Justice O’Connor: Maybe Bush V. Gore Was A Mistake

  • metta

    Posts: 39118

    Apr 29, 2013 5:02 PM GMT
    Justice O’Connor: Maybe Bush V. Gore Was A Mistake

    http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/justice-oconnor-maybe-bush-v-gore-was-mistake?ref=fpa
  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Apr 29, 2013 10:12 PM GMT
    Nice try, lady, but you ruined your legacy with that one. The Supreme Court had no business intervening instead of letting the votes being counted. That's what Democrats said the whole time.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 29, 2013 10:43 PM GMT
    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRst9T68eiZPsBdZuYPqzh
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 29, 2013 10:50 PM GMT
    Bush V Gore was not he mistake, just the Bush part.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 29, 2013 11:03 PM GMT
    Oh those silly inconvenient facts...

    http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html?gwh=9ADBA265D24A9D19F86170531735A98E
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 30, 2013 3:26 AM GMT
    Gore won Florida but lost it due to corrupt Republicans stealing the election.

    http://www.gregpalast.com/the-great-florida-ex-con-gamernhow-the-felon-voter-purge-was-itself-felonious/
  • KissTheSky

    Posts: 1981

    Apr 30, 2013 4:26 AM GMT
    Isn't it so very wacky to listen to Republicans hyperventilate about "activist judges," but they have no problem with the Supreme Court overturning the outcome of an American Presidential election... voting strictly on party lines, to install George W. Bush, rather than the person who got the most votes (Gore).
    To me, that sounds like judicial activism of the worst sort.
    And our country is just now beginning to recover from eight years of the worst president in American history.
    F*ck you, Ms. O'Connor. It's a little late now for you to figure out that it was all a big mistake. WE ALREADY KNOW THAT.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 30, 2013 6:02 AM GMT
    " Must suck when you can't even look at the New York Times to support your BS."

    'The New York Times is the epitome of the lamestream media.
    The NYTimes is the voice of every delusional leftist radical this country has ever had the misfortune of spawning.
    The NYTimes is pure disinformation used to confuse the weak-minded.'

    topathlete, it's good to see you haven't bought into the usual mistrust many conservatives have for the New York Times.


  • KissTheSky

    Posts: 1981

    Apr 30, 2013 6:21 AM GMT
    Since the recount was stopped by the Supreme Court, the NYTimes article is pure conjecture -- the recount never happened. In fact, the article admits that if all the counties were recounted, Gore may have won Florida and won the election.
    (This was the same publication that trumpeted the existence of WMDs in Iraq, which also proved to be false.)
    In any event, the Supreme Court had no right to stop the counting of legitimate votes. Setting aside the Supreme Court debacle, Bush's entire presidency was barely legitimate (Bush lost the popular vote to Gore) in addition to being an abject failure.
  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Apr 30, 2013 6:49 AM GMT
    topathlete said
    KissTheSky saidIsn't it so very wacky to listen to Republicans hyperventilate about "activist judges," but they have no problem with the Supreme Court overturning the outcome of an American Presidential election... voting strictly on party lines, to install George W. Bush, rather than the person who got the most votes (Gore).
    To me, that sounds like judicial activism of the worst sort.
    And our country is just now beginning to recover from eight years of the worst president in American history.
    F*ck you, Ms. O'Connor. It's a little late now for you to figure out that it was all a big mistake. WE ALREADY KNOW THAT.

    Did you ignore the New York Times link posted above?


    The article states that if all counties had been properly counted, Gore might have won.

    Riddler has a penchant for posting links based on headlines and not reading them in full. This is not the first time he's presented evidence that either proves nothing or argues against him in parts.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    May 03, 2013 5:15 AM GMT
    KissTheSky saidIsn't it so very wacky to listen to Republicans hyperventilate about "activist judges," but they have no problem with the Supreme Court overturning the outcome of an American Presidential election... voting strictly on party lines, to install George W. Bush, rather than the person who got the most votes (Gore).
    To me, that sounds like judicial activism of the worst sort.
    And our country is just now beginning to recover from eight years of the worst president in American history.
    F*ck you, Ms. O'Connor. It's a little late now for you to figure out that it was all a big mistake. WE ALREADY KNOW THAT.



