O’Connor Second-Guesses Bush v. Gore Intervention

3

bush-goreShe stopped short of using the word “regret,” but retired Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O’Connor recently suggested that the high court shouldn’t have intervened in the 2000 election.

“Maybe the court should have said, ‘We’re not going to take it,'” O’Connor, who provided the key fifth vote to install Bush as president, told the Chicago Tribune of Bush v. Gore. She admitted that election authorities in Florida had done a poor job, and added that the Supreme Court likely “added to the problem at the end of the day.” Read more at The Washington Post.

{Andy Heller-Matzav.com Newscenter}

3 COMMENTS

  1. Gore would have been so much better than Bush it is shocking to remember how close that election was, with Gore getting half a million more votes nationwide. Just not invading Iraq would have saved the US four to six trillion dollars.

  2. 2. Comment from Charlie Hall
    Time
    April 30, 2013 at 12:51 AM

    Gore would have been so much better than Bush it is shocking to remember how close that election was, with Gore getting half a million more votes nationwide. Just not invading Iraq would have saved the US four to six trillion dollars.

    The nationwide popular has no relevance. We are a federal republic, not a unitary republic.

    I hardly think Gore would have been any better than Bush. The Iraq War, I’ll concede, was very poorly executed.

    And Gore would have totally wrecked the federal judiciary.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here