If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Former SCOTUS justice Sandra Day O'Connor now thinks that her vote to end the Florida recount in Bush v Gore might have been a mistake. Wow, ya think?   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 159
    More: Obvious, Florida Recount, Sinead O'Connor, U.S. Supreme Court, justice Sandra, mistakes, justices  
•       •       •

2410 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Apr 2013 at 11:57 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



159 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-29 11:04:35 AM
though in a weird way, it may have paved the way for roberts' obamacare vote in that he was trying to undo some of the damage the court has inflicted upon itself in the 2000s with bush v. gore, heller and citizens united.
 
2013-04-29 11:35:40 AM
Better late than never, I guess.
 
2013-04-29 11:36:11 AM

FlashHarry: though in a weird way, it may have paved the way for roberts' obamacare vote in that he was trying to undo some of the damage the court has inflicted upon itself in the 2000s with bush v. gore, heller and citizens united.


And people think I say dumb shiat

Well, I do, and most of the time it is dumber than that statement, but here we are.
 
2013-04-29 11:41:16 AM
Well, saying, "We shouldn't have accepted it" is significantly different than saying, "Our decision,  after accepting it, was wrong."
 
2013-04-29 11:42:55 AM
It doesn't really make much difference, as far as I've seen no one has ever been able to even manufacture a Gore victory in Florida, even those with a mind set to do just that.  Under the system in place at the time, and yes the SCOTUS was part of that system, Bush won.  There really is no other way to spin that.  Now if you want to argue that the electoral college is stupid, I fully agree with that, but it IS what we have, for some reason.
 
2013-04-29 11:45:50 AM
She and any other Supreme Court justices responsible for the verdicts in Bush v. Gore or Citizens United are fully deserving of a loud and hearty "f*ck you" from anybody who comes in contact with them.
 
2013-04-29 11:47:29 AM

EyeballKid: She and any other Supreme Court justices responsible for the verdicts in Bush v. Gore or Citizens United are fully deserving of a loud and hearty "f*ck you" from anybody who comes in contact with them.


What about Kelo?
 
2013-04-29 11:48:14 AM

cman: And people think I say dumb shiat

Well, I do, and most of the time it is dumber than that statement, but here we are.


really? i thought it was fairly well understood that roberts is concerned for the reputation of his (and rehnquist's) court, and that he realizes that bush v. gore and certainly citizens united are stains upon it that rival dred scott. and that this may have driven his decision on the ACA.

you can debate that possibility (which i'd love to see), but dismissing it as "dumb shiat" is rather facile, don't you think?
 
2013-04-29 11:49:35 AM

FlashHarry: cman: And people think I say dumb shiat

Well, I do, and most of the time it is dumber than that statement, but here we are.

really? i thought it was fairly well understood that roberts is concerned for the reputation of his (and rehnquist's) court, and that he realizes that bush v. gore and certainly citizens united are stains upon it that rival dred scott. and that this may have driven his decision on the ACA.

you can debate that possibility (which i'd love to see), but dismissing it as "dumb shiat" is rather facile, don't you think?


Speculation isnt fact
 
2013-04-29 11:51:28 AM

cman: FlashHarry: cman: And people think I say dumb shiat

Well, I do, and most of the time it is dumber than that statement, but here we are.

really? i thought it was fairly well understood that roberts is concerned for the reputation of his (and rehnquist's) court, and that he realizes that bush v. gore and certainly citizens united are stains upon it that rival dred scott. and that this may have driven his decision on the ACA.

you can debate that possibility (which i'd love to see), but dismissing it as "dumb shiat" is rather facile, don't you think?

Speculation isnt fact


Wow I nominate myself for the "Ric Romero quote of the year" candidate
 
2013-04-29 11:52:28 AM

cman: Speculation isnt fact


i never said that it was. however, my speculation was rooted in more than "dumb shiat." and it was hardly something i pulled out of my ass, either; it was certainly discussed in the media after the ACA decision last year.
 
