SANDRA "DENY" O'CONNOR.

     That the U.S. Supreme Court is less than perfect is not news. That its imperfection only goes back twelve years is the scoop that former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor shared with the Chicago Tribune Editorial Board on April 26, 2013. Apparently, it begins with their decision to hear Bush v. Gore.

     According to Andrew Rosenthal in The New York Times (4/29/13) Justice "O'Connor said, "It [The Supreme Court] took the case [Bush v. Gore] 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.'" 

     Considering that Albert Gore won the popular vote for President in the 2000 election and George W. Bush was only one vote ahead in the college, I'd say recounting the votes in Florida was a big election issue." Since, by agreeing to hear the case and deciding to stop the recount in Florida, they effectively chose the next President of the United States, maybe they should have said, goodbye.

     But they didn't. "Obviously, the court did reach a decision and thought they 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." Overlooking the "aw, shucks" diction (you have to keep things simple for the editorial board of a major urban newspaper) the phrase that screams for attention is, "It turned out." As if, in the fullness of time, certain facts about the Presidential election gradually came to light. Hanging chads, butterfly ballots, yuppie riots and the involvement of Florida's Secretary of State, Katharine Harris, were all known at the time and presented to the Supreme Court with, I'm sure, a good deal of authority by the distinguished attorney, David Boies. That it didn't matter is also well known because five members of the court had already made up their mind. Like the FLorida election authorities and Ms. Harris, they wanted George W. Bush to be President. So, yes, the Supreme Court knew they had a decision to make and they made it (before they were asked!) Yes, the Florida government "hadn't done a real good job there and kind of messed it up. And probably the Supreme Court added to the problem." But, no, no one had to wait until "the end of the day" to find out.

     The result, Justice O'Connor told the board, "stirred up the public" and gave the court a less than perfect reputation." Let's start with the comment about perfection.
By 2001, Justice Clarence Thomas had served for ten years and Justice Antonin Scalia for fifteen. So, the sundae of the court's reputation had lost its cherry a while ago. The last time Justice Thomas spoke was to defame Anita Hill during the approval process for his nomination. Since then, he's been a silent indictment of men, lawyers, justices and any group that, even temporarily, includes him. Justice Scalia is what liberal parents use to scare their children into behaving. "If you aren't good, Justice Scalia will take away your right to have toys." His blunt, aggressive style proves that being street-wise owes more to the street than to wisdom.

     What do you suppose "stirred up the public," Justice O'Connor?  Could it be that five people (the vote was 5-4) subverted the election process and put the candidate of their choice into power. A choice with devastating consequences because, it turned out, George W. Bush was President during 9/11, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, Hurricane Katrina and the financial crisis. Even more significantly, the Supreme Court put Dick Cheney into power.

     What stirs me up is that because the vote was 5-4, Sandra Day O'Connor cast the deciding vote. Yet, she does not admit her role in the decision, much less recant, regret or apologize. So, why bring up the subject at all?
To sell her memoirs? Between her comments in Chicago and the silent, unsmiling reluctance of her appearance on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, she's not doing herself any favors. Is she trying to get into heaven? You have to confess before you're forgiven and as Andrew Rosenthal says in the Times, Justice O'Connor sets, "some kind of record for detachment and understatement."
If she's trying to blow the whistle without implicating anyone, that's impossible. You can't roll over and play dead. That leaves only one possibility: that Sandra Day O'Connor lives in some spectacular kind of denial as to her own involvement in Bush v. Gore. Can you blame her?