The Shame of Sandra Day O'Connor: NOW she worries about her historical reputation

[Bluebear]

The interview that follows is from 2007, but I think it is worth mentioning again while reflecting on the last decade what Sandra Day O'Connor's lasting legacy will be:

...Terry Gross interviewed Jeffrey Toobin about his new book, The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court. In one chapter of this book, Toobin revisited the 2000 Election decision and interviewed the justices and their law clerks to see how they viewed this decision. As Jeffrey said,

I think they all know that in the second paragraph of their obituaries will be how they voted in Bush v Gore. That defined them.

What he found was that Sandra Day O'Connor, more than anyone else was deeply affected by this decision. What I found listening to the program was myself saying how she should be deeply ashamed for her decision. It was a bad decision for the country. And it will color forever what people think about her. We knew the rest of the conservatives on that court could be partisan and petty, but she was supposed to be better than that. Here's the transcript for the discussion on O'Connor. Tell me what you think.

Terry: You say that she had her mind made up about Bush v Gore. She thought that George W Bush should win the case as well as the election.

Toobin: She's a Republican and proudly so. She was the majority leader of the Arizona State Senate. She identifies with Republicans. She particularly liked the elder President Bush and his wife Barbara. Those were her kind of Republicans and on election night, she and her husband were unusually open about their hope that President Bush would win the election.

Once the case got into the Supreme Court, the complaints of the Democrats were exactly the kind of complaints that O'Connor hated. She thought that the case was about voter who had made mistakes, who were incompetent, who were complaining and making excuses -- just the kind of thing that O'Connor, the old ranch hand from Arizona, just didn't like to hear. So the combination of her predilection for the Bush family and the kind of complaints the Democrats were making really turned O'Connor off. And I believe that the Democrats never really had a chance to get her vote in this case.

Terry: But you think she later regretted her decision and that she became disillusioned with the Republican Party and the Presidency of George W Bush.

Toobin: See this is what I really learned in writing my book. This is what surprised me is the effect that this decision had on O'Connor.

Because the reaction to Bush v Gore was so extreme and so angry that it really challenged O'Connor's conception of herself as someone who was fair and non-partisan and someone who was a supreme court justice universally respected and she was really taken aback by that. You combine that reaction with what Bush's presidency turned out to be, something very different than what O'Connor thought it would be, a very conservative Presidency -- she did not like John Ashcroft who was President Bush's first attorney general. Justice O'Connor was not an evangelical Christian Right Republican, she's an old school Country Club Republican.

As the new President Bush became more and more conservative especially when it came to civil liberties after 9/11, O'Connor rebelled. In part because she was worried about her historical reputation in light of Bush v Gore and in part because she simply did not like the direction the Bush administration was going.

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011047.php

[onehandle]

1. Sorry, Sandy. You can't put the genie back in the bottle.

You are defined by your partisan decision and always will be.

[roguevalley]

40. I believe the swine cow should have recused herself because her son

had a financial interest in them winning. I hope she rots.

[Leftist Agitator]

2. Her disregard for the spirit of the law condemned millions of innocents to their deaths.

Burn in hell, you Republican piece of shit.

[Better Today]

3. We're a pretty shallow country, or as you wish shallow individuals

if we reduce her otherwise pretty stellar service to this country based on one decision. Like it or not, and stolen or not, the 2004 election put him back in office without any decisions from her. If he had been a one term pres, I could see this as more valid, otherwise, I don't see it as reason for disregarding everything else she judged while on the USSC

[Fumesucker]

6. Justice O'Connor herself doesn't like people who make excuses..

You don't need to make excuses for her..

She will forever be marked by the most momentous decision she ever made, one that she made in a spirit of extreme partisanship when her clear duty to the nation was to judge without partisanship.

[Better Today]

12. How is considering her entire record making excuses. If you choose

to go this narrow minded, narrow focused route, feel free. I for one think she's a wonderful person from what I've seen presented anywhere, and that she was an exemplary judge, though not perfect. Never heard of a perfect person though, much less a judge.

[denbot]

14. Fuck her, I don't give a flying fuck what else she did on the bench.

From seriously undermining democracy in the U.S., 9/11, Iraq, Habeas Corpus, torture, GITMO, the fucking economy, she had a direct hand in all that followed once that shit sack got in to the oval office. If you think she that good you are definitely logged on to the wrong site.

[Better Today]

19. Then I stand by my original assessment of anyone with your attitude.

[denbot]

25. You don't know shit about me.

By the fucking way, look at the URL this is the DemocraticUnderground, not FR.