2013-04-29 11:53:20 AM

cman: Speculation isnt fact

Wow I nominate myself for the "Ric Romero quote of the year" candidate


LOL!
 
jbc [TotalFark]
2013-04-29 11:55:20 AM

FlashHarry: don't you think?


You, I and everyone else knows the answer to that question.
 
2013-04-29 11:55:23 AM

Diogenes: Well, saying, "We shouldn't have accepted it" is significantly different than saying, "Our decision,  after accepting it, was wrong."


That distinction is a pretty big one at that.
 
2013-04-29 12:04:08 PM

FlashHarry: though in a weird way, it may have paved the way for roberts' obamacare vote in that he was trying to undo some of the damage the court has inflicted upon itself in the 2000s with bush v. gore, heller and citizens united.


I'm sorry.  Obamacare is not the glorious piece of legislation or the great court decision everyone makes it out to be.  Once the public option was taken out, it became a crapshoot of a bill that lost all it's teeth.  Obamacare is/was a great give away to insurance companies though, so there's that!
 
2013-04-29 12:05:53 PM

nekom: It doesn't really make much difference, as far as I've seen no one has ever been able to even manufacture a Gore victory in Florida, even those with a mind set to do just that.  Under the system in place at the time, and yes the SCOTUS was part of that system, Bush won.  There really is no other way to spin that.  Now if you want to argue that the electoral college is stupid, I fully agree with that, but it IS what we have, for some reason.


Didn't some journalist group do a full recount and eventually found Gore won, albeit by a hundred votes or so?
 
2013-04-29 12:07:11 PM

FarkedOver: FlashHarry: though in a weird way, it may have paved the way for roberts' obamacare vote in that he was trying to undo some of the damage the court has inflicted upon itself in the 2000s with bush v. gore, heller and citizens united.

I'm sorry.  Obamacare is not the glorious piece of legislation or the great court decision everyone makes it out to be.  Once the public option was taken out, it became a crapshoot of a bill that lost all it's teeth.  Obamacare is/was a great give away to insurance companies though, so there's that!


But everybody's premiums will go down, just like they did with mandatory car insurance

/car insurance didn't really go down
 
2013-04-29 12:07:20 PM

nekom: It doesn't really make much difference, as far as I've seen no one has ever been able to even manufacture a Gore victory in Florida, even those with a mind set to do just that.  Under the system in place at the time, and yes the SCOTUS was part of that system, Bush won.  There really is no other way to spin that.  Now if you want to argue that the electoral college is stupid, I fully agree with that, but it IS what we have, for some reason.


Not according to an independent survey conducted the following year.  Gore won under 4 different criteria if the entire state was recounted.  If Gore wore have gotten his selective recounts of just a few counties, he would have lost.  The Supreme Court probably should have demanded a full recount of the entire state or just stayed out of it.
 
2013-04-29 12:07:42 PM
Sarah Connor - Trying to save the future.
Sandra Day O'Connor - Totally raped the future
 
2013-04-29 12:10:23 PM

Target Builder: nekom: It doesn't really make much difference, as far as I've seen no one has ever been able to even manufacture a Gore victory in Florida, even those with a mind set to do just that.  Under the system in place at the time, and yes the SCOTUS was part of that system, Bush won.  There really is no other way to spin that.  Now if you want to argue that the electoral college is stupid, I fully agree with that, but it IS what we have, for some reason.

Didn't some journalist group do a full recount and eventually found Gore won, albeit by a hundred votes or so?


In one scenario, while in others Bush would have won.
 
2013-04-29 12:10:30 PM

Lumpmoose: nekom: It doesn't really make much difference, as far as I've seen no one has ever been able to even manufacture a Gore victory in Florida, even those with a mind set to do just that.  Under the system in place at the time, and yes the SCOTUS was part of that system, Bush won.  There really is no other way to spin that.  Now if you want to argue that the electoral college is stupid, I fully agree with that, but it IS what we have, for some reason.

