Bush v Gore rightly decided

Why you don't make mixed ticket for election. Reason is that you could give one party a motive to assassinate the president, and put their own party into power. So, Sandra Day O'Connor thinks she did wrong thing in Bush vs Gore, but actually she did the right thing because all she would have done is setup a situation in which they would have a motivation for assassinating Bush.

Update:  ( for clarification purposes )

I followed the 2000 election controversy, so I know what I'm talking about here.  Let's say that the Supreme Court ruled in Gore's favor.  This still doesn't produce a victory for him, regardless of the outcome.  That's because the recount controversy could have been dragged out over time until it passed the "safe-harbor" time limit that was fast approaching.  No way the recount gets completed and certified in time to prevent a challenge in the House.  It then gets thrown into the House, where Bush wins.  If Gore would have followed this strategy in the first place, he might have had some opportunity to win.,  Having lost his bid by selective recounts, he forfeited his chances, in my opinion.  This last gambit was a spiteful attempt to deprive Bush of his victory.

The best the Gore camp and the Democrats could have done is to put Lieberman in as vice-president.  The Court stopped this, and rightly so.  There was no point in damaging the incoming administration.

That O'Connor could change her mind like this shows why it's a good thing she left the court.