[msanthrope]

34. Fuck Her for Casey v. Planned Parenthood---Traitor to her gender

and her profession.

She should have learned then---even when you blow the conservative dick, they still won't like you.

She was smarter. She knew better. Fuck her.

[CreekDog]

38. I don't have that attitude, but her decision was destructive, shallow and ill considered

and apparently completely partial.

this window into her decision making makes me question whether she was a good jurist at all (I'm thinking not) --her vote to sustain some of our rights notwithstanding. That does not make her a good judge.

[Fumesucker]

22. Plenty of otherwise exemplary people do horrendous things..

And are then rightfully judged on those horrendous things.

Vincent Bugliosi called the actions of the SCOTUS in Bush v Gore treason and I agree with his description.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010205/bugliosi

None Dare Call It Treason
By Vincent Bugliosi

In the December 12 ruling by the US Supreme Court handing the election to George Bush, the Court committed the unpardonable sin of being a knowing surrogate for the Republican Party instead of being an impartial arbiter of the law. If you doubt this, try to imagine Al Gore's and George Bush's roles being reversed and ask yourself if you can conceive of Justice Antonin Scalia and his four conservative brethren issuing an emergency order on December 9 stopping the counting of ballots (at a time when Gore's lead had shrunk to 154 votes) on the grounds that if it continued, Gore could suffer "irreparable harm," and then subsequently, on December 12, bequeathing the election to Gore on equal protection grounds. If you can, then I suppose you can also imagine seeing a man jumping away from his own shadow, Frenchmen no longer drinking wine.


From the beginning, Bush desperately sought, as it were, to prevent the opening of the door, the looking into the box--unmistakable signs that he feared the truth. In a nation that prides itself on openness, instead of the Supreme Court doing everything within its power to find a legal way to open the door and box, they did the precise opposite in grasping, stretching and searching mightily for a way, any way at all, to aid their choice for President, Bush, in the suppression of the truth, finally settling, in their judicial coup d'état, on the untenable argument that there was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause--the Court asserting that because of the various standards of determining the voter's intent in the Florida counties, voters were treated unequally, since a vote disqualified in one county (the so-called undervotes, which the voting machines did not pick up) may have been counted in another county, and vice versa. Accordingly, the Court reversed the Florida Supreme Court's order that the undervotes be counted, effectively delivering the presidency to Bush.

Now, in the equal protection cases I've seen, the aggrieved party, the one who is being harmed and discriminated against, almost invariably brings the action. But no Florida voter I'm aware of brought any action under the equal protection clause claiming he was disfranchised because of the different standards being employed. What happened here is that Bush leaped in and tried to profit from a hypothetical wrong inflicted on someone else. Even assuming Bush had this right, the very core of his petition to the Court was that he himself would be harmed by these different standards. But would he have? If we're to be governed by common sense, the answer is no. The reason is that just as with flipping a coin you end up in rather short order with as many heads as tails, there would be a "wash" here for both sides, i.e., there would be just as many Bush as Gore votes that would be counted in one county yet disqualified in the next. (Even if we were to assume, for the sake of argument, that the wash wouldn't end up exactly, 100 percent even, we'd still be dealing with the rule of de minimis non curat lex--the law does not concern itself with trifling matters.) So what harm to Bush was the Court so passionately trying to prevent by its ruling other than the real one: that he would be harmed by the truth as elicited from a full counting of the undervotes?

And if the Court's five-member majority was concerned not about Bush but the voters themselves, as they fervently claimed to be, then under what conceivable theory would they, in effect, tell these voters, "We're so concerned that some of you undervoters may lose your vote under the different Florida county standards that we're going to solve the problem by making sure that none of you undervoters have your votes counted"? Isn't this exactly what the Court did?

<snip>

More at the link..

[goclark]

93. The book is a must read nt

[CreekDog]

37. Considering the most momentous decision she ever made above all others

is completely fair.

[Bluebear]

94. >I for one think she's a wonderful person< Good heavens.

[joeybee12]

53. Stellar? STELLAR?

She is a judicial midget, no serious, deep thought in any of her decisions, nada, zilch. And we can thank her for her homphobia in Bower v georgia.

