Posted on 04/30/2013 12:47:48 AM PDT by Lmo56
The retired justice acknowledges that the ruling that put Bush in the White House hurt the court's reputation ...
Seven years after retiring from the Supreme Court, Sandra Day O'Connor is second-guessing what she says was the most controversial ruling of her 25 years on the high court — Bush v. Gore, which decided the 2000 presidential election. O'Connor — appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1981 — was the swing vote who gave conservatives a 5-4 majority, and put George W. Bush in the White House. She says now that the court only "stirred up the public" and "gave the court a less-than-perfect reputation" by stepping in to end Florida's manual recount, giving the state's electoral votes — and the presidency — to Bush. "[The court] took the case and decided it at a time when it was still a big election issue," O'Connor told the Chicago Tribune editorial board recently. "Maybe the court should have said, 'We're not going to take it, goodbye.'"
(Excerpt) Read more at theweek.com ...
“RE: #8, you are right. Also, he mentioned that Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution gives the state legislature the authority to appoint electors as it chooses, and the FL legislature (majority Republican) was prepared to do just that, esp. given the kangaroo leftist Supreme Court in that state.”
I was sitting next to a liberal at a Christmas luncheon while that fiasco was going on. He was arguing that the recounts should keep going until Gore won. I showed him that article in my pocket Constitution. I explained that the election, as certified by the Florida Secretary of State, should stand, because the Florida Supreme court had no jurisdiction in the matter, according to that article.
He exploded “You mean we’re not a democracy?”
“No, we are a republic,” I replied.
The next year, at that luncheon, his wife told me that he was refusing to sit at the same table with someone who had a copy of the Constitution in his pocket.
In the days following 9-11, because it was liberal NYC that was hit, it was a Bush-hating, New York liberal, normally anti-nuke. who told me that we should turn Afghanistan into a sheet of radioactive glass.
Of course, with Gore as POTUS, we may not have had any nukes by the time the terrorists struck.
Sandy Day O’Conner was Inflicted on the United States by an agreement between Ronald Reagan’s Female Dog of a daughter(ERA backer Maureen) and Ronald Reagan. Seem RR had an agreement with Female Dog Maureen that Maureen would not cause any “trouble” with RR in exchange for rr’s first USSC pick being a “women”. Making and keeping that “agreement” was RR’s Second LARGEST MISTAKE. Picking GHWB as his Veep want the first.
Yes, the relevant decision was 7-2. Gore wanted to have a re-count in 4, heavily Democrat counties. Screw the other 68 counties. And the Florida Supreme Court agreed, 6-0. No surprise that all of the 6 FSC were appointed by Democrats. The 5-4 decision was to tell Gore he had already wasted enough of the People’s time.
Yes, the relevant decision was 7-2. Gore wanted to have a re-count in 4, heavily Democrat counties. Screw the other 68 counties. And the Florida Supreme Court agreed, 6-0. No surprise that all of the 6 FSC were appointed by Democrats. The 5-4 decision was to tell Gore he had already wasted enough of the People’s time.
the majority of the public applauded the Court on a job well done - the only downer is that it wasn’t a unanimous decision.
It was much more of a shame that the SCofFLAw voted unanimously to further the political cause they supported over the clear rule of law.
God forbid the SCOTUS stands up for the Constitution and rule of law.
LLS
See my reply to Jim that resides above.
LLS
Why would following the Constitution have caused a "constitutional crisis"?
Florida had already certified its electors.
I like your post. You covered—and well, I would add—all the salient points of the matter.
And that is the exact weak-ass argument of why the Constitution should NEVER be followed.
Are you saying that there is, and there should be, a mob veto over following the Constitution?
You, and others who use the Zombie Apocalypse argument, are just putting off the inevitable. I don't think the mob is powerful enough to overthrow the government, but if they are, they are.
Right now, they are getting everything they want with no risk of shedding THEIR blood. That has to change.
Millions will kill for socialism, but the number who are willing to die for it is much, much smaller.
Time was running out--there wasn't time for the endless recounts Gore wanted to let his people "find" more votes if Florida's electors were going to be certified in time to cast their ballots. Plus the recounts that were done later showed that Bush did win Florida.
The problem is that half of the people did not want to follow the Constitution, and the polititions that they voted for would not.
Florida's electors were already certified, by the Secretary of State as directed by the State Legislature.
SCOFLA had zero role, and should have been ignored.
Despite the gloating, though, some have pointed out that O’Connor isn’t saying the decision was wrong. As she told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer in 2010, the decision was a tough one, but there’s no reason to believe that, had the court allowed the contentious recount to drag on, Gore would have fared any better. “There were at least three separate recounts of the votes, the ballots, in the four counties where it was challenged, and not one of the recounts would the decision have changed. So I don’t worry about it,” she told Blitzer.
No, the problem is that they are allowed to vote.
Republic 2.0 will have to address that.
The SCOTUS did not decide the election, the voters did. Problem is, the margin of victory was less than the margin of error.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.