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 ...
HORSE HOCKEY !!!
Umpires are paid to call balls and strikes. They sometimes have to take the heat when the 7th game of the World Series ends on a called 3rd strike in the bottom of the 9th, with 2 outs and the home team is behind.
O'Connor shouldn't have taken the job if she really feels this way about the decision. Is she forgetting that John Marshall FAMOUSLY wrote in Marbury v. Madison that:
It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.
AND, Is she forgetting that SCOTUS UNANIMOUSLY remanded back to the Florida Supreme Court a closely-related case, Bush v. Palm Beach Canvassing Board for re-consideration eight days before deciding Bush v. Gore?
FYI: The Florida Supreme Court's decision allowing recounts was not changed - thus, Bush v. Gore went to SCOTUS.
AND, is she forgetting that Bush v. Gore was decided 7-2 [Breyer and Souter concurring with the 5 conservatives] on the basis of 14th Amendment Equal Protection violation in counting votes differently in different districts?
AND, is she forgetting that the Florida Legislature FULLY intended to participate in the elctoral process, as provided in 3 U.S.C. §5?
FYI: 3 U.S. C. §5 provides that:
If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its final determination of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, by judicial or other methods or procedures, and such determination shall have been made at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such determination made pursuant to such law so existing on said day, and made at least six days prior to said time of meeting of the electors, shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes as provided in the Constitution, and as hereinafter regulated, so far as the ascertainment of the electors appointed by such State is concerned.
AND, is she forgetting that 3 U.S. C. §5's "Safe Harbor" provision set the final date for settling the selection of electors at 12 DEC 2000 - and that a recount WAS NOT a remedy since it COULD NOT be accomplished by the deadline?
AND, is she forgetting that the second part of the Bush v. Gore decision was 5-4 ONLY because the liberal justices STILL wanted the 14th Amendment violation remedy to be that Gore to was have another bite at the apple - with another recount?
O'Connor is a putz - just trying to burnish up her own reputation with remarks like she gave to the Trib ...
...Says the same scumbag who ruled that government can seize private property and hand it over to a private business. Wow.. Anyway, she can go soil herself wherever she wants these days. Nobody cares. Good riddance.
I thought the relevant decision was 7-2, not 5-4.
It was, 7-2 that the Equal Protection Clause was violated by having selective recounts.
The second part of the decision 5-4 was that there was no time for a state-wide recount under exactly the same conditions in each district. Otherwise, if a recount was allowed, then the deadline would not be met.
I thought the relevant aspect to this whole thing was that Jeb had certified the results while all this was going on, making all the SCOTUS stuff moot in “deciding” who was to be POTUS. The usual processes would have proceeded to elect Bush.
I thought each time the recount was done Gore lost more votes.......
Uhhh, yeah.... Just shut up Sandra.... And go away.
I caught part of Mark Levin's program Monday evening and I believe his position was the same as yours. If I understood him correctly, he said the only real remedy open to Gore would have been to contest the certification of Florida's electors, in which case congress would have voted. And given the composition of congress at the time, Bush would still have won. At least that's how I understood the part of his commentary that I was able to catch.
I could not have said it better, Lancey. I still remember the Abomination that was Kelo vs. New London.
It’s not Bush v. Gore that soiled her reputation. It was everything else she decided. Why the MSM lionized her over the years is beyond me.
O’Connor wrote the dissent in Kelo v. New London.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
Thanks for that. I must be getting old.
Will somebody take me home?
Dunno. Have to find my car keys first.
You’re right. *blush*
The memory fades with the passage of time.
Kelo is still an Abomination and O’Connor is still someone that still should have never been on the court.
Thanks for the correction, S&A. ‘Pod.
The MSM lionized her only because she was the first woman on the SCOTUS. Remember, to Liberals/MSM, the MOST IMPORTANT thing is any minority status. Minority status trumps intelligence, ability and honesty. Her decisions is several cases were a disgrace, but she is a woman and that is what really matters, doesn’t it? /s
No worries. And yes, there have been better justices.
In the 1991 World Series, the Minnesota Twins won 4 games to 3. Would Sandy O’Conner have stepped in to change the rules and say the Atlanta Braves “really won” because they scored 29 runs, while the Twins only scored 24 runs? Or would she have ruled that the Series should be settled under the rules of the game as agreed before they played? My guess: Sandy’s turned even more liberal - she would overturn the World Series too if enough people whined at her. Liberals disgust me. Without the rule of law, even America would turn into an ugly place, and they are trying that as an experiment.
Wow. What an unmitigated a-hole.
For some reason, the two people she reminds me of here are Robert McNamara and Jane Fonda.
This is NOT what Supreme Court decisions should be based on.
Yes, the country would have been a lot better of with Al Jazzera Gore in as POTUS in 2000 to blaze the path for the next great Communist in Chief: Bronco Bama (sarc).
pathetic
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.