Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 09:35 AM Apr 2013

After Casting Key Fifth Vote For Bush, Justice O’Connor Now Regrets Bush v. Gore

After Casting Key Fifth Vote For Bush, Justice O’Connor Now Regrets Bush v. Gore

By Ian Millhiser

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, 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, O’Connor said, she isn’t 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,” O’Connor said during a talk Friday with the Tribune editorial board. “Maybe the court should have said, ‘We’re 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 hadn’t 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 Harvard’s Larry Tribe, that “equal protection of the laws required giving no protection of the laws to the thousands of still uncounted ballots.”

The Court’s decision to hand the presidency to Bush stunned many legal observers, some of whom were O’Connor’s 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, Bush’s own lawyers were skeptical of the legal theory that ultimately made up the basis of the Court’s decision in Bush. As Ben Ginsberg, a top lawyer on Bush’s 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


45 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
After Casting Key Fifth Vote For Bush, Justice O’Connor Now Regrets Bush v. Gore (Original Post) ProSense Apr 2013 OP
Sorry, the blood Kelvin Mace Apr 2013 #1
Now that's unfair treestar Apr 2013 #3
tell that to the dead warrior1 Apr 2013 #5
Logic is not suspended due to someone's death treestar Apr 2013 #10
She suspended logic in determining a life and death position, frivolously. Festivito Apr 2013 #14
How could it have been a life and death decision? treestar Apr 2013 #16
It was a life and death decision, anytime one branch of government, Uncle Joe Apr 2013 #19
* didn't get us into any wars because of 9/11 Nevernose Apr 2013 #24
She overruled the express will of the people Kelvin Mace Apr 2013 #8
If she voted for Bush, she may be responsible treestar Apr 2013 #11
Read Vincet Bugliosi's article in The Nation Kelvin Mace Apr 2013 #20
That's arguing the case treestar Apr 2013 #33
No, this was a case the SCOTUS Kelvin Mace Apr 2013 #40
but this was an ILLEGAL ruling, not a legal ruling grasswire Apr 2013 #32
Where is the authority for that? treestar Apr 2013 #34
the power is in the Constitution grasswire Apr 2013 #35
Makes the same sense as when they say Roe v. Wade is an illegal ruling treestar Apr 2013 #36
No, it isn't her fault, she just had a vote on the Supreme Court. Who the blame is some 18 year old TheKentuckian Apr 2013 #9
Her vote on the Supreme Court is behind a legal opinion treestar Apr 2013 #12
Yes, it's something far worse jeff47 Apr 2013 #37
Bingo! Rex Apr 2013 #44
Contrition is easy in hindsight. marmar Apr 2013 #2
Oh, well then, all is forgiven... russspeakeasy Apr 2013 #4
REALLY Justice Occonor??!!!! This decision was one of many that helped turn the USSC into a joke!! uponit7771 Apr 2013 #6
It looks like.... NCTraveler Apr 2013 #7
It only took her how many years of therapy to reach that conclusion? leveymg Apr 2013 #13
Translation - "I fucked you all but I feel bad about it, if that makes a difference" tjwash Apr 2013 #15
Why is her vote the deciding one as opposed to the other four treestar Apr 2013 #17
She is the one currently expressing guilt over her vote. jeff47 Apr 2013 #38
Yeah, stirred up the public a bit mokawanis Apr 2013 #18
"Thanks a pantload for 8 years of FAIL, Sandra" - The Citizens of these United States Berlum Apr 2013 #21
Sandra Day O'Connor has to take personal responsibility AZ Progressive Apr 2013 #22
Hindsight is always 20/20... one_voice Apr 2013 #23
Hey, Dick fucking Tracey. nt rrneck Apr 2013 #25
Bush V. Gore = worst SCOTUS decision ever, worst president ever. Initech Apr 2013 #26
Wasn't she the one who was opposed to a Gore presidency? Baitball Blogger Apr 2013 #27
Yeah, Justice O'Connor, some of us have been regretting your decision since you made it. AndyA Apr 2013 #28
^^this^^ nt LaydeeBug Apr 2013 #29
Bush would still have been President SlipperySlope Apr 2013 #30
No, that scenario wouldn't have went to the Supreme Court, it would've been up to Congress Uncle Joe Apr 2013 #31
Thanks for the proper interpretation. El Supremo Apr 2013 #41
Except that it wasn't going to continue to drag out in the courts jeff47 Apr 2013 #39
Doesn't matter, history doesn't care about your regrets. Rex Apr 2013 #42
With all due respect Justice O'Conner.....fuck you. MrSlayer Apr 2013 #43
"Less that perfect reputation" is an understatement. Marr Apr 2013 #45
 

