Anyone read the opinions and dissents on the Supreme Court decision electing Bush?

Question

The Supreme Court decision and dissents for the case where the court ordered the recount to be stopped while Bush was ahead is a fascinating read, I recommend you look it up... this and all other supreme court decisions are available on the internet. I am not a lawyer and it still provided some deep insights. It is the flimsiest excuse they could come up with to get the man elected... basically the decision was it's more important to choose a president right now, when bush is ahead, than to count the votes, and went against all precedents of attempting to discern voter intention.

Anyway, if you believe me or not, go read the opinions and dissents. It's fascinating. If you have, tell me what you think.

Answer 1

I have not read any of the opinions, but I feel confident that I wouldn't need to. I have read 4 books talking about the fiasco, 2 of which deal exclusively with the Supreme Court's ruling. And I know that some prominent Republicans have been quite embarrassed with the Per Curiam opinion (but find Chief Rehnquist's concurring opinion a satisfactory explanation).

I believe that the Per Curiam opinion is a fiasco, and even if there were any merit to the concurrance (which I doubt), I also feel that Bush's request for the injunction should not have been granted at all unless the Justices were unanimous. Marbury v. Madison, Brown v. Board of Educ., U.S. v. Nixon were all unanimous decisions and it was important for the Court to BE unanimous on those occasions. It should have been as equally important in Bush v. Gore. Deny the injunction by 5 to 4, but don't grant it with anything less than 9 to 0. I will never support the Republicans again unless they start admitting that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore was a total fiasco.

Answer 2

I read them back in 2001. If I remember correctly, the majority opinion went something like this: "State law requires that the elections be certified within 30 days. This was intentional on the part of the legislature, because they felt it was important that the State of Florida not be left out of the Electoral College. That law is not unconstitutional. The Florida State Supreme Court does not have the authority to substitute it's own opinion in place of the judgment of the state legislature."

In the long run, it's all a moot point anyway. The Florida Ballot Project conducted the "Mother of all recounts," and determined that if ANY of the several different recounts that Gore had requested had been completed, George W. Bush would still have won Florida, and the Presidency.

Answer 3

The flimsiest thing was the Florida Supreme Court holding that the US S. Ct. ultimately overruled. Contrary to all recognized legal procedure the Fla. S. Ct. simply ignored & reversed the trial court's express findings that there was insufficient factual grounds for a recount.

Moreover, had the the Fla. S. Ct. ordered a recount of all precincts (which likely would have been sustained by the USSCT). it could not have been physically completed in time for Fla. electors to be certified and the Fla. legislature would have appointed the Republican electors anyway. Had the Democrats asked for a full recount to start with, there would have been sufficient time to do it, and there would not have been an equal protection issue. In short: Gore's lawyers screwed it up.

BTW, had they not screwed it up, Gore would still have lost. The exhaustive review of all ballots that the Miami Herald & a consortium of newspapers conducted showed that.

Answer 4

Yes I read it. And yes, they should be ashamed of themselves.

The equal protection argument was valid as far as it goes, but a much better solution would have been to remand the matter for instructions by the lower court on how to conduct a consistent recount that would solve the equal protection problem.

The entire reason for the 2+ month gap between the election itself and the inauguration is to allow for dealing with procedural problems (and electoral problems) that may arise.

{EDIT to MarkD} You reached your conclusion without ever bothering to read the opinion itself? Not to mention that a unanimous conclusion is never required. It doesn't work that way. But we have already discussed your general disdain for the Court, so....

Answer 5

stunning how a lot people do not study about what legal professionals can do with an errant statement rendered irresponsibly in an opinion. I trust you. This infringes on the second one modification. I might want to make sparkling my opinion. This overwrites the second one modification with the help of declaring that gun possession is a secure self-protection proper. the unique language of the modification states that hands possession of all kinds shall no longer be infringed upon so, that persons may form militias. that signifies so you might use a gun for self-protection or for establishing beer cans see you later as you shop it with the intention to equip your armed forces. Scalia suggested that it would not pertain to militias (it is logical yet, alterations the invoice of Rights) yet, to self-protection surely and actually. This honestly might want to be interpreted to point that you may't use a gun except it truly is for self-protection now. this can propose no more desirable searching. The wording might want to were more desirable intently chosen. to make sparkling, I own a gun and that i help the second one modification.