Skip to comments.
Sandra Day O'Connor's Second Thoughts On The 2000 Bush v. Gore Decision
The Week ^
| 4/29/13
| Harold Maass
Posted on 04/30/2013 12:47:48 AM PDT by Lmo56
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-94 next last
To: Arrowhead1952
I’d forgotten about this. Maybe I’ll shred her a little less harshly in the future... mnyeh.
61
posted on
04/30/2013 7:37:01 AM PDT
by
txhurl
To: Alberta's Child
I agree with your facts and argument but not your conclusion. The SCOTUS could have taken the case and then said that the US Constitution governs this situation, and the remedy sought by Gore was not what the Constitution provides, so we are going with the Constitution.
62
posted on
04/30/2013 7:38:24 AM PDT
by
NCLaw441
To: txhurl
As to the previous reply, I’ve heard people call in to KLBJ, admit they are illegal and vote in Austin.
63
posted on
04/30/2013 7:42:24 AM PDT
by
Arrowhead1952
(The Second Amendment is NOT about the right to hunt. It IS a right to shoot tyrants.)
To: Jim Noble
Whoa dude... you do understand that I am explaining the reasons why I think that the SCOTUS heard the case and I am not defending their actions. I will go one further... THIS SCOTUS doesn't care about the Constitution and will remain a political court as long as the progressives outnumber the Conservatives. The only Justice that I think is 100% Constitutional is Clarence Thomas. That is not to say that Alito and Scalia are not brilliant jurists... but they have some screwy decisions in their past. I am just discussing this subject... not debating it.
LLS
64
posted on
04/30/2013 7:42:31 AM PDT
by
LibLieSlayer
(FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS!)
To: Lmo56
From what I remember, the manual recount that continued “gave” Bush the electoral votes anyway.
65
posted on
04/30/2013 7:58:14 AM PDT
by
ro_dreaming
(G.K. Chesterton, “Christianity has not been tried and found wanting. It’s been found hard and lef)
To: Daveinyork
I don’t agree necessarily agree with that. If you go back through U.S. history it wasn’t all that uncommon for presidential elections to end up in Congress because of Electoral College issues. We’ve grown accustomed to “normal” elections only because we now have a two-party system where it is almost impossible for a third-party candidate to win even a single state — let alone enough states to prevent another candidate from getting a majority of the electoral votes.
66
posted on
04/30/2013 8:53:29 AM PDT
by
Alberta's Child
("I am the master of my fate ... I am the captain of my soul.")
To: NCLaw441; LibLieSlayer; Jim Noble
NCLaw441:
Maybe I have my facts wrong, but I don't think any "remedy" Gore sought in the USSC case was all that relevant. Bush was the plaintiff, not Gore. That itself was problematic because neither party in the case (Bush v. Gore) was a citizen of Florida, had voted in Florida, or was ever impacted by the actions of a Florida governing body or court in a way that would stand up to any objective scrutiny in a Federal court case.
Even in a best-case scenario for Gore, all he could have hoped for was a disputed slate of Electors from Florida in the national Electoral Vote. I think even the New York Times later went through the whole case and the various legal disputes and admitted that they could not find a single scenario in which Gore could have won the election.
67
posted on
04/30/2013 9:04:51 AM PDT
by
Alberta's Child
("I am the master of my fate ... I am the captain of my soul.")
To: Lmo56; LibLieSlayer; Jim Noble; All
68
posted on
04/30/2013 9:14:08 AM PDT
by
Alberta's Child
("I am the master of my fate ... I am the captain of my soul.")
To: Alberta's Child
Idon’t think Congress has the authority to determine that case. It wasn’t a case of nobody getting a majority of the electoral votes. It was a case of who had the authority to decide what electors would vote for Florida. The Constitution places that squarely in the Florida legislature. If the supremes did not decide this case, the recounts would have continued well past inauguration day. The Florida Sec State would have certified a result, and if it was for Bush, the Florida supremes would have over-ruled her, and there would be another recount. This could have gone on forever.
