General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAfter Casting Key Fifth Vote For Bush, Justice O’Connor Now Regrets Bush v. Gore
By Ian Millhiser
Justice Sandra Day OConnor, the conservative retired justice who provided the fifth vote to install George W. Bush as president, is now having second thoughts about that decision:
Looking back, OConnor said, she isnt sure the high court should have taken <Bush v. Gore>.
It took the case and decided it at a time when it was still a big election issue, OConnor said during a talk Friday with the Tribune editorial board. Maybe the court should have said, Were not going to take it, goodbye.
The case, she said, stirred up the public and gave the court a less-than-perfect reputation.
Obviously the court did reach a decision and thought it had to reach a decision, she said. 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.
If nothing else, Bush v. Gore demonstrates how justices who are determined to reach a certain result are capable of bending both the law and their own prior jurisprudence in order to achieve it. In Bush, the five conservative justices held, in the words of Harvards Larry Tribe, that equal protection of the laws required giving no protection of the laws to the thousands of still uncounted ballots.
The Courts decision to hand the presidency to Bush stunned many legal observers, some of whom were OConnors fellow justices. Retired Justice John Paul Stevens once recounted a story where he ran into fellow Justice Stephen Breyer at a party while a relatively early phase of the case was pending before the Court. According to Stevens, (w)e agreed that the application was frivolous.
Indeed, Bushs own lawyers were skeptical of the legal theory that ultimately made up the basis of the Courts decision in Bush. As Ben Ginsberg, a top lawyer on Bushs presidential campaign, explained in 2006, just like really with the Voting Rights Act, Republicans have some fundamental philosophical difficulties with the whole notion of Equal Protection.
- more -
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/04/29/1931821/after-casting-key-fifth-vote-for-bush-justice-oconnor-now-regrets-bush-v-gore/
Yeah, hundreds of thousands of dead people later...
Krugman: The Great Degrader
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022764804
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022768880
George W. Bush's magic calendar returns
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022766502
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)of hundreds of thousands of people, perhaps even millions does not come off that easily.
You appointed him president, you bear the responsibility for every crime he committed while in office.
treestar
(82,383 posts)The issues surrounding the election and what Bush later did are unrelated.
warrior1
(12,325 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)She was dealing with legal issues regarding vote counting and jurisdiction. There was no way to know that 911 would happen and that Bush would get us into wars due to it.
And even so, if he was elected by law, then he was, she should not let partisan thoughts affect a legal ruling over the election laws and the vote counting.
Those were entirely different issues to be decided on their own merit, whether one agrees with her conclusions and the court's ultimate ruling or not.
Festivito
(13,452 posts)Partisan thoughts are not a problem, her partisan actions were the problem.
Perhaps she can rest well with her thoughts of right-wing parties, access and money weighing nicely when compared to such an ideology's eventual end.
treestar
(82,383 posts)It was a legal decision about state elections laws, hanging chads and paper ballots.
Uncle Joe
(58,112 posts)particularly one charged with the task of upholding the Constitution trashes it for the sake of partisan power, our democratic republic becomes weakened and the chances of rebellion, riot or civil war increase.
There simply was no legal justification for the U.S. Supreme Court to insert itself into a state and/or Congressional prerogative.
The Constitution has clear outlines for how such a dispute was to be handled and it didn't include the U.S. Supreme Court.
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)Afghanistan was an afterthought to keep people happy, and to make his war mom geeing slightly less transparent.
His real goal was Iraq, and invading Iraq because of 9/11 would be like invading Mexico because of Fidel Castro.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)She even KNEW that they were appointing Bush because they wanted him to win because they wrote that their decision was NOT to be considered precedent for future cases, something the SCOTUS had NEVER done and is contrary to its intended purpose. The point of the declaring that the ruling did not establish precedents was so that if a Democrat brought the same suit in the future they could rule against him. She CHOSE to insert herself in an unconstitutional manner into the democratic process, so she (and the rest of the Scalia Five) are totally responsible for what happened under Bush.
treestar
(82,383 posts)But a legal ruling is on different questions.
To that end, we are are responsible in various ways. If we had greater turnout, Bush would not have been able to use the closeness of the election to get it into the courts.
Political and legal issues are separate. She is supposed to separate them. Scalia fails to do that, but Sandra Day O'Connor may have been sincere in her legal reasoning at that time. In fact, what she says now is colored by what Bush later did.