    Excellent post !
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 03, 2013 12:03 PM GMT
    From same article: But the consortium, looking at a broader group of rejected ballots than those covered in the court decisions, 175,010 in all, found that Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots. This also assumes that county canvassing boards would have reached the same conclusions about the disputed ballots that the consortium's independent observers did. The findings indicate that Mr. Gore might have eked out a victory if he had pursued in court a course like the one he publicly advocated when he called on the state to "count all the votes."

    Interestingly, I was in favor from the beginning of a full statewide recount, realizing the PR debacle that would ensue: specifically Gore legally cherry picking counties to recount (Bush could have done the same but never filed to do so leading to some angst moments as the recount initially proceeded in the counties Gore filed in. Nonetheless, it was a photo finish and the photo was blurred. Here's what would ave provided Gore with the win without concern: he should have selected as VP the man I wanted him to choose - FL Sen. and former Gov. Bob Graham. THAT would have won the state for Gore easily by 25K - Graham was and is very popular in FL.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 03, 2013 12:18 PM GMT
    topathlete said
    KissTheSky said in an earlier message in the threadbut they have no problem with the Supreme Court overturning the outcome of an American Presidential election

    KissTheSky saidSince the recount was stopped by the Supreme Court, the NYTimes article is pure conjecture -- the recount never happened. In fact, the article admits that if all the counties were recounted, Gore may have won Florida and won the election.

    Not true about the article being pure conjecture. The only part that was conjecture was the part that Gore might have won had the entire state been recounted. What was clear from the study was
    a) Had the Supreme Court not reversed the Florida court allowing the limited recount, Bush would still have won, and
    b) Had the initial position of the Gore campaign prevailed, namely recounting four predominantly Democratic counties, Bush would still have won.

    Therefore, your earlier statement about the "Supreme Court overturning the outcome of an American Presidential election" was clearly false. On top of that, you chose to misrepresent the Florida study to cover your false statement. When you play loose with the facts you must know your foundation is weak.


    TroyAthlete is again projected his wishful thinking into a convenient inability to read. A number of studies of recounts, including ones sponsored by the media, have shown Bush would have won regardless. Worse would have been a constitutional challenge that prolonged the election two weeks later as Megan McArdle points out:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/30/what-if-the-supreme-court-had-turned-down-bush-v-gore.html

    By the time Bush v. Gore petitioned for cert, both sides were more or less nakedly maneuvering to declare their candidate the winner. The Florida Supreme Court's November 21st decision was outrageous and completely unjustifiable. So was Katherine Harris's clear determination to stop any recount that might help Gore. And while the Florida legislature was arguably within its constitutional rights to intervene to declare Bush the winner, this contravened more than a century of custom . . . and the behavior of the state Republican Party in the weeks prior made this seem less like a bid for fairness and closure than a bid to make their guy president. The Florida Supreme Court would undoubtedly have ruled against the legislature, but of course, their prior behavior made it impossible to claim that they were just trying to insure a fair and democratic process.

    Had the Court let Bush v. Gore go, it would have ended up back there in a few weeks anyway--but this time, as a full-blown constitutional crisis.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    May 03, 2013 5:06 PM GMT
    You know what?
    This wouldn't be so sad if it weren't for the fact that we got a Doob of a President who read my Pet Goat while there were people jumping out of a burning building that later collapsed and killed almost 3000 people
    This wouldn't be so sad if that same President didn't sack a Federal Agency that was responsible for public safety that led to the deaths of hundreds during Katrina
    and finally it wouldn't be so sad that this same War Criminal didn't lie us into a war that killed disfigured and dislodged hundreds of thousands all based on lies to get us into that war

    Too little too late Sandra

    Woulda helped if you woulda had a conscience back then