O’Connor: U.S Supreme Court may have blown it by getting involved in 2000 election
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Tx4obama (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).
Source: Kansas City Star
Sandra Day OConnor, the first woman U.S. Supreme Court justice, is expressing doubts over the courts historic involvement in the 2000 presidential election.
Just maybe, OConnor said over the weekend, the high court should have stayed out of the 2000 election.
Maybe the court should have said, Were not going to take it, goodbye, OConnor told the Chicago Tribune editorial board in reference to the controversial Bush v. Gore decision. It turned out the election authorities in Florida hadnt done a real good job there and kind of messed it up. And probably the Supreme Court added to the problem at the end of the day.
Its not the first time OConnor has expressed doubt about siding with the majority in the 5-4 decision. In a 2010 interview, she said she didnt know if it was right. But, she added, she didnt worry about it because several recounts found that Bush would have won the state regardless.
Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2013/04/29/4208790/oconnor-us-surpeme-court-may-have.html
What a crock of shit! The recounts found that Gore would have won. Hey bitch, feel guilty about all those people killed in the Iraq war?
Skittles
(153,104 posts)and I hope thinks about it EVERY FUCKING DAY
Demit
(11,238 posts)She "maybe kind of probably" regrets the screwup it turned out she got. If she had any integrity she'd show more remorse at what she did. Instead of trying to spread the blame around. She was the swing vote. If I believed in hell I'd hope she'd have her own special circle for what she loosed on us.
booley
(3,855 posts)For me at it was never about some means to an end. It wasn't about Gore winning or losing. It was about the system itself. It was about the fact that that system was and continues to be messed up, slanted and too easily manipulated by a very few over the desires of the majority.
I can accept that sometimes republicans win. I understand that my guy won't always get the votes.
But to do that I need to know that the guy being sworn in really is representative of the people he or she was elected to represent.
And we can't always say that with conviction.
In part because you, Justice O'Connor, enabled and legitimized a system we can't entirely trust.
quadrature
(2,049 posts)nt
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Enjoy your lava enemas.
0rganism
(23,920 posts)This re-writing of history disturbs me as much or more than the SCOTUS' politicized involvement in the case.
John2
(2,730 posts)in the country and according to research, he won the popular vote in Florida. The problem was, they only did a recount of specific counties requested by the Gore campaign. A research was done on voting irregularities throughout the entire state of Florida and it revealed some Democratic votes were undercounted in counties Bush won.
The Election Board of Florida was controled by a Republican and Jeb Bush had a lot of influence with the voting process in Florida just like the present Republican Governor of Florida. It was the same Election Bush enforced laws against voter fraud, such as criminals with felonies from voting. He had a lot to do with helping his brother win Florida. Now I guess he thinks it is his turn to be President. If he does run, you can expect the same old stuff again.
note: the Congress had a lot to do with pressuring a conclusion to the recount and keeping it limited. I think tha I read a process where certain politicians could have rejected the results and the Presidential Election would have been challenged because of irregularities in Florida. Congress has the ability to call for a special election or throw out the Florida vote. How long would it have took the Election Board of Florida to recount the entire state? The Supreme court's premise was George W. Bush was the one being cheated but it was the American people that got cheated and votes not counted. They could have given the state of Florida extra days to redo the election under the circumstances.
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)NeoConsSuck
(2,544 posts)another one looking for redemption. Ain't gonna get it from me.
SomeGuyInEagan
(1,515 posts)I recall reading it at the time - that she wanted to retire and having Gore as president would mean she could not. It was a pretty well-told story at the time, but here is the quickest reference I can find at the moment:
http://www.clydefitchreport.com/2013/03/sandra-day-oconnor-jaccuse/
Oh, and BTW, fuck you O'Connor ... just fucking die already.
John2
(2,730 posts)She just don't come off to me as bad person. I actually think she was a pretty good Justice and more centrist. She is no Scalia or Thomas. Those two have agendas and shouldn't be on the Court.