Not according to an independent survey conducted the following year.  Gore won under 4 different criteria if the entire state was recounted.  If Gore wore have gotten his selective recounts of just a few counties, he would have lost.  The Supreme Court probably should have demanded a full recount of the entire state or just stayed out of it.


IIRC, in the 7-2 portion of the opinion (yes, there were two issues, 5-4 and 7-2 in favor of Bush), they found the hand-selection of counties to recount violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, but did not order a recount one way or the other, noting it did not know if there was time to do so under Florida election law.  Gore's team screwed themselves out of that one by hand-picking counties.
 
2013-04-29 12:10:36 PM
My buddies who died fighting for Bush in Iraq all want to thank you for their sacrifice Sandra.
 
2013-04-29 12:11:27 PM

acefox1: My buddies who died fighting for Bush in Iraq all want to thank you for their sacrifice Sandra.


president gore: certainly no iraq war, possibly no 9/11.
 
2013-04-29 12:13:30 PM

FlashHarry: acefox1: My buddies who died fighting for Bush in Iraq all want to thank you for their sacrifice Sandra.

president gore: certainly no iraq war, possibly no 9/11.


Also, no climate change. Steady, reliable climate.
 
2013-04-29 12:15:03 PM

FarkedOver: Obamacare is/was a great give away to insurance companies though, so there's that!


Whenever I point that out, I'm called a Fark Independent.

Back on-topic, I don't understand how Al Gore's attempt to change Florida election law DURING THE FARKING ELECTION, got as far as SCOTUS in the first place.
 
2013-04-29 12:15:25 PM

Nabb1: Lumpmoose: nekom: It doesn't really make much difference, as far as I've seen no one has ever been able to even manufacture a Gore victory in Florida, even those with a mind set to do just that.  Under the system in place at the time, and yes the SCOTUS was part of that system, Bush won.  There really is no other way to spin that.  Now if you want to argue that the electoral college is stupid, I fully agree with that, but it IS what we have, for some reason.

Not according to an independent survey conducted the following year.  Gore won under 4 different criteria if the entire state was recounted.  If Gore wore have gotten his selective recounts of just a few counties, he would have lost.  The Supreme Court probably should have demanded a full recount of the entire state or just stayed out of it.

IIRC, in the 7-2 portion of the opinion (yes, there were two issues, 5-4 and 7-2 in favor of Bush), they found the hand-selection of counties to recount violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, but did not order a recount one way or the other, noting it did not know if there was time to do so under Florida election law.  Gore's team screwed themselves out of that one by hand-picking counties.


IIRC there was no mechanism in Florida law to get a statewide recount, especially with Katherine Harris being so helpful and all.

Also IIRC the Gore team was a few out of state lawyers working out of a strip mall since Jeb Bush pressured every law firm in the state to stay away from Gore or not get any state business.
 
2013-04-29 12:15:49 PM
I am shocked that a SCJ would find the circumventing of democracy a bad idea.
 
2013-04-29 12:15:50 PM
She's been playing Hamlet about this for years now. I actually admire the woman quite a bit (despite being no fan of her approach to jurisprudence), but her hand wringing on this topic is unseemly.
 
2013-04-29 12:16:11 PM
Loosen up, Sandy baby!
 
2013-04-29 12:16:19 PM
 "gave the court a less-than-perfect reputation."

You committed an unconstitutional act by circumventing the political process and you believe the worst mistake you made was to harm your own reputation.
 
2013-04-29 12:16:26 PM

Cletus C.: Target Builder: nekom: It doesn't really make much difference, as far as I've seen no one has ever been able to even manufacture a Gore victory in Florida, even those with a mind set to do just that.  Under the system in place at the time, and yes the SCOTUS was part of that system, Bush won.  There really is no other way to spin that.  Now if you want to argue that the electoral college is stupid, I fully agree with that, but it IS what we have, for some reason.

Didn't some journalist group do a full recount and eventually found Gore won, albeit by a hundred votes or so?

