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

Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

dcnovice -> Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore (4/29/2013 4:59:54 PM)
quote: O'Connor questions court's decision to take Bush v. Gore Looking back, O'Connor said, she isn't sure the high court should have taken the case. "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." Source: Chicago Tribune Thoughts, anyone?

kalikshama -> RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore (4/29/2013 5:42:29 PM)
I thought mediaite nailed it with their headline: An Era Late And A Trillion Dollars Short: Sandra Day O'Connor Second-Guesses Bush V. Gore Decision

FatDomDaddy -> RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore (4/29/2013 6:33:42 PM)
I don't think they should have taken it either. Florida should have had a complete, down to every ballot recount. Let's see if y'all can remember which of the two major parties fought that tooth and nail?

LizDeluxe -> RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore (4/29/2013 7:31:46 PM)
She regrets the Court having taken the case because of the public's misguided perception that they somehow 'awarded' the presidency to Bush which is nonsense. They ruled on the constitutionality of the matter. Looking back they got it right but she doesn't like how the fallout impacted the reputation of the Court. Nowhere in any of her comments does she second guess the ruling - she questions whether they should have heard the case in the first place since the American public by and large is incapable of understanding how the process works. I disagree with her. The SCOTUS shouldn't select cases based on how they will impact the perception of the Court.

DomKen -> RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore (4/29/2013 8:11:42 PM)
They ruled that it was unconstitutional to recount all the ballots basically because different people were doing the recounts. It was a blatantly political ruling and it did award the Presidency to Bush.

cloudboy -> RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore (4/29/2013 8:11:44 PM)
The court threw its impartiality out the window in BUSH v. GORE. If Bush had been a competent President, I wonder if she'd be second guessing herself? On the upside, HBO made a great movie about it.

FatDomDaddy -> RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore (4/29/2013 8:54:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen They ruled that it was unconstitutional to recount all the ballots basically because different people were doing the recounts. It was a blatantly political ruling and it did award the Presidency to Bush. The Gore team did not want a total recount, they fought it hard. They also wanted to discount thousands of military ballots. The whole reason the matter was before SCOUS was because the team Gore didn't want FL deciding their own election!

DomKen -> RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore (4/29/2013 9:17:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen They ruled that it was unconstitutional to recount all the ballots basically because different people were doing the recounts. It was a blatantly political ruling and it did award the Presidency to Bush. The Gore team did not want a total recount, they fought it hard. They also wanted to discount thousands of military ballots. The whole reason the matter was before SCOUS was because the team Gore didn't want FL deciding their own election! These are myths perpetuated by the right. Gore wanted the counties with serious undervotes recounted. Bush wanted the very many invalid absentee ballots, the problems were manifold, counted. The Florida Supreme Court ruled that all the undervotes statewide be examined. That is what Bush sued to the Supreme Court over.

FatDomDaddy -> RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore (4/29/2013 10:49:29 PM)
The Bush team called for a statewide total recount

BamaD -> RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore (4/29/2013 11:02:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy I don't think they should have taken it either. Florida should have had a complete, down to every ballot recount. Let's see if y'all can remember which of the two major parties fought that tooth and nail? Both, The Republicans oppossed any recount, (as would anyone who won if there is no recount). The Democrats insisted upon being able to pick and choose the counties to be recounted.

BamaD -> RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore (4/29/2013 11:07:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen They ruled that it was unconstitutional to recount all the ballots basically because different people were doing the recounts. It was a blatantly political ruling and it did award the Presidency to Bush. No, they ruled that you coundn't pick and choose which counties were recounted. It had to be all or nothing. The Dems had not asked for this and by the time of the ruling it was to late to make that request.

FrostedFlake -> RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore (4/30/2013 12:56:07 AM)
It is a tradition of the Court to avoid making political decisions. To keep its' nose firmly in the law books. A tradition that ended. It was revolution. It changed the way we do things, back to the old ways. Ways of fiat and force. Of concentrated power. Of ignorant armies clashing by night. Of struggle justifying lie justifying struggle justifying lie justifying struggle. This is not unusual. Lovers of history have seen this story play out many times. Now, money is speech and speech isn't. Your vote does not count, because the candidates must first pass muster with he who has the most money. And let us fail to overlook that invading Iraq was treason. With obvious culprits. Who now teach politics in university. Let us fail to overlook torture, rendition, and endless war. Domestic spying, endless detention and guilt by information. War crimes of all stripes including the fantastic waste of resources better used to combat disease, hunger and ignorance. Resources so vast, they could be most easily expressed by visualizing a line of new tractor trailer rigs from Kenworth, from Freightliner and the like, parked side by side, over fifty thousand miles long. Twice around the world. 24,000,000 trucks. Again, with obvious culprits and no penalties. There comes a time for revolution. When is debatable. But it is factual, on that day the entire Court must be shot. Twice if need be. To put an end to what was and mark a new start, without the overhanging shadow of the overlords. We can expect nothing from the Court. They have cast their lot. It is irretrievable. None know it better than they. The Nine are the guardians of our law. And they have quit their post. What was the question?