[lastliberalintexas]

58. Stellar service to this country?

In what way? Sitting on the bench in a very cushy judicial appointment and carving out "pragmatic" opinions even in cases which required actual intellectual thought? O'Connor did not have the judicial temperament required to be on the SC and basically was nominated by Reagan in an effort to appease women and show that he wasn't the bigoted conservative we all knew him to be. She was as much a token as Clarence Thomas- and I am female and got that even then. She doesn't have a tenth the gravitas of Ginsburg or some of the other female judges in this country, even some of whom I disagree with quite often.

Her comments on election night, family involvement issues and refusal to recuse herself put her on the same level as Scalia with regard to the Bush v Gore decision. Are you also forgiving of Scalia because he has "served" his country?


I've read Toobin's book, and he tries his hardest to make her sympathetic. All his book did was make me dislike her even more.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

59. The stolen 2000 election allowed him to become "a war president" ...

... and run a fear and fright campaign that would have made Goebbels proud. She helped put a lying cheating fraud in place. The fact that he used fear, deception and fraud to maintain his office is NOT that far removed from her decision.


Besides that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?

[jobycom]

60. That could be said about Timothy McVeigh, too. nt

[northernlights]

64. bullshit

The one decision that mattered more than any other was the one where she put personal wishes and arrogance ahead of her job and the best interest of the country in *every* sense. Democracy died on that day, more than any other. And she helped to kill it.

By 2004 the damage was done. That so-called "election" was totally rigged. Ohio was rigged. The right-wing, paperless computers, with zero auditability, were in place by then.

[blondeatlast]

71. She was a Superior court judge here in Maricopa County for years.

Largely known as a hanging judge; hostyile to defense.

If DU would have existed when she was nommed, you would have heard an earful from me. She knew what she was doing; she just didn't realize how much blowback she would get from it. that's all she regrets, the blowback.

[blondeatlast]

77. STELLAR? I've lived in Maricopa County my whole life. She was known as being biased in favor

prosecution from way, way back and a little bit racist as well.

Don't speak publicly aboput what you don't know, it makes you look stupid.

[walldude]

78. LOL.. maybe you ought to look at her voting record before

espousing her greatness on DU. She is at best a moderate and at worst a conservative idiot. Bush lost that election. Had she voted to allow the recount the world would be a different place right now. She had the deciding vote and she voted for her PARTY. She's supposed to follow the LAW, she's on the Supreme Court for fucks sake. You can make excuses all day. The only thing I will say is at least she is having trouble living with her decision. It must be hard to have all that blood on your hands.

[Better Today]

80. I'm not espousing her as great, either. But to put the entirety of

eight years of Bush on her shoulders is petty. As I mentioned above, I could see this spin as being mostly valid IF, and only IF Bush hadn't been elected for a second term without any interference from her. BUT he was, so apparently we were weak and they were strong, regardless of Justice O'Connor, therefore I find it disingenuous to blame her for the disaster that was GWB.

Seriously if everyone thought is was so heinous, why was no suit ever brought by us to challenge the right of the USSC to usurp voters? I agree the decision was wrong, but it is our faults as well, we all stood by and let it happen, Gore stood by and conceded defeat, . . . . WTF, if you folks all need a scapegoat for our failures in the previous two terms, then you're shallow and blameful, and nothing will change in the next two terms. Impotent complaining and blaming, yee haw! We're the same stupid party that couldn't stop a small majority in Congress, that couldn't stop either of two wars, that couldn't regulate the cost burden of those wars, . . . we cannot, imo, blame one woman for all the multiple failures the Democratic Party, it's representatives in Congress, and it's footsoldiers on the ground made that allowed for Bush to be where he was and do what he did.

[blondeatlast]

83. So now it is OUR fault for voting in droves against GWB? Wow,

just :wow:

[Better Today]

86. Well, not "our" as in Democrats, but "our" in that the public at large did

by hook or by crook re-elect him. Are you having fun misconstruing what I typed?

[Sebastian Doyle]

79. Five Bush Crime Family appointed judges selecting a brain dead Chimp to be pResident.

Nothing "stellar" at all about that. Just sickening. And so blatantly unconstitutional that they even wrote "don't apply this case to anything in the future" right into the fucked up decision itself.

[rhett o rick]

99. So she gets one free bad decision no matter the consequences? Fuck no.

I could list all the ways that her baby GWBush ruined the country and killed and tortured and let thousands die. But you know them. She made the decision because of her partisan views, and I damn her for that. She failed as a judge when we needed her the most. She failed. Millions of deaths are on her head. I damn her to hell along with the other aristocratic bastards.

[patrice]

4. We will never forget! And we will make sure that others remember too.

[WeDidIt]

5. Too fucking bad

She's forever shitstained with a decision on par with, or worse than, Plessy v. Ferguson.

