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 ...
I’d forgotten about this. Maybe I’ll shred her a little less harshly in the future... mnyeh.
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.
As to the previous reply, I’ve heard people call in to KLBJ, admit they are illegal and vote in Austin.
LLS
From what I remember, the manual recount that continued “gave” Bush the electoral votes anyway.
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.
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.
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.
Bush v. Gore was the CORRECT application of the law. Kelo v. New Haven was a gross MIS-APPLICATION of the law ...
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 ...
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.
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.
Damn good read my friend!
LLS
There is a word for former Justice O’Connor.
It begins and ends with the letter t and is considered vulgar slang.
She’s a twit? : )
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.
“...begins and ends with the letter t...”
Assuming you mean “Twit” with a different vowel... although “Twit” works quite well too...
You mean the acronym for “Tactical Women’s Alert Team”?
Actually “Taint” works well too...
:^) Just sayin’....
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.