RETIRED SUPREME COURT JUSTICE sandra day o'connor recently said that the united states supreme court might well have made a mistake in agreeing to hear, then hearing, the bush versus gore case in 2000 which determined the identity (bush) of the president of the united states.
gore won the election in popular vote, by about half a million votes, but amid confusing circumstances in florida, involving hanging chads, recounts, and court battles, bush won florida, and the presidency. surely you who are over the age of twenty five remember all this.
those of you who are younger can either consider yourself fortunate, or unfortunate, to have missed all the excitement.
with bush slightly ahead in florida after several days of vote counting, but with thousands of votes still uncounted, florida decided to throw in the towel. gore's legal army filed for a recount, which was granted in florida, but bush's legal army appealed to the high court, which saw things his way.
and of course, the vote in the high court was five to four, along predictable court party lines, and bush took office, all after several weeks of this wrangling. people are forever trying to determine which vote was the deciding or "swing" vote, failing to realize that any of the nine might be so considered.
o'connor does not say that the court ruled wrongly, but only that perhaps it should never have ruled at all, and let it be decided in state. One possible reaction to this is to congratulate her on her honesty and deliberation.
another reaction is to say"what good does it do now"?
No comments:
Post a Comment