[inna]

7. what about 4 men who voted with O'Connor?

burn the witch - sorry, NOT.

[WeDidIt]

11. They are equally shitstained with the fucked up decision

on par with, or worse than, Plesy v. Ferguson.

[inna]

13. "Plesy"? did you perhaps mean Plessy v. Ferguson?...

and how is this relevant in this context, any way? :shrug:

[WeDidIt]

15. Sorry, typo

Bush v. Gore is on par with, or worse than, Plessy v. Ferguson.

[inna]

21. fair enough.

OMG, what happened to your "kill Jane" (paraphrazing) signature?? :P

[bridgit]

18. O'Connor relished her cultured image as 'fair & balanced' swing vote, some RW version of Molly Ivins

Where if you made your case succinctly and with reasoned jurisprudence predicated upon the rule of law yada-yada you'd receive fair hearing. I don't think was ever the case. But, when the chips came down she cared less for the Democracy of America, even such as that is, and voted with her party: the Country Club Republicans

[inna]

88. thank you for a very insightful comment! and... LOL! this is great: (see below)

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! Don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?" He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are you christian or buddhist?" He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you catholic or protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me too! Are you episcopalian or baptist?" He said, "Baptist!" I said, "Wow! Me too! Are you baptist church of god or baptist church of the lord?" He said, "Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you original baptist church of god, or are you reformed baptist church of god?" He said, "Reformed Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum!!" and pushed him off. -- Emo Phillips

[jobycom]

62. They weren't respected in the first place.

O'Connor was the one conservative justice everyone in the profession respected even when they disagreed with her. She had a reputation for being judicially objective rather than using her seat to advocate from the bench. None of the others were going to be remembered anyway. But O'Connor, as the first female justice and an outstanding and consistent judicial voice was going to go down as one of the great SCOTUS justices.

The big problem with Bush v Gore was that it was so obviously not based on judicial reasoning. The OP focuses on the fact that it put a bad president in office, but even if Bush had turned out well, it would have been a bad decision, because it clearly used political goals rather than legal reasoning for its conclusion. Equal Protection was used in a way the conservative judges had never used it before, for instance. Read Vincent Bugliosi's book and article on the case.

O'Connor had never been seen to stoop to that level before. That's why it ruined her reputation. It didn't make her lower than the four male justices, it made her equal to them.

[inna]

87. thank you very much for this very interesting and educational comment!

:)

:thumbsup:

[Bluebear]

96. What about them? You would have expected it from them. She held herself to be a "moderate".

NOT.

[HughBeaumont]

8. "Old School" whatever. You installed an imbecile FAILURE to run this country.

There isn't a far greater disappointment than her participation in the wholesale fascist theft and near-ruination of this country. She sided with dishonorable pigs in deciding a state-run election based on partisan leanings and nullifying an investigation/count that, in hindsight, would have saved nearly 1,000,000 lives worldwide.

Sandy, like it or not, this is YOUR legacy and YOU need to issue a profound and sincere apology to the American people for it. Otherwise, you're opinion means as little to me as that asshole idiot Scalia's.

As long as Sandra feels the deaths of 1 million people (possibly more thanks to zero talk of universal health care) and the exacerbated economic ruin of the USA on one single solitary person's slimy vote is not worth apologizing for, then as far as I'm concerned, she can continue to symbolically scrub the blood off of her hands until she grows a conscience and owns up to her bad decision.

I mean, it ain't likely you're gonna get a "sorry" from the twin idiots Scalia or Thomas and Rehnquist's extended dirt nap prevents him from expressing any unlikely regret. So I guess that leaves the two most puzzling votes and an added explanation as to why they chose an obviously unqualified dry drunk and political/business failure over a Vice President and career senator with a near impeccable record of governing. OH, I'd LOVE to hear that one.

[glitch]

72. Not to mention giving "the crazies" the keys to the most concentrated power in the world.

These names will live in infamy: Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, Day O'Conner, Kennedy.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wakemewhenitsover]

23. Maybe she meant beech.

Like, Sandra Day O'Connor is as dumb as wood.

Either way, it's her choice to write or not write bitch... or beech.

No reason to attack a fellow Democrat.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jobycom]

Yep.

:puke:

[pnorman]

10. Thanks for that!

I have that Toobin book via Audible.com, and recall that part very well. There's no way to "Find" in an audio file, but I have it now!