MrRodgers -> RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore (4/30/2013 2:04:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LizDeluxe She regrets the Court having taken the case because of the public's misguided perception that they somehow 'awarded' the presidency to Bush which is nonsense. They ruled on the constitutionality of the matter. Looking back they got it right but she doesn't like how the fallout impacted the reputation of the Court. Nowhere in any of her comments does she second guess the ruling - she questions whether they should have heard the case in the first place since the American public by and large is incapable of understanding how the process works. I disagree with her. The SCOTUS shouldn't select cases based on how they will impact the perception of the Court. The case was based on the 'irreparable harm' to what ...law, the courts, society...to actually make sure Florida counted all of the votes ? It was as hypocritical and outlandish a ruling as the court has ever made. Once again, the right didn't even refer to the actual words in law, the right ruled on the intent of the Florida Leg. Intent is not dis-positive in constitutional law, only the actual meaning of the words in the law. In my view the court did appoint Bush. Three justices (Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas) argued that the Florida Supreme Court had acted contrary to the intent of the Florida legislature. However, four justices (Breyer, Souter, Ginsburg, and Stevens) specifically disputed this in their dissenting opinions, and the remaining two Justices (Kennedy and O'Connor) declined to join Rehnquist's concurrence on the matter. The constitution would have in no way been violated by turning it back to the Florida courts.

Moonhead -> RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore (4/30/2013 4:21:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy The Bush team called for a statewide total recount No, the Bush team organised the Brooks Brothers riot to stop a statewide recount. Slight difference, you'll find.

muhly22222 -> RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore (4/30/2013 5:19:35 AM)
quote: It was as hypocritical and outlandish a ruling as the court has ever made. Woah woah woah...don't forget Dred Scott v. Sanford. I'm just saying...you want outlandish, how about the notion that blacks aren't people?

LizDeluxe -> RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore (4/30/2013 5:56:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen They ruled that it was unconstitutional to recount all the ballots basically because different people were doing the recounts. Using different methods and applying different standards.

Owner59 -> RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore (4/30/2013 8:49:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy I don't think they should have taken it either. Florida should have had a complete, down to every ballot recount. Let's see if y'all can remember which of the two major parties fought that tooth and nail? Yes....we do know who cheated and who stole other`s votes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_Brothers_riot Gore, was only doing what the bushies were also doing,getting the legally triggered and proper recounts..... It was only after the 1st recount,that it was completely obvious that thousands and thousands of Gore votes weren`t being counted. Of course we found out after......... that it was systematic election fraud and voter suppression. Now scalia,the one who stopped the legal Florida vote count,is calling the legal protections from this cheating...."a racial entitlement". http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2013/02/in-voting-rights-scalia-sees-a-racial-entitlement.html Gore conceded very graciously....while the bushies were pretty sore winners..... Anyone recall the fake story about "W"s being removed from all the White House computers and other childish tactics, by the bushies when they moved in?All the honor and dignity they were going to restore to the White House?!.....Omg ,what a bunch of psychopaths! This of course, was months before bush started letting/getting Americans killed by the thousands and ruining our economy by the trillions. scalia won`t be on the courts forever......THANK GOD....but unfortunately, the Americans he enabled bush to get killed will be dead for forever.

BamaD -> RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore (4/30/2013 8:51:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LizDeluxe quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen They ruled that it was unconstitutional to recount all the ballots basically because different people were doing the recounts. Using different methods and applying different standards. No they ruled that a partial recount was unconstitutional.

Owner59 -> RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore (4/30/2013 9:11:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: LizDeluxe quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen They ruled that it was unconstitutional to recount all the ballots basically because different people were doing the recounts. Using different methods and applying different standards. No they ruled that a partial recount was unconstitutional. They stopped any counting and appointed bush president...... Can you explain why these con-judges worded the decision saying this was a "one time only" ruling? Sounds like"we`re going to change the rules this one time to help a republican but will put it back as before in case the same law benefits a democrat" If this gang of non-Floridian thugs hadn`t of stooped the recount,that btw was going to include thousands and thousands of "mysteriously lost" votes...... [image]http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa294/combatengineer_ret/brooks-brothers-riot3.jpg[/image] Gore would have won.

DomKen -> RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore (4/30/2013 9:17:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: LizDeluxe quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen They ruled that it was unconstitutional to recount all the ballots basically because different people were doing the recounts. Using different methods and applying different standards. No they ruled that a partial recount was unconstitutional. Read the ruling. they said it was the method not which counties that was the problem.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875