How Sandra Day O’Connor’s Vote In Bush v. Gore Helped Unravel Her Own Legacy

[DonViejo]

SAHIL KAPUR APRIL 30, 2013, 1:55 PM 3227
Thirteen years after her pivotal swing vote in Bush v. Gore, retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor is suggesting it was a mistake for the Supreme Court to take up the case, lamenting as many scholars have that it tarnished the Court’s reputation. But there’s another, indirect casualty of the fallout from the hyper-controversial 2000 case that effectively settled the presidential election for George W. Bush: O’Connor’s own legacy.

In a bit of historical irony, when O’Connor retired in 2006, the man she helped make president replaced her with Samuel Alito, a staunch conservative who proceeded to unravel several major rulings where O’Connor had held the swing vote and had shaped the law — most notably on abortion, campaign finance and racial diversity in education.

“Alito is significantly more conservative than she is,” said Lucas A. Powe, a Supreme Court historian at the University of Texas School of Law in Austin. “Now partial birth abortion can be outlawed. There’s no doubt that Citizens United goes against where she was [on campaign finance]. And [affirmative action] is going to get hammered.”

In 2000, O’Connor voted with the court’s four liberal-leaning justices in a 5-4 decision to invalidate state laws banning late-term abortion. In 2007, Alito voted with the four conservative-leaning justices to reverse that decision and validate bans on the procedure.

Full article
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/04/sandra-day-oconnor-bush-gore-legacy.php?ref=fpa

[Little Star]

1. She's a dumb ass.

[4_TN_TITANS]

2. She's not a complete dumbass

but she totally blew it in 2000. Just look at the shape of the country now, as a direct result of W and a repub senate and house.

[Addison]

3. Too little, too late

Bush v. Gore wasn't an "oops" moment. She threw away all her credibility, not to mention permanently tarnished the authority of the Court, and can never take it back. All of which was an obvious outcome which needn't have taken the wisdom of Solomon to foresee.

[hrmjustin]

4. Welcome to DU my friend!

[11 Bravo]

6. Welcome to DU! I love your first post!

[Addison]

9. Thanks! It's nice to be here!

[hrmjustin]

11. We are glad to have you aboard!

[unblock]

5. this case had red flags and alarm bells all over, and the reich-wing supremos chose to ignore them.

they say an opportunity to secure a republican political victory and they took it.

it was stupid to take the case at all, but vastly more stupid to decide it the way they did. completely indefensible.

and totally unnecessary even from a political perspective. iirc, had gore won the recount, the Florida's republican-controlled legislature could still have decided to throw the election into disarray by doing something, i think it was by refusing to certify the election results and therefore withholding Florida's electors. the u.s. house of representative would then have picked the president, and, also being republican, would have picked shrub anyway.

so i think the bottom line is that shrub would have been president regardless. all they really did was protect a bunch of other republicans from taking the heat for it. a really stupid thing to sacrifice the legitimacy of the court for.

[dballance]

7. She's an Awful Public Speaker. Saw Her on Her Tour Several Years Ago

Her presentation was boring and flat. She defensive and almost abusive to questioners who asked about Bush v. Gore and wouldn't answer their questions. She was in Portland, OR for goodness sakes - she should have expected a few liberals to be at her speech. Saw Madeline Albright later on her speaking tour. She was much better. Far more engaging.

[former9thward]

8. I had her for a class in law school.

She was a fine speaker and was not arrogant like most law school profs. I just saw her speak a month ago. She is very frail but spoke clearly. Auditorium was packed and gave her an ovation.

[RudynJack]

10. She's right

that they shouldn't have taken the case. BUT...

the outcome would not have been different. The Florida Legislature was prepared to send a republican slate of electors no matter what - and that would've been perfectly legitimate and legal. And the republican-controlled House would've accepted them.

Bush would've been president no matter what - that the Supreme Court got involved didn't affect the outcome, and did indeed diminish the court's reputation.

[Samantha]

12. Yes, but they could not have done that

The state constitution required that the winner of the popular vote determine the party of the slate of electors. Additionally, they could not have amended that state constitution with the intent of it impacting Election 2000. Any changes of that nature could only impact the Next Election. But should they have gone ahead and done something which violated the constitution, the Electoral College could have not counted that slate. It is rare but it has been done. So the Legislature was blowing smoke up everybody's posterior, and no one rebutted that threat publicly.


Sam

[RudynJack]

13. Katherine Harris

had already certified the election in favor of Bush.

The recounts Gore asked for would not have flipped the results. Only a statewide recount could've changed things, and nobody asked for that - which was a huge mistake.

[Samantha]

14. There was no provision in the state constitution for a statewide recount

Last edited Thu May 2, 2013, 11:44 PM - Edit history (1)

That state constitution had been revised two years prior to the 2000 election due to the finding of a court case in which a mayor had to step down, having lost to the challenger, who did in fact garner more votes. The only way Gore could have gotten a statewide recount was by permission of the Governor (Jeb) or a court order.

It doesn't matter what a Secretary of State does at a moment in time if incorporated into his or her actions are demonstrably unsettled constitutional questions. No one with any authority stood up and said that's unconstitutional and if you follow-through the Electoral College could might possibly throw out Florida's slate and not count it at all. Instead, most people simply fell for her (and Max Stipanovich's) rush to declare Bush* the winner.

There has been a history of this technique happening on a national level, declaring a victor in an election even when the election is still unsettled, because there is a presumption that most people upon hearing the declaration will assume the election is concluded and any further protests will be perceived as words from a "sore loser." Nice technique but a little overused by then (even Bush's father had used this in a primary in the northeast when he was running).

The Florida Supreme Court did order a statewide recount which is what the Supreme Court interrupted. The U.S. Supreme Court had zero Federal Constitutional authority to involve itself in a state election for president, as long as the state had all of the rules laid out in its Constitution before the election -- which Florida did. So the finding of the Florida Supreme Court should have been the last word.

And I do believe the state recount would have proven Gore was the winner but I guess we will never know now, will we?

Sam