[City Lights]

16. Tough luck, Sandra!

:nopity: You made your bed. Now sleep in it. :nopity:

If she truly was taken aback by the reaction to the Bush v. Gore decision, then she's not half as smart as she's cracked up to be. Ditto if she was truly surprised by Junior's presidency.

[LostInAnomie]

20. She deserves to be remembered for it.

She and the other four deserve to be remembered for kick starting the worst decade in this country's history. Without them and their partisan collusion tens of thousands of Americans probably would still be alive.

She is a partisan hack and should be remembered as such.

[laughingliberal]

24. Without a doubt the most memorable thing about her tenure

The deciding vote in one of the worst decisions ever made by the high court. The destruction done to this country and our constitution by the Bush administration may never be undone. I only hope she lives long enough to witness it for a long time to come.

[struggle4progress]

26. Curiously, I finally lost all respect for her when she began to warn of dictatorship here. Reason:

she wouldn't really give her warnings in public. Oh, she gave a forceful enough warning -- behind closed doors, to an audience of elite lawyers at Georgetown University. We know about the talk from NPR's Totenberg and the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin. No text or video of her talk was released. It was OK, by Sandra's lights, to warn the elite that they might lose their democracy, but she wasn't going to allow broadcast of her concerns to mere plebians

And there was this detail, reported by Totenberg, which made me want to strangle the bitch: I, said O'Connor, am against judicial reforms driven by nakedly partisan reasoning; see:

Dictatorship is the danger
A Reagan-appointed supreme court justice voices her fears over attacks on US democracy
* Jonathan Raban
* The Guardian, Monday 13 March 2006
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/mar/13/comment.usa

Yes, Sandra Day O'Connor, who back in 2000 cast one of the nakedly partisan votes to install Bush as President in the 5-4 decision (that the Court itself said must never be used a precedent) was piously whining about nakedly partisan reasoning

I don't know how historians will view her time on the Court, but I'll never say anything nice about her as a jurist

[LostInAnomie]

33. That is exactly right.

It was not only a nakedly partisan judgment, but it was also a horrible legal decision. The Supreme Court is supposed to set legal precedent. It just shows how fraudulent the judgment was that they declared it to not be used as precedent.

[Hugin]

49. Thanks for reposting this...

I remember seeing it at the time.

Quite relevant.

[Ian David]

27. She should be tried for Treason along with the other 4. n/t

[kath]

84. Yep.

[Stinky The Clown]

28. Dear Justice O'Conner,

You are now no better than Justice Slappy.

Your friend,
Stinky

[MilesColtrane]

32. "Justice Slappy"

*roffle*

[Diane R]

29. I'll never forgive her for being the deciding vote to make the boy idiot President.

[janet118]

30. I sent a telegram to Ms. O'Connor . . .

while the Supreme Court was "deliberating" Bush v. Gore begging her to let the Florida SC decide the issue. When I called Western Union, there were so many telegrams going to her and Kennedy that the rep. who took my message didn't even ask for an address. She just said, "Is this going to O'Connor or Kennedy?" O'Connor deserves to go down in history as a traitor along with her fellow slimeballs who voted to install Bush in office. They are responsible for legitimizing s coup d'etat and deserve all the scorn that hindsight heaps upon them.

[MilesColtrane]

31. Buyer's remorse is a bitch.

[LiberalAndProud]

35. That would be a heavy load on the conscience, wouldn't it?

I actually believe that the woman had convinced herself that she was being fair and balanced at the time. From our viewpoint out here, we knew that there was something very wrong with failing to allow the votes to be counted. But somehow, she went through a thought process that made it alright.

Maybe Gore's lawyers didn't do a bang-up job in arguing, either. It was such an emotionally charged, tumultuous time, with incredible time-constraints.

I'm not sorry that she regrets her decision. I am sorry that she took it in the first place. In fairness, even if she allowed her political bias to take sway (come on guys, admit it, how hard would it be not to, in the same position?) I don't think she understood the nature of today's Republican party. I doubt she spends much time listening to Rush Limbaugh. Old country club Republicans don't have much use for him. And even Rush wasn't as Rushy in 2000 as he is now.

At least she has a conscience about it. Not that that undoes the damage, but she is at least aware of the damage that she wreaked. Can't say the same about the criminals she put in power, though.

[LostInAnomie]

36. I got a different impression.

I don't think she has a remorse over the decision, I think she regrets the damage it did to her reputation. That decision encapsulated and put on display what she wanted to keep hidden. She wanted to be remembered as a non-partisan judge that made sound legal decisions. What Bush v. Gore did is show that she was as petty and partisan as the other justices and was perfectly willing to make poor legal judgments to suit those purposes.