69
posted on
04/30/2013 11:17:23 AM PDT
by
Daveinyork
(."Trusting government with power and money is like trusting teenaged boys with whiskey and car keys,)
To: sauropod
I could not have said it better, Lancey. I still remember the Abomination that was Kelo vs. New London. Bush v. Gore was the CORRECT application of the law. Kelo v. New Haven was a gross MIS-APPLICATION of the law ...
70
posted on
04/30/2013 11:30:34 AM PDT
by
Lmo56
(If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
To: Wyatt's Torch
Despite the gloating, though, some have pointed out that OConnor isnt saying the decision was wrong. My point was that it was to SCOTUS to decide. "Maybe we shouldn't have taken the case" ... Bullshit. It is SCOTUS's job.
Otherwise, the FLSC decision woulda stood - allowing unlawful recounts and would set precednt for other state courts in future elections to decide [politically] when and when not to have them ...
71
posted on
04/30/2013 11:37:51 AM PDT
by
Lmo56
(If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
To: Daveinyork
Florida could have conducted recounts for the next 500 years if they wanted to do that. What Florida could
not do, however, was hold up the entire 2000 presidential election in the process of carrying out all of these recounts. If the date established by Congress for holding the Electoral College vote (I believe it was December 18th of 2000) arrived and Florida's electors in the Electoral College still hadn't been determined, then Florida's electoral votes wouldn't have been counted and the world would have gone on without them. In that particular case (i.e., neither candidate having a majority of the electoral votes by the 12/18 date), Congress would have elected the president as per Article II of the Constitution.
It's important to remember that the United States is still a group of fifty sovereign states. A presidential election doesn't get held up just because one of those states is a half-@ssed backwater that can't figure out which candidate they voted for.
72
posted on
04/30/2013 12:17:16 PM PDT
by
Alberta's Child
("I am the master of my fate ... I am the captain of my soul.")
To: Lmo56
See #72. It’s not the job of the U.S. Supreme Court to fix Florida’s problem in a situation like that. Either one of group of Florida electors certified by the Florida legislature would have shown up for the Electoral College vote on December 18th of 2000, or none of the state’s electoral votes would have been counted.
73
posted on
04/30/2013 12:20:21 PM PDT
by
Alberta's Child
("I am the master of my fate ... I am the captain of my soul.")
To: Alberta's Child
Damn good read my friend!
LLS
74
posted on
04/30/2013 2:47:49 PM PDT
by
LibLieSlayer
(FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS!)
To: Lmo56; fieldmarshaldj; BillyBoy; AuH2ORepublican; GOPsterinMA; sickoflibs; stephenjohnbanker; ...
There is a word for former Justice O’Connor.
It begins and ends with the letter t and is considered vulgar slang.
75
posted on
05/01/2013 5:43:19 AM PDT
by
Impy
(All in favor of Harry Reid meeting Mr. Mayhem?)
To: Impy
76
posted on
05/01/2013 5:52:29 AM PDT
by
AuH2ORepublican
(If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll defend your rights?)
To: AuH2ORepublican
That too.
She’s also a numbskull, a rapscallion, a four flusher (not really but that’s a good insult) and a baboso. Or I guess I should say “babosa” since she’s a woman.
77
posted on
05/01/2013 6:04:58 AM PDT
by
Impy
(All in favor of Harry Reid meeting Mr. Mayhem?)
To: Impy; Lmo56; fieldmarshaldj; BillyBoy; AuH2ORepublican; GOPsterinMA; sickoflibs; ...
“...begins and ends with the letter t...”
Assuming you mean “Twit” with a different vowel... although “Twit” works quite well too...
78
posted on
05/01/2013 9:36:56 AM PDT
by
NFHale
(The Second Amendment - By Any Means Necessary.)
To: NFHale
You mean the acronym for “Tactical Women’s Alert Team”?
79
posted on
05/01/2013 9:37:56 AM PDT
by
dfwgator
To: Impy; Lmo56; fieldmarshaldj; BillyBoy; AuH2ORepublican; GOPsterinMA; sickoflibs; ...
Actually “Taint” works well too...
:^) Just sayin’....
80
posted on
05/01/2013 9:39:08 AM PDT
by
NFHale
(The Second Amendment - By Any Means Necessary.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-94 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson