• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

O'Connor questions court's decision to take Bush v. Gore

Somerville

Somerville

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
17,855
Reaction score
8,331
Location
On an island. Not that one!
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
from the Chicago Tribune, an interview with former Supreme Court Justice, Sandra Day O'Connor

O'Connor questions court's decision to take Bush v. Gore

Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor hasn't given much thought to which was the most important case she helped decide during her 25 years on the bench. But she has no doubt which was the most controversial. It was Bush v. Gore, which ended the Florida recount and decided the 2000 presidential election. 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."
Click to expand...

What a different world we would be living in.

Bush v. Gore will be debated for many years to come.
 
I wouldn't put to much stock in a quote from her. In most of her interviews I have seen, heard or read, she is so circular and non-committal when it comes to specific cases that it is hard to really even gauge what she was really saying without listening to the whole thing. She is very evasive in that regard.
 
Somerville said:
from the Chicago Tribune, an interview with former Supreme Court Justice, Sandra Day O'Connor



What a different world we would be living in.

Bush v. Gore will be debated for many years to come.
Click to expand...

She's full of crap if she thinks that's what soured the people on the SCOTUS. The court already had a "less-than-perfect reputation", been that way for quite some time.
 
Somerville said:
from the Chicago Tribune, an interview with former Supreme Court Justice, Sandra Day O'Connor



What a different world we would be living in.

Bush v. Gore will be debated for many years to come.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me here? My goodness, how long will some people allow their BDS to go untreated?
 
Somerville said:
What a different world we would be living in.
Click to expand...
If Gore were elected the world wouldn't have ended a couple months ago.

President 'has four years to save Earth'
US must take the lead to avert eco-disaster
Robin McKie in New York
The Observer, Saturday 17 January 2009

Barack Obama has only four years to save the world. That is the stark assessment of Nasa scientist and leading climate expert Jim Hansen who last week warned only urgent action by the new president could halt the devastating climate change that now threatens Earth. Crucially, that action will have to be taken within Obama's first administration, he added.
Click to expand...
 
j-mac said:
Are you kidding me here? My goodness, how long will some people allow their BDS to go untreated?
Click to expand...
Just think of all the birther threads we have to look forward to by people who aren't even born yet. Some conspiracies never die.
 
Somerville said:
from the Chicago Tribune, an interview with
former Supreme Court Justice, Sandra Day O'Connor



What a different world we would be living in.

Bush v. Gore will be debated for many years to come.
Click to expand...

We would have a Republican winning the Presidential election in 2008 had Gore won and allowed Franklin Raines to continue ripping off the American tax payer.
 
Somerville said:
from the Chicago Tribune, an interview with former Supreme Court Justice, Sandra Day O'Connor



What a different world we would be living in.

Bush v. Gore will be debated for many years to come.
Click to expand...

Had the Supreme Court not taken up the case, you potentially would have had the State Supreme Court in Florida deciding the Presidential election instead. Would that have been more acceptible? Would it not have been debated for years to come?

People on the country's Supreme Court should not be afraid of controversy. It seems Justice O'Connor was wise to resign before her weakness clouded her judgement.
 
disneydude said:
Gore was elected. Until the Supreme Court decided to appoint GWB.
Click to expand...

So, by using the logic that liberals are clearly still smarting over, that makes Romney President right now.
 
j-mac said:
So, by using the logic that liberals are clearly still smarting over, that makes Romney President right now.
Click to expand...

No....Unlike, Bush....Obama got more votes than Romney. That's what happens when you actually count the votes.
 
disneydude said:
Gore was elected. Until the Supreme Court decided to appoint GWB.[/
QUOTE]

And that gave an interim of at least 6 years of growth and jobs.

Until you guys American Idoled Obama.

Now everything sucks
Click to expand...
 
disneydude said:
Actually he was. If the vote had not been stopped in Florida and the actually votes were counted, Gore would have been President.
Click to expand...

Oh, if they'd have only gotten the ballots from trunks of precinct captains earlier....:roll:
 
disneydude said:
Actually he was. If the vote had not been stopped in Florida and the actually votes were counted, Gore would have been President.
Click to expand...

Every post election independent recount conducted in Florida still had Bush winning. The only scenario in which Gore might have won is if they only recounted Palm Beach, Broward and Dade county which is all the Gore wanted recounted. Thats actually what the USSC stopped, it was a limited recount only in Democrat strongholds, not statewide.

