Sandra Day O’Connor Admits Bush Vs. Gore Regrets

Of one of the most controversial Supreme Court actions in living memory, retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has admitted that the intervention in Bush vs. Gore back in 2000 may have not been prudent for the highest court in the land.

Speaking last week to the Chicago Tribune, Justice O’Connor admitted that the decision to take Bush vs. Gore, ultimately deciding the election, “stirred up the public” and, more long-term, “gave the court a less than perfect reputation” among Americans.

Twelve years later, we all know the outcome both of Bush vs. Gore and the years that, for better or worse, followed the massive controversy.

In Chicago to promote an educational video game called iCivics, Justice O’Connor cedes that the decision in hindsight to take the case — described by many in legal arenas at the time as “frivolous” — likely did more harm than good:

“It took the case and decided it at a time when it was still a big election issue … Maybe the court should have said, ‘We’re not going to take it, goodbye.’ ”

Justice O’Connor says with the information available now, the Court’s intervention on the election issue is even more questionable:

“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.”

Justice O’Connor was the first female Supreme Court Justice, and looking at the court in 2013 — with Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Reagan appointee says the advances clearly made “[perks her] up.”