The results of her installing Bush are secondary.

[LiberalAndProud]

41. Maybe you're right.

I saw her interviewed on C-SPAN once about the decision. I got the impression that she didn't want to say she was wrong in it, but she knew she was. And it was only an impression. She chose her words very carefully.

[Fumesucker]

57. You're right about Gore's lawyers.. They blew it big time..

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010205/bugliosi

Gore's lawyer, David Boies, never argued either of the above points to the Court. Also, since Boies already knew (from language in the December 9 emergency order of the Court) that Justice Scalia, the Court's right-wing ideologue; his Pavlovian puppet, Clarence Thomas, who doesn't even try to create the impression that he's thinking; and three other conservatives on the Court (William Rehnquist, Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy) intended to deodorize their foul intent by hanging their hat on the anemic equal protection argument, wouldn't you think that he and his people would have come up with at least three or four strong arguments to expose it for what it was--a legal gimmick that the brazen, shameless majority intended to invoke to perpetrate a judicial hijacking in broad daylight? And made sure that he got into the record of his oral argument all of these points? Yet, remarkably, Boies only managed to make one good equal protection argument, and that one near the very end of his presentation, and then only because Justice Rehnquist (not at Boies's request, I might add) granted him an extra two minutes. If Rehnquist hadn't given him the additional two minutes, Boies would have sat down without getting even one good equal protection argument into the record.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

74. this adds to my queasyness

at the whole thing.

ugh

[JVS]

39. Sandra, you asshole!

[Lindsey]

44. I hold her responsible for every thing that has happed. I will

never forgive her. Her decision will be her legacy. I can't express how I feel about this sub-human.

[Lorien]

42. Yeah, apologize to all the dead Iraqis, Afghans, US troops, Katrina victims,

and those that took their own lives after losing all they had. Oh, and to the future generations who would have been if we weren't still destroying our planet at a record pace.

[HughBeaumont]

48. Don't forget that when Bewsh took hosta . . . er . . . office . . .

The National Debt was still within reason and we had a surplus. It's now almost beyond repair and getting bloated thanks to the Pentasewer/Corporate Collusion and rich people who need to be that much richer. So thanks to the Failure Fuhrer, future generations will be saddled with that on top of everything else.

[Hekate]

45. Tragic. This makes me understand for the first time how she could have made that decision

I was one of those who really did think better of Justice O'Connor than that, and I was as appalled as everyone else that she voted with the four toads. I didn't know how much her personal biases overrode her judicial duty -- I didn't know the depth of her delusion that Bush Jr. was going to be the same as her friend Bush Sr., and not the fundie neocon whackjob he really was. I learned that from this interview.

She truly put party over country, and knew she was doing it; she simply had not paid any attention at all to what the son had been doing with his misbegotten life and whether he would even be fit to hold the office his father had held.

I hoped all along that she would not be able to sleep at night, as the saying goes; in other words that she would ultimately realize how deeply she had erred. In that would be her salvation, so to speak.

What with her decision to retire to take care of her sick husband removing her from the court, I agree with Toobin's assessment that it was a personal tragedy for O'Connor.

The Greeks thought of tragedy as the downfall of a noble person, brought on by a tragic flaw or moral weakness, the result of which is mental suffering as much as (or more than) material ruin. She had that nobility, she gave in to the moral weakness, she now suffers. It is right that she suffers because of the devastation caused by her transgression. We cannot offer her absolution; she must seek that on her own -- but as with Oedipus and Antigone, absolution will elude her in this life.

Hekate

[juno jones]

113. My thoughts about her are far too vituperative to spell out here.

But thank you for the mythic take on this. I appreciate such things :hi:.

In a thousand years she may be Antigone. My bet is that in a less than hundred years she is Benedict Arnold. (edit to add, WORSE, because she might just have lost us the republic, not just a battle or two...)

We will see if she truly attempts to atone in this life.

[SpiralHawk]

46. Too late, Sandy. You shit your republicon diapers and the stink endures

You get nothing but konservative kompassion: doodley squat.

[WhiteTara]

50. there is a special place in hell for people

like her. Her reputation is ruined already. I hope that her decision haunts her through all her lives on earth (should there be reincarnation.)

[ellie]

51. I have no respect for her

Fuck her. I hope her worry keeps her up at night.

