Most rational Americans realized that when the Supreme Court of the United States interfered in the 2000 election between George W. Bush, and Al Gore, they invaded territory that was not their domain.
An interview on Monday with retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, revealed her personal disappointment with the Court’s involvement.
“It took the case and decided it at a time when it was still a big election issue,” Justice O’Connor told the Chicago Tribune editorial board on Friday. “Maybe the court should have said, ‘We’re not going to take it, goodbye.’”
She continued: “Obviously the court did reach a decision and thought it had to reach a decision. 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.”
The result, she allowed, “stirred up the public” and “gave the court a less than a perfect reputation.”
The problem is that Justice O’Connor sided with the majority and stopped the recount.
Here’s what you might not know: what Bush v. Gore was actually about. Gore’s team had successfully appealed to the Florida Supreme Court to hold a recount of the ballots in Florida. Given the closeness of the election, that the name of the next president depended on it, and that a number of irregularities in the ballots had been detected, a recount seemed, not just a good idea, but an obvious idea.
And, remember that Gore won the popular vote. Every year since the debacle caused by the Court, there have been movements to eliminate the Electoral College. If every person’s vote is supposed to count, the Electoral College is definitely un-Constitutional.
Studies have shown that a full recount likely would have delivered the presidency to Al Gore. Sandra Day O’Connor’s single vote decided the presidency. Now, at 83, 13 years too late, she has finally said she would like a do-over.
The entire nation and the world would love to experience it as well.
Columnist-The Guardian Express