But it would be wrong to say that Bush is a warmonger, therefore I, as a Supreme Court Justice, should keep that in mind and try to fix my ruling to go against him. That would have been acting like Scalia.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)The legal issues were CRYSTAL clear. Bush alleged that the voters of Florida were being harmed by not having their votes counted. However, not a SINGLE Florida voter was a party to the suit, nor did any Florida voter bring a suit. Bush lacked standing, the most elementary issue in any litigation. This is Law 101 stuff, and yet somehow, O'Connor didn't know this? She didn't know that they were intervening in a case in which the plaintiff had no LEGAL standing in order to appoint him president by judicial fiat?
Also, I'll quote Bugliosi here:
And if the Court's five-member majority was concerned not about Bush but the voters themselves, as they fervently claimed to be, then under what conceivable theory would they, in effect, tell these voters, "We're so concerned that some of you undervoters may lose your vote under the different Florida county standards that we're going to solve the problem by making sure that none of you undervoters have your votes counted"? Isn't this exactly what the Court did?
The article is a long dissection of the Court's illegality, but I highly recommend the time be expended.
There are only two explanations for O'Connor's actions:
1) She was part of the deliberate thwarting of justice and subversion of the Constitution that Scalia was engineering.
2) She was an idiot and grossly incompetent, because you would have to be to accept Scalia's arguments and vote with him.
At Nuremberg we tried and executed judges who ruled that the Nazi regime's policies and election chicanery were legal. O'Connor illegally subverted the Constitution and appointed a man who them committed war crimes. I am not seeing that much difference here.
treestar
(82,383 posts)There are a lot of Supreme Court rulings people don't agree with, and they can keep arguing the case until the cows come home (happens with Roe v. Wade too) but the decision was as it was. They decided Bush had standing and set that precedent.
But it does not mean that she (and I suppose the other 4 who voted with her) are directly responsible for what Bush actually did. Not agreeing with that does not change the law.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)had no business in. Bugliosi goes into great detail about how the Scalia 5 pissed on every prior ruling they had made on the 14th Amendment and "state's rights". Scalia in particular (with O'Connor often concurring) hammered that the rules of how votes are counted are STRICTLY a state matter, not a federal one, and certainly NOT a federal court.
The actions taken by O'Connor et al, crossed the line into actual treason. And Bugliosi is no "left-wing hippy", he is an establishment Republican and a successful prosecutor (he put the Manson Family in jail). Bugliosi' was moved to write the book when he complained about Bush v. Gore to colleagues who agreed with him, but said that since the "right guy" won, no harm, no foul.
So, when you commit treason and appoint a guy president who later turns out to be a war criminal, I think I am being more than fair in saying she has blood on her hands which will not wash off with a half-assed expression of regret.
They decided Bush had standing and set that precedent.
No, they specifically state in their ruling that their ruling ONLY applies to this case, Bush getting handed the election by the SCOTUS in 2000:
"Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."
Translation: Don't try this with any Democrats, we will rule against you the other way.
And let's not forget the conflict of interest and nakedly partisan comments:
On the eve of the election Sandra Day O'Connor had made a public statement that a Gore victory would be a personal disaster for her. Clarence Thomas' wife was so intimately involved in the Bush campaign that she was helping to draw up a list of Bush appointees more or less at the same time as her husband was adjudicating on whether the same man would become the next President. Finally, Antonin Scalia's son was working for the firm appointed by Bush to argue his case before the Supreme Court, the head of which was subsequently appointed as Solictor-General.
Stephen Foster
The Judiciary, Civil Liberties and Human Rights
grasswire
(50,130 posts)An ILLEGAL ruling on a legal matter.
treestar
(82,383 posts)What power can change the rulings of the courts? Unless Congress passes something to override it, it remains the law. They would say that about Roe v. Wade too.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)in this case, "illegal" = "unconstitutional"
If they had allowed it to be precedent, it would have become the law of the land.
They did not.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Or any other case. It only means you disagree with the outcome.
TheKentuckian
(24,949 posts)that voted Nader.
treestar
(82,383 posts)that is not the same thing as a vote at the ballot box for chrrissakes.
And the person who voted for Nader was part of the problem. But for entirely different reasons.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Because it was a "legal opinion" pulled out of nowhere to justify the election result that she wanted. Voters be damned. It was nothing but a massive abuse of power.
And yes, she shares the guilt for installing Bush and all he did in office.
Funny how some like to pretend we all should be as blind as them.
marmar
(76,984 posts)It's a little late for the rest of us.
russspeakeasy
(6,539 posts)uponit7771
(90,225 posts)CU, Bush V Gore and the Texas gerrymandering decision has turned this country on it's head LITERALLY
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)It looks like she doesn't think the SC should have taken it up at that early date. A time when it could have still been handled by the states. It doesn't look like she is saying she regrets the direction of her vote, just that they heard the case at that time. She regrets that the SC voted on it at all. Am I missing something?
leveymg
(36,418 posts)tjwash
(8,219 posts)I'm sure she liked that koch-bro's check that ended up in a cayman islands account.