[UTUSN]

52. "This is TERRIBLE," she said openly at a buffet, when reports had GORE winning. n/t

[Jamastiene]

103. The world endured eight years of hell all because her selfish ass wanted to retire.

I hope she is reminded of that for the rest of her life. Fuck her "legacy." She brought in on herself.


http://www.newsweek.com/id/104964/page/1

[mmonk]

54. She is a day late and a dollar short. Her historical legacy has been laid.

[spanone]

55. ....and well she should.

[Cetacea]

56. Too late. Deal with it. You blew it.

[baldguy]

61. O'Connor is an unabashed Republican. She refuses to accept responsability for her mistakes.

[AzDar]

63. The Supremes KNEW that Bush v. Gore was a fucking bullshit partisan decision, as they

demanded it not set precedent.


Suck it down, Sandy... Your legacy went down the toilet along with the country.

[Vinnie From Indy]

65. Yes, that one decision did define her entire career

It will hang around her neck for eternity. And, rightfully so!

[placton]

66. Her shame will outlast her sorry sorry life

and she deserves what history will say of her - Sandy the Traitor

[Marr]

67. She doesn't regret helping the Republicans steal the election...

...so much as she regrets helping *GW Bush* steal the election. She didn't like Bush Jr.'s style.

Yeah, that's really noble. I can see how she'd feel so comfortable whining about "dictatorship" later on.

:sarcasm:

[Proud Liberal Dem]

68. I used to have a modicum of respect for her until Bush v.Gore

I've been even more upset with her since she started expressing some *regret* over her decision. Like with Powell and otherwise decent public officials whom enabled Bushco in their many criminal endeavors during their eight long years of office, their courage to do the right thing apparently failed them when they were called upon to make an important decision- O'Connor's moment of truth, of course, being her decision in Bush v. Gore. Her *regret* and subsequent attempts to help reign in Bushco's lawlessness when it came to terrorism suspects were too little too late IMHO. Although not specifically related to O'Connor, how the hell was Thomas able to vote on Bush v. Gore when his wife was (then) part of Bush's campaign/transition team?
:wtf:
IMHO he should've had to recuse himself (not that I expected him to make the right decision on THAT, either, though)

[Land Shark]

69. That O'Connor reacted off the cuff as a "old ranch hand" in oral argument is URBAN LEGEND

By the time the case got to the Supreme Court, politically aware people and most of those not terribly political had heard and read about the allegations of mistakes or "dumb" voters for WEEKS. O'Connors famous intolerant outburst about following the instructions was not spontaneous in any pure sense. She undoubtedly had been thinking about Bush v Gore issues intensely for days, if not weeks. Remember, there was a US Supreme Court case PRIOR to BUsh v. Gore so this was the second time in a month issues about voting systems were in the US Supreme Court.

[jobycom]

82. Excellent points. nt

[marmar]

70. You can't unhitch yourself from that one now, Madame Justice.....

..... When you lie down with dogs......

[Festivito]

73. Ignorant Country Club Republican in high position.

I've seen female dogs in heat with more moral integrity, a lot more.

[closeupready]

75. She spoiled her legacy with that decision, there is no question about it.

Just as Powell's bullshit presentation in front the UN did the same to him.

[walldude]

76. Scrubbing, scrubbing, scrubbing, scrubbing,

she keeps scrubbing her hands but the blood won't come off. Fuck You Madam Justice, you have the blood of children on your hands, good luck getting it off.

[juno jones]

114. All the perfumes of Araby are not sufficient to

sweeten her delicate white hand....

Lady Macbeth is an apt metaphor. As Hecate posted above, this moment has mythic story elements.

[SoCalDem]

81. Shr was only upset because people reported things she had said privately

about how she wanted to retire, but would not retire if a democrat was president... and then a few months later she got the chance to make sure that did not happen..

Too bad little Sandy..you have bloody hands..

[omega minimo]

85. And did the law affect her decision, or just her views on "complaining" and affection for Poopy?

[FarLeftFist]

89. Yes, and let that challenge to O'Connor's conception of herself....

Eat at her soul for eternity.

[davidwparker]

90. You're reputation is in the toilet, Sandra, where it should be. Couldn't watch

C-SPAN's presentation of the Supreme Court yesterday since you and your fellow partisans have spit upon it.

Your court will be remembered, alright. But, not as you'd hoped.

[Samantha]

91. Some months after this opinion, she referred to the decision

as a no-brainer. That was her literal wording. I was appalled at the decision, but even more appalled in hindsight, this was how she saw her vote -- simply a no-brainer.

