Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Sandra Day O'Connor Now Doubts Wisdom of Bush v. Gore

Ohhh, Sandy Dee: To much, To little, and Far Too Late.

The activism of the 2000 court regarding Bush v Gore will be a historical stain on the SCOTUS forever.

It gave us the most reckless executive administration -- Yea, ole Tricky Dick Nixon had nothing on Bush/Cheney -- in USA history.

We are still picking up the tab...

Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, whose decision to vote with the majority in the 5-4 Bush v. Gore decision ended the 2000 presidential election recount, said Friday in an interview with the Chicago Tribune that she's not sure the court should have heard the case.

The ruling overturned a previous decision by the Florida Supreme Court that ordered a recount of state ballots. Republican George W. Bush was declared the victor over Democrat Al Gore with a 537-vote margin in the state.

"Maybe the court should have said, 'We're not going to take it, goodbye,'" O'Connor told the Tribune's editorial board. "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."

[QUIZ: Electoral Landslides and Cliffhangers]

The decision enraged Gore's supporters. The Democratic candidate won the national popular vote, but lost the Electoral College after Florida's 25 electoral votes were awarded to Bush.
Ralph Nader, the Green Party presidential candidate in the 2000 election who was accused by some Democrats of spoiling Gore's chances, was pleased by O'Connor's remarks.

"Sandra Day O'Connor is right to express a variety of doubts about this judicial coup d'état," Nader told U.S. News. "The brazen Bush v. Gore 5-4 selection of George W. Bush was the most partisan, political, constitutionally violative decision in American legal history."

[OPINION: George W. Bush's Legacy is No Laughing Matter] source

1 comment:

  1. The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country.

    The bill changes the way electoral votes are awarded by states in the Electoral College, instead of the current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all system (not mentioned in the Constitution, but since enacted by states).

    Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count.

    The candidate with the most popular votes in the country would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.

    The bill uses the power given to each state in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have been by state legislative action.

    In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls

    The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states with 243 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions with 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.


    Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc