Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

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 >> Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore - 4/29/2013 4:59:54 PM   
dcnovice


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


_____________________________

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
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore - 4/29/2013 5:42:29 PM   
kalikshama


Posts: 14805
Joined: 8/8/2010
Status: offline 		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

_____________________________

Curious about the "Sluts Vote" avatars? See http://www.collarchat.com/m_4133036/mpage_1/key_/tm.htm#4133036

(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore - 4/29/2013 6:33:42 PM   
FatDomDaddy


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

(in reply to kalikshama)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore - 4/29/2013 7:31:46 PM   
LizDeluxe


Posts: 687
Joined: 10/2/2011
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

While is there no liberal talk radio? There are at least five conservative talk radio shows available over the air every day in the radio market I live in. Why does the liberal message fail to attract listeners?

(in reply to FatDomDaddy)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore - 4/29/2013 8:11:42 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to LizDeluxe)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore - 4/29/2013 8:11:44 PM   
cloudboy


Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore - 4/29/2013 8:54:01 PM   
FatDomDaddy


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

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore - 4/29/2013 9:17:41 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to FatDomDaddy)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore - 4/29/2013 10:49:29 PM   
FatDomDaddy


Posts: 3183
Joined: 1/31/2004
Status: offline 		The Bush team called for a statewide total recount

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore - 4/29/2013 11:02:58 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to FatDomDaddy)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore - 4/29/2013 11:07:24 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore - 4/30/2013 12:56:07 AM   
FrostedFlake


Posts: 3084
Joined: 3/4/2009
From: Centralia, Washington
Status: offline 		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?

_____________________________

Frosted Flake
simul justus et peccator
Einen Liebhaber, und halten Sie die Schraube

"... evil (and hilarious) !!" Hlen5

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore - 4/30/2013 2:04:05 AM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to LizDeluxe)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore - 4/30/2013 4:21:32 AM   
Moonhead


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

_____________________________

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 FatDomDaddy)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore - 4/30/2013 5:19:35 AM   
muhly22222


Posts: 463
Joined: 3/25/2010
Status: offline
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?

_____________________________

I have always been among those who believed that the greatest freedom of speech was the greatest safety, because if a man is a fool, the best thing to do is to encourage him to advertise the fact by speaking.
-Woodrow Wilson

(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore - 4/30/2013 5:56:25 AM   
LizDeluxe


Posts: 687
Joined: 10/2/2011
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

While is there no liberal talk radio? There are at least five conservative talk radio shows available over the air every day in the radio market I live in. Why does the liberal message fail to attract listeners?

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore - 4/30/2013 8:49:49 AM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by Owner59 -- 4/30/2013 9:18:16 AM >

_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to FatDomDaddy)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore - 4/30/2013 8:51:09 AM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to LizDeluxe)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore - 4/30/2013 9:11:40 AM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline
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......




Gore would have won.

< Message edited by Owner59 -- 4/30/2013 9:12:28 AM >

_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore - 4/30/2013 9:17:25 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Sandra Day O'Connor Second Thoughts on Bush v. Gore Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094