She did not and does not have the analytical acumen to be a Supreme Court judge. Unfortunately, that is true of others as well, some presiding in the past and others still there warming the chairs. Scalia, for instance, is often referred to as an intellectual giant. Personally, I just don't see it. I have cringed many times listening to him discuss legal issues. He is an intellectual lightweight.

And what could I possibly say about Thomas that hasn't already been said? And the late Justice Rehnquist?

It doesn't take a legal mental giant to recognize that utilizing a law passed during the days of the Pony Express (Safe Harbor provision) to justify nullifying 51 million votes in a Presidential election is simply nuts. Refusing to let the Florida recount be finished because it would give a disproportionate weight to those whose votes were not counted in the original tally but were counted the second time as a second justification to nullify 51 million votes is beyond nuts.

I have never understood how the votes of one contested state could be used to nationally disqualify the majority 51 million votes the Democrats won in election 2000 by deploying these two legal arguments. Anyone thinking that is how the electoral college and/or Constitution works is brainwashed. The Constitution delegates the rights to conduct elections to the states. The states must define their rules via their state constitutions. The Florida Supreme Court ordered the recount. That should have been the last word.

It was simply a fixed election, and that is how people will remember O'Connor, et al., a participant in the fix.

Sam

[Faygo Kid]

92. Too late. She is doomed by history.

Lighten up, Sandy baby. You are doomed to be condemned forever for your partisanship. George W. Bush crushed this nation, and you had a direct role in it.

[DissedByBush]

95. Then she was by definition a horrible justice

"You combine that reaction with what Bush's presidency turned out to be, something very different than what O'Connor thought it would be, a very conservative Presidency"

Here we see her making her decisions based on politics and personal likes and dislikes.

That is not what we rely on the Supreme Court to do.

A justice rebelling against an administration? Interpreting the law shouldn't change based on who is in office.

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ThoughtCriminal]

98. For a SC Justice to mis-characterize a case so badly

is proof of either extreme incompetence or partisan bias. Bush v. Gore was not about "voters who had made mistakes, who were incompetent, who were complaining and making excuses".

The legal gymnastics required to justify the Court majority's decisions will always be legendary as an example of twisted logic and self-contradiction. There is no way that historical legacy of any of the five who ruled in favor of Bush will ever be anything but tarnished.

The only good news for O'Conner is that most American history textbooks are likely to get edited and censored by the Texas State Board of Education.

[beyurslf]

100. She will be remembered as the 1st woman on the Court. And then, more than any other,

she will be remembered as the jurist who voted her political will and not her judicial philosophy in Bush v Gore. Nothing she did after that can change it.

[FarLeftFist]

101. Dark day for America.

[Skittles]

102. I know she very much regrets her decision

but I don't care - it was a fucking disgrace and she can fuck herself

[Jamastiene]

104. Tought shit, O'connor

O'Connor's selfishness has cost thousands of lives and misery unmeasurable. :nopity: Let her live with it.

[defendandprotect]

105. What Justice O'Connor did re Bush decision and rest of Gang of 5 was TREASON ...

[Senator]

106. k&r

[earcandle]

107. Has Sandra agreed to be the scapegoat for Bush's war crimes?

Although I agree, she allowed it.  Still, why not go for the
sources of the crimes rather than 
conveniently scapegoat yet another woman??   
Please.  Prosecute, don't blame second hand decision makers,
who knew about Cheney's assassination squads. 
That seems unfair.  And misogynistic. 

[Joe Bacon]

108. Shame on the Congress for not impeaching the Treasonous Five

All five of these justices committed treason and they got away with it. DISGUSTING!

[RainDog]

109. I totally agree. they gave us two terms of bush-shit. I think she's repulsive.

a "one-time" ruling by the supreme court?

bullshitbullshitbullshit.

I will never forget that betrayal of democracy. Those supreme court justices will go down in history as the wall of shame for the aughts. I hope SDO knows that her reputation was forever soiled by colluding with Cheney/Bush.

[Gman2]

110. Get OXYCLEAN, soul scrub

[D23MIURG23]

111. This is the sound of the smallest violin...

She gave us W and Alito, and in some sense Roberts as well. If her historical standing is the only thing she loses as a result, she is doing considerably better than the country she was supposedly serving.

:nopity:

</tired old cliche>

[OnyxCollie]

112. Activist judges ignoring states' rights and legislating from the bench.

A trifecta.

Thanks for giving away the country, Sandy.