May she rot in hell and have constant nightmares about the slaughter of innocent people that is on her hands.
treestar
(82,383 posts)who voted the same way? Was she on the fence where they were certain?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)That's why her vote is the topic of discussion.
mokawanis
(4,434 posts)Something to do with everyone seeing what a bunch of asshats the court jesters are, and the disregard for fair elections and democratic process was a tad upsetting. Got us all a little stirred up. Jeebus, she's pathetic.
Berlum
(7,044 posts)"You and your Republican-crony Supremes wrongly saddled America with a Massive Dose of Republican FAIL, Corruption & Diaper Diddling." - The Citizens of these United States
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)See, she's a Republican, and Republicans are all about personal responsibility (yeah right!) so she has to take personal responsibility for installing a known idiot into the White House, irresponsibly giving such power to an idiot, thus she has to take personal responsibility for the consequences: all the destruction, suffering, and the harsh road that America has been on, that has occurred because of one vote, that she made, because otherwise Al Gore would've been president, there would've been no September 11th, and we wouldn't be in Iraq, and the subprime mortgage industry would've been regulated, etc...
one_voice
(20,043 posts)though I don't understand why this wasn't clear at the time.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Initech
(99,915 posts)Baitball Blogger
(46,576 posts)And got caught saying so?
AndyA
(16,993 posts)Take a look at the world outside your little bubble: You're responsible for a lot of that. If Bush hadn't been anointed and appointed by your "supreme" gang, a lot of what's happening wouldn't be happening.
Too bad you didn't have this revelation before you voted to place a man in office the people didn't vote for.
LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)SlipperySlope
(2,751 posts)It wouldn't have mattered if the Supreme Court had passed on this case, Bush would still have ended up being President and it would have been even nastier than what we saw.
Here's why.
I remind everyone who forgot that the Republican legislature of Florida was poised to simply appoint a slate of Bush electors if the issue had continued to drag out in the courts.
So if the Supreme Court had passed on Bush v. Gore, then what? Then the Florida legislature would have acted to appoint a Bush slate of electors? Then we either would have ended up Bush (if the electors were not challenged), we would have ended up in the US Supreme Court anyway (if someone challenged the electors in Federal court), we would have ended up with Bush (if the Florida Supreme Court recognized the Legislature's electors), or we would have had a true constitutional crisis (if the state legislature recognized their electors, the state courts recognized a different set of electors, and the US Supreme Court refused to intervene).
The whole thing was a f*cking mess and the deck was stacked from the beginning. If SCOTUS had passed I honestly don't think it could have changed the outcome although it could have made the ugliness a lot clearer to see.
Uncle Joe
(58,112 posts)to decide which set of electors to seat.
Of course the Republicans controlled Congress and they would've chose the Florida Republican Legislature's set of electors over those of the people anyway, but at least this would've been Constitutional.
Furthermore had Congress chosen, this would've been politically honest, they would clearly be held responsible for usurping the will of the people.
The same motivating force which after the political shadow of 1824 compelled the people to overwhelmingly elect Andrew Jackson to the Presidency in 1828; (ushering in the Jacksonian Era,) would've played a more pronounced part in the election of 2004.
I believe the Republicans in Congress and the Felonious Five knew this, they didn't want a decades long era of Progressivism to take hold. They couldn't afford such a clear and concise crystallization of public political thought. So the only other choice was to deliberately muck up the results with an Orwellian interpretation of law, raping the Constitution in the process.
El Supremo
(20,365 posts)The Supreme Court should never had taken away the right of Congress in this matter, Equal Protection Clause or not.
And I hope Sandra Day O'Connor rots in Hell.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The FL Supreme court had already ruled. The matter was settled as far as FL law was concerned. If the SCOTUS had refused the case, as they should have, the court battles would have been over.
No 'dragging out' that would allow your scenario.
Rex
(65,616 posts)History will keep record of the atrocities committed by the man you installed and those that installed him. Your personal feelings are immaterial.
MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)Fuck you for ruining the country you selfish, venel shitbag. You have the blood of millions on your hands, asshole.
Marr
(20,317 posts)For many people, myself included, it ended the happy idea that the Supreme Court strives to be an impartial, apolitical institution. They had no business taking on the issue, and they certainly didn't have any business handing the election to one candidate then saying their ruling could never be cited as precedent in other cases. It was a naked, partisan power grab and they ruined the court's reputation.