Kelvin Mace

(17,469 posts)
1. Sorry, the blood
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 09:38 AM
Apr 2013

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)
10. Logic is not suspended due to someone's death
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 10:10 AM
Apr 2013

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)
14. She suspended logic in determining a life and death position, frivolously.
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 10:31 AM
Apr 2013

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)
16. How could it have been a life and death decision?
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 10:40 AM
Apr 2013

It was a legal decision about state elections laws, hanging chads and paper ballots.

Uncle Joe

(58,112 posts)
19. It was a life and death decision, anytime one branch of government,
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 11:15 AM
Apr 2013

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)
24. * didn't get us into any wars because of 9/11
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 12:12 PM
Apr 2013

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)
8. She overruled the express will of the people
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 09:48 AM
Apr 2013

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)
11. If she voted for Bush, she may be responsible
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 10:13 AM
Apr 2013

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)
20. Read Vincet Bugliosi's article in The Nation
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 11:22 AM
Apr 2013
http://www.thenation.com/article/none-dare-call-it-treason#

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)
33. That's arguing the case
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 03:29 PM
Apr 2013

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)
40. No, this was a case the SCOTUS
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 05:36 PM
Apr 2013

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

treestar

(82,383 posts)
34. Where is the authority for that?
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 03:36 PM
Apr 2013

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)
35. the power is in the Constitution
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 03:46 PM
Apr 2013

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)
36. Makes the same sense as when they say Roe v. Wade is an illegal ruling
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 03:56 PM
Apr 2013

Or any other case. It only means you disagree with the outcome.

TheKentuckian

(24,949 posts)
9. No, it isn't her fault, she just had a vote on the Supreme Court. Who the blame is some 18 year old
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 10:07 AM
Apr 2013

that voted Nader.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
12. Her vote on the Supreme Court is behind a legal opinion
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 10:14 AM
Apr 2013

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)
37. Yes, it's something far worse
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 05:26 PM
Apr 2013

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.

uponit7771

(90,225 posts)
6. REALLY Justice Occonor??!!!! This decision was one of many that helped turn the USSC into a joke!!
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 09:47 AM
Apr 2013

CU, Bush V Gore and the Texas gerrymandering decision has turned this country on it's head LITERALLY

 

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)
7. It looks like....
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 09:47 AM
Apr 2013

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?

tjwash

(8,219 posts)
15. Translation - "I fucked you all but I feel bad about it, if that makes a difference"
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 10:33 AM
Apr 2013

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)
17. Why is her vote the deciding one as opposed to the other four
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 10:42 AM
Apr 2013

who voted the same way? Was she on the fence where they were certain?

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
38. She is the one currently expressing guilt over her vote.
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 05:27 PM
Apr 2013

That's why her vote is the topic of discussion.

mokawanis

(4,434 posts)
18. Yeah, stirred up the public a bit
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 10:45 AM
Apr 2013

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)
21. "Thanks a pantload for 8 years of FAIL, Sandra" - The Citizens of these United States
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 11:24 AM
Apr 2013

"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)
22. Sandra Day O'Connor has to take personal responsibility
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 11:58 AM
Apr 2013

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...

AndyA

(16,993 posts)
28. Yeah, Justice O'Connor, some of us have been regretting your decision since you made it.
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 12:47 PM
Apr 2013

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.

SlipperySlope

(2,751 posts)
30. Bush would still have been President
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 01:41 PM
Apr 2013

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)
31. No, that scenario wouldn't have went to the Supreme Court, it would've been up to Congress
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 02:03 PM
Apr 2013

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)
41. Thanks for the proper interpretation.
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 06:13 PM
Apr 2013

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)
39. Except that it wasn't going to continue to drag out in the courts
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 05:30 PM
Apr 2013

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)
42. Doesn't matter, history doesn't care about your regrets.
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 06:17 PM
Apr 2013

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)
43. With all due respect Justice O'Conner.....fuck you.
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 06:21 PM
Apr 2013

Fuck you for ruining the country you selfish, venel shitbag. You have the blood of millions on your hands, asshole.

 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
45. "Less that perfect reputation" is an understatement.
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 06:31 PM
Apr 2013

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.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»After Casting Key Fifth V...