In one scenario, while in others Bush would have won.


That article has rather bizarre wording.  While it's true that most of the likely scenarios that were in play at the time would have led to a Bush victory, that's because a full state recount was unlikely.  Saying a full recount is only "one scenario" is ridiculous.  It's an election.  It should be conducted properly and recounted if necessary.

Recounts can work.  We did it in Minnesota.  But we have good election laws and strong, honest Secretary of State.  Florida had neither at the time (do they now?).  But that doesn't mean Gore didn't get more votes and that SCOTUS didn't botch it up.
 
2013-04-29 12:16:31 PM

GoldSpider: Whenever I point that out, I'm called a Fark Independent.


As a Fark Communist, I would say you're not a "Fark Independent".  I think you've been pretty adamant about universal healthcare for a while, no?
 
2013-04-29 12:16:48 PM

Cletus C.: Target Builder: nekom: It doesn't really make much difference, as far as I've seen no one has ever been able to even manufacture a Gore victory in Florida, even those with a mind set to do just that.  Under the system in place at the time, and yes the SCOTUS was part of that system, Bush won.  There really is no other way to spin that.  Now if you want to argue that the electoral college is stupid, I fully agree with that, but it IS what we have, for some reason.

Didn't some journalist group do a full recount and eventually found Gore won, albeit by a hundred votes or so?

In one scenario, while in others Bush would have won.


The point is that we will really never know the truth because the Supreme Court decided it for them.
 
2013-04-29 12:17:30 PM

GoldSpider: Back on-topic, I don't understand how Al Gore's attempt to change Florida election law DURING THE FARKING ELECTION, got as far as SCOTUS in the first place.


Go on...
 
2013-04-29 12:17:54 PM

Lord_Baull: I am shocked that a SCJ would find the circumventing of democracy a bad idea.


Democracy was taking a beating in Florida. What she circumvented was a farce trying to pass itself off as democracy.
 
2013-04-29 12:19:15 PM

Pincy: Cletus C.: Target Builder: nekom: It doesn't really make much difference, as far as I've seen no one has ever been able to even manufacture a Gore victory in Florida, even those with a mind set to do just that.  Under the system in place at the time, and yes the SCOTUS was part of that system, Bush won.  There really is no other way to spin that.  Now if you want to argue that the electoral college is stupid, I fully agree with that, but it IS what we have, for some reason.

Didn't some journalist group do a full recount and eventually found Gore won, albeit by a hundred votes or so?

In one scenario, while in others Bush would have won.

The point is that we will really never know the truth because the Supreme Court decided it for them.


That's the conclusion. It was so close either side had the opening to manipulate the results to their liking.
 
2013-04-29 12:20:00 PM

nekom: It doesn't really make much difference, as far as I've seen no one has ever been able to even manufacture a Gore victory in Florida


Had they been given enough time, the Florida Supreme Court would have found a way.
 
2013-04-29 12:21:01 PM
Clearly the effects of the mind control drug applied to the back of her neck has started to wear off.
 
2013-04-29 12:21:02 PM

FarkedOver: I think you've been pretty adamant about universal healthcare for a while, no?


Indeed, the Fark threads during the health care debate were very educational.
 
2013-04-29 12:21:53 PM
A team that should have won, but lost because of one bad call, never deserved to win in the first place. It's the fault of the team for putting themselves so close to the brink of failure in the beginning. What I am saying is that if Clinton had not splooged all over that dress, the war in Iraq would never had happened and many less people would have died in the aftermath of Katrina.

/go ahead, prove that I am wrong
//voted for the "lock box" guy
 
2013-04-29 12:22:04 PM

acefox1: Also IIRC the Gore team was a few out of state lawyers working out of a strip mall since Jeb Bush pressured every law firm in the state to stay away from Gore or not get any state business.


"A few"? I remember that free-for-all.  There were HUNDREDS of lawyers working for both campaigns and perhaps even thousands more working on amicus briefs.  Believe me - no one got the short shrift on representation in that case.
 
