RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore - 5/2/2013 4:36:18 PM

fucktoyprincess

Posts: 2337
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess
My point is that SCOTUS does make mistakes, and you can't unwind what happened. Changing her mind now cannot change the historical implications no more than Brown vs. Board of Education can actually go back in time and desegregate schools prior to 1954.

I think that's Ken's point.
Changing her mind now is useless. Showing some backbone at the time might have had an impact.
In politics, "sorry" isn't good enough. Blathering that you were wrong in hindsight is a cop out, particularly given that she could see how wrong she was at the time but carried on regardless.

Maybe I missed something here - did she actually say this? I thought this was simply in hindsight she changed her mind (and guess what, people change their minds, it happens). But you are suggesting something very different. You are saying she voted against what she actually believed at the time. Is that what you are saying? Everything I've read about this talks about it as strictly in hindsight, not at the time. If you can point me to something that says she actually voted against her beliefs at the time, I would be very interested in that information. Thanks.

_____________________________

~ ftp

(in reply to Moonhead)

Profile

Post #: 41

RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore - 5/2/2013 4:43:47 PM

Moonhead

Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline

I'm just saying that apologies are cheap, easy and change nothing.
It is pretty inarguable that the supreme court at the time was hellbent on bringing another Republican into power, whatever the electorate wanted, though. There's been quite a bit of evidence for that emerging over the last twelve years, hasn't there?

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to fucktoyprincess)

Profile

Post #: 42

RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore - 5/2/2013 4:56:59 PM

fucktoyprincess

Posts: 2337
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

I'm just saying that apologies are cheap, easy and change nothing.
It is pretty inarguable that the supreme court at the time was hellbent on bringing another Republican into power, whatever the electorate wanted, though. There's been quite a bit of evidence for that emerging over the last twelve years, hasn't there?

Yes, but she's not required, as a supreme court justice, to simply vote for what the electorate wants.

But she is required to vote how she honestly believes. If you really are saying she knowingly voted against what she believed to be the law at the time - well, this is quite a serious issue, actually.

_____________________________

~ ftp

(in reply to Moonhead)

Profile

Post #: 43

RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore - 5/2/2013 4:59:42 PM

Moonhead

Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline

They all voted against the law, when they allowed the chimp to take power after the Florida recount was stopped. I don't care how the Republicans have spent the last twelve years spinning that and what excuses they've made, that was illegal, and the supreme court condoned it. Bloody right that's a serious issue.

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to fucktoyprincess)

Profile

Post #: 44

RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore - 5/2/2013 5:23:53 PM

fucktoyprincess

Posts: 2337
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

They all voted against the law, when they allowed the chimp to take power after the Florida recount was stopped. I don't care how the Republicans have spent the last twelve years spinning that and what excuses they've made, that was illegal, and the supreme court condoned it. Bloody right that's a serious issue.

I am quite certain that some of the members of the court did, in fact, vote against what they knew to be the law. But others honestly believed they were making a proper decision and I would have put O'Connor in that category. I'm in the camp of feeling they made a wrong decision, but I personally don't feel that every single person on the court voted against conscience. Again, many people felt the court had made the wrong decision in Plessy vs. Ferguson, but I'm not convinced every justice in that case voted against conscience. I think some actually did believe in "separate but equal".

btw, it was a travesty of justice, what happened in the 2000 election. I'm just saying I believe some justices really felt they were making a proper legal decision at the time. I'm neither a Bush supporter nor a Republican. I'm just trying to analyze each justice separately, and I don't feel every single one of them was simply partisan in this case. I think some of them really believed their legal analysis.

_____________________________

~ ftp

(in reply to Moonhead)

Profile

Post #: 45

RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore - 5/2/2013 5:27:19 PM

Moonhead

Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline

If they were fool enough to believe that, they should have been out chasing ambulances not serving on the supreme court, imo.

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to fucktoyprincess)

Profile

Post #: 46

RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore - 5/2/2013 5:44:15 PM

fucktoyprincess

Posts: 2337
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

If they were fool enough to believe that, they should have been out chasing ambulances not serving on the supreme court, imo.

Again, I know of no single justice who has served on SCOTUS whose legal analysis was perfect every time. Just not historically accurate. Not to mention the number of plurality decisions out there that show that different justices believe different legal analyses and lines of argument. And lets add the many decisions from history that were partisan in nature. SCOTUS is not objective. And it never has been. Perhaps I am just too cynical, but I stopped expecting SCOTUS to be perfect a long time ago. I was not happy to have baby bush for president. But the SCOTUS decision in that case just proved what many have long understood. That the court is not always objective. And there are so many cases one can discuss to exemplify that issue. In particular, justices like Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas are/were notorious for simply voting on partisan lines. It is not just this one case that ruined the reputation of SCOTUS. I don't feel O'Connor's statement to be that much of a revelation on SCOTUS.

_____________________________

~ ftp

(in reply to Moonhead)

Profile

Post #: 47

RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore - 5/2/2013 5:48:45 PM

Moonhead

Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline

Of course not.
It is more than a little pathetic that she's trying to bottle her decision twelve years too late, though. I have no idea what the hell she thinks that's going to achieve besides making her look ridiculous.

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to fucktoyprincess)

Profile

Post #: 48

RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore - 5/2/2013 5:52:56 PM

fucktoyprincess

Posts: 2337
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

Of course not.
It is more than a little pathetic that she's trying to bottle her decision twelve years too late, though. I have no idea what the hell she thinks that's going to achieve besides making her look ridiculous.

This is the only interesting thing, actually. WHY is she saying this now? I suspect she is either in early stages of dementia, or in poor physical health and perhaps feeling guilty. Wants to absolve herself before meeting her maker kind of thing. To be honest, conservative judges in this country have a lot to answer for. Surprising so many of them believe in god, because I know how they would be judged in the hereafter......

_____________________________

~ ftp

(in reply to Moonhead)

Profile

Post #: 49

RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore - 5/2/2013 7:51:31 PM

FatDomDaddy

Posts: 3183
Joined: 1/31/2004
Status: offline

So... I can't remember...

How big was Gore's win in his home state of Tennessee?????

(in reply to fucktoyprincess)

Profile

Post #: 50

RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore - 5/2/2013 7:58:46 PM

dcnovice

Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy

So... I can't remember...

How big was Gore's win in his home state of Tennessee?????

Cleverish but completely irrelevant jab.

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to FatDomDaddy)

Profile

Post #: 51

RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore - 5/3/2013 6:26:06 AM

FatDomDaddy

Posts: 3183
Joined: 1/31/2004
Status: offline

Not irrelevant at all....had Gore won Tennessee there would not have even been a sniff about the Florida results.

(in reply to dcnovice)

Profile

Post #: 52