The only scenario that Gore would have won would have been if the most lenient standard was used for counting disputed ballot. But that could have actually boosted Bush's numbers if the recount was statewide.
 
disneydude said:
Gore was elected. Until the Supreme Court decided to appoint GWB.
Click to expand...

By any method that Gore asked for, he still lost Florida. Unless of course you are posting from Fantasyland.
 
Fishstyx said:
Every post election independent recount conducted in Florida still had Bush winning. The only scenario in which Gore might have won is if they only recounted Palm Beach, Broward and Dade county which is all the Gore wanted recounted. Thats actually what the USSC stopped, it was a limited recount only in Democrat strongholds, not statewide.

The only scenario that Gore would have won would have been if the most lenient standard was used for counting disputed ballot. But that could have actually boosted Bush's numbers if the recount was statewide.
Click to expand...

Correct. When the actual Florida election law was followed Bush consistantly won. The abortion that was happening in Florida is that it became a carnival with attempted manual review/interpretation of who a particular ballot was "intended/meant" for. The laws were pretty explicit. How to test a voting machine. How many times to run a ballot through before deeming as void. And as you noted, the procedure for statewide recounts. Not precinct by precinct "chad parties".

The Supreme Court did the correct thing. They took province over the Florida SC and stopped the madness...
 
Fishstyx said:
Every post election independent recount conducted in Florida still had Bush winning. The only scenario in which Gore might have won is if they only recounted Palm Beach, Broward and Dade county which is all the Gore wanted recounted. Thats actually what the USSC stopped, it was a limited recount only in Democrat strongholds, not statewide.

The only scenario that Gore would have won would have been if the most lenient standard was used for counting disputed ballot. But that could have actually boosted Bush's numbers if the recount was statewide.
Click to expand...

actually....that is incorrect. Go to Factcheck.org

http://www.factcheck.org/tag/2000-presidential-election/
 
AliHajiSheik said:
By any method that Gore asked for, he still lost Florida. Unless of course you are posting from Fantasyland.
Click to expand...

Actually....you are incorrect. Although we will never know for sure, most independent studies showed that if all of the votes would have been counted, Gore would have won Florida and thus the election.
 
Fishstyx said:
Every post election independent recount conducted in Florida still had Bush winning. The only scenario in which Gore might have won is if they only recounted Palm Beach, Broward and Dade county which is all the Gore wanted recounted. Thats actually what the USSC stopped, it was a limited recount only in Democrat strongholds, not statewide.

The only scenario that Gore would have won would have been if the most lenient standard was used for counting disputed ballot. But that could have actually boosted Bush's numbers if the recount was statewide.
Click to expand...

Further....Gore had asked for the recounts of those specific districts to determine whether there was a basis to challenge the election. The recount would not have been limited to those districts. The ironic thing is that factcheck determined that had the Supreme Court NOT stopped the voting, those districts would not have shown Gore to have won, however, in independent recounts of the state, it appears that Gore had more votes and would have carried Florida had there been an actual recount of all the votes done.
 
:lamo
disneydude said:
Actually....you are incorrect. Although we will never know for sure, most independent studies showed that if all of the votes would have been counted, Gore would have won Florida and thus the election.
Click to expand...

:lamo

"Although we will never know for sure..."

Yet, you know for sure...

:sinking:
 
Fenton said:
And that gave an interim of at least 6 years of growth and jobs.

Until you guys American Idoled Obama.

Now everything sucks
Click to expand...

Six years of Growth and Jobs under Bush? Surely you jest. GWB took this country to the brink of economic and moral bankruptcy.
 
ocean515 said:
:lamo

:lamo

"Although we will never know for sure..."

Yet, you know for sure...

:sinking:
Click to expand...
No...actually, if you read what I wrote, I said we will never know for sure....however, most every independent study done after the 2000 election showed Gore actually had more votes in Florida and thus, should have won the election. Thats pretty close to "for sure".
 
disneydude said:
No...actually, if you read what I wrote, I said we will never know for sure....however, most every independent study done after the 2000 election showed Gore actually had more votes in Florida and thus, should have won the election. Thats pretty close to "for sure".
Click to expand...

There you'd be wrong. Only the so-called "independent" studies done by some very biased liberals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom