeachment probe is constitutionally valid- invalid and violates due process. i may not use those words but i would say it s constitutionally very troubling. to elaborate, the framers were ambivalent about impeachment power, debating whether to create it at all and who should exercise it. they understood that tremendous potential for misuse given the british parliamentary practice and the difficulty in cabining it a bit. they moved it to high crimes and misdemeanors, mentioning treason and bribery. what they expected was the house to unfold things with a certain decorum, follow certain procedures many i wouldn t use the word due process. i wouldn t think that applies in a constitutional sense. paul: that s what i want to focus on, david. seems to me, you look at the language of the constitution, what it says is the house has the power to impeach, high crimes and misdemeanors and so on but it doesn t say how it goes about it. the due process protections
statement that this impeachment probe is constitutionally valid- invalid and violates due process. i may not use those words but i would say it s constitutionally very troubling. to elaborate, the framers were ambivalent about impeachment power, debating whether to create it at all and who should exercise it. they understood that tremendous potential for misuse given the british parliamentary practice and the difficulty in cabining it a bit. they moved it to high crimes and misdemeanors, mentioning treason and bribery. what they expected was the house to unfold things with a certain decorum, follow certain procedures many i wouldn t use the word due process. i wouldn t think that applies in a constitutional sense. paul: that s what i want to focus on, david. seems to me, you look at the language of the constitution, what it says is the house has the power to impeach, high crimes and misdemeanors and so on but it doesn t say how it goes about it. the due process protections