2013-04-29 12:22:56 PM

Nabb1: IIRC, in the 7-2 portion of the opinion (yes, there were two issues, 5-4 and 7-2 in favor of Bush), they found the hand-selection of counties to recount violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, but did not order a recount one way or the other, noting it did not know if there was time to do so under Florida election law.  Gore's team screwed themselves out of that one by hand-picking counties.


acefox1: IIRC there was no mechanism in Florida law to get a statewide recount, especially with Katherine Harris being so helpful and all.

Also IIRC the Gore team was a few out of state lawyers working out of a strip mall since Jeb Bush pressured every law firm in the state to stay away from Gore or not get any state business.


I have no delusions that a full recount was likely or that Gore didn't screw the pooch in the aftermath.  Could the Supreme Court have demanded a full recount and set things right?  I don't know.  I have to think if they could have and did, their reputation wouldn't have become as tarnished as O'Connor fears.
 
2013-04-29 12:23:53 PM
The big problem is, what do you do when the state election board is as bad as Florida's and the votes are under contest?  IIRC, although I forget which one now, there was another Presidential election that had a dispute and Congress decided to handle it by appointing a commission to look into it and make a ruling.  The commission had 6 Republicans and 5 Democrats, the ruling was a 6-5 voting.  Surprise.  So with Bush v Gore we didn't go down at that road, since in theory at least the court is nonpartisan or at least pretends to be nonpartisan (except for Scalia).

It's all very well and good if the federal government can just slap the state upside the head and say "Recoun the votes, assholes", but when the state election board is a tire fire we don't really have a good process.
 
2013-04-29 12:26:11 PM
Meh. The decision was sound - it just reiterated the fact that an American citizen has no constitutional right to vote for the President of the United States.  The states make the rules about how they want to select the makeup of the electoral college, and the rules in Florida set forth a vote and a specific recount procedure to be followed.  These additional recounts (particularly in a county by county basis) were not codified in state law and therefore didn't have to be done for the state to certify the results.

In other words, you have no right to reasonably expect your vote to actually count for anything, the state just uses the "accurate enough" litmus test and that's that.  Most of the time they're directionally right at best.  Don't like it? Get a constitutional amendment.  Until then, be glad that you even have the ability to enter a nominal but ultimately unverifiable vote for president at all, in the old days the state legislatures made that decision for you (and they well should consider returning to that model, given the idiocy of most Americans.  But that's a topic  for another day).
 
2013-04-29 12:26:13 PM

Pincy: GoldSpider: Back on-topic, I don't understand how Al Gore's attempt to change Florida election law DURING THE FARKING ELECTION, got as far as SCOTUS in the first place.

Go on...


it's this really neat trick where you pretend there was only 1 side taking things to the courts. i think it's the 'I'm not touching you, i'm not touching you' of politics.
 
2013-04-29 12:26:52 PM

Lumpmoose: Could the Supreme Court have demanded a full recount and set things right? I don't know.


Which, if I understand correctly, would have been analogous to re-writing Florida's state election laws.
 
2013-04-29 12:28:57 PM

Shaggy_C: Meh. The decision was sound


Let me address this with on caveat. I don't think it would have mattered who won.  That being said, some of that decision was complete garbage.  The fact that it was stated that it could not be used in precedent ever again is one glaring thing in the decision that shows you what a kangaroo court the SC is.
 
2013-04-29 12:29:09 PM

heap: it's this really neat trick where you pretend there was only 1 side taking things to the courts. i think it's the 'I'm not touching you, i'm not touching you' of politics.


Only one side was trying to get the state to recount ballots where there was no such provision in the state's election laws.
 
2013-04-29 12:31:57 PM
"Maybe the court should have said, 'We're not going to take it...'"

images.thevine.com.au
 
2013-04-29 12:33:10 PM
I know you're old and worried that you're going to die soon, but it's too late to atone for this now, Sandy--you're still going straight to hell.
 
Displayed 50 of 159 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report