Sandra Day O'Connor: Maybe We Shouldn't Have Taken on Bush v Gore

[joeybee12]

Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor expressed doubts that the nation's highest court should have ruled on the controversial Bush v. Gore case that decided the outcome of the 2000 presidential election.

"It 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 on Friday. "Maybe the court should have said, 'We're not going to take it, goodbye.'"

The Tribune has more from O'Connor:

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."

O'Connor, who was appointed to the court by Ronald Reagan in 1981, was part of the 5-4 majority deciding to stop the recount in the crucial battleground state of Florida.


http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/29/17971531-ex-supreme-court-justice-has-second-thoughts-on-bush-v-gore?lite


Gee, you think so? Duh...worst decision ever, worst decision to take up a case ever.

[BeyondGeography]

1. She wanted to retire; huge incentive for her to vote as she did

Did she leave that part out? I'm still too angry to read.

[unblock]

2. or maybe you should have decided to count the votes?

taking the case was probably not a great idea, but the real crime was deciding it along flagrantly partisan and anti-democratic lines, and then to add salt to the wound, write a ludicrous "opinion" that amounts to a "screw you, we got 5 votes, and the constitution doesn't require us to have an intellectually defensible reason".

seriously. equal treatment under the law requires recounts to be halted arbitrarily? does anyone seriously think the 5 right-wingers would have come to that conclusion if it had cemented a victory for gore instead?

[indepat]

3. Too little, too late: your legacy is forever sealed by acting in concert with those

often-called felonious ones.

[eridani]

4. NOW she tells us?

Another link--

O'Connor: Maybe SCOTUS Shouldn't Have Ruled on Bush v. Gore
http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/17188-oconnor-maybe-scotus-shouldnt-have-ruled-on-bush-v-gore

Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said last week that in retrospect, perhaps the Supreme Court should not have elected to rule on Bush v. Gore, the 2000 decision that ended the Florida recount in the presidential race.

"It took the case and decided it at a time when it was still a big election issue," she told the Chicago Tribune editorial board in an interview on Friday. "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."