Why did the Supreme Court involve itself with the Florida elections?

Question

Although Florida had disagreements between its branches, insulating the states from interference by the federal government-- especially in respect to the election of the President--is a fairly clear Constitutional sentiment.

Now that it's been awhile since the elections, why did the Supreme Court decide to ignore the right of the State of Florida to decide its own electors?

Answer 1

The Supreme Court offered two theories as to why the stopped the re-counts in Florida.

There was a "per curiam" opinion. "Per curiam," of course, is Latin for "by the court," and it means that no one member of the Court is taking credit for having written the opinion. (As Vince Bugliosi pointed out, they were too embarrassed at what they had written, so no one wanted to take credit for writing it!) This main opinion claimed that the method of conducting the re-counts was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. There was not a state-wide, uniform standard for determining a legally valid vote. A dimpled chad was a legally valid vote in some counties by not in other counties. Non-uniformity means no equality.

Many Republicans are embarrassed that this is the way the court decided the case and, indeed, opposed the fact that Bush's legal team had made that an argument in the first place. Retired Judge Robert Bork says, with obvious euphamism, that the equal protection argument has "major problems." David Limbaugh (Rush's brother) says "I was not tickled to death with ... the equal protection argument. ... Not the best avenue -- the best mechanism -- to reach the result they reached."

Chief Justice Rehnquist, in an opinion also joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas, offered a concurring opinion which added one more argument for why they stopped the re-counts. The Florida State Supreme Court had misinterpreted (in their view) the state's Presidential election law so bad that the state Court had, in effect, made completely new law and thus usurped the state legislature's power to proscribe the method of selecting the electoral college slate.

This is the argument that Republicans like Bork and Limbaugh prefer to emphasize. Michael Greve is also a conservative scholar who thinks that this argument is the only good argument for why the USSC should have stopped the re-counts.

Personally, I don't agree with either one of those arguments. The Per Curiam opinion is a total fiasco. And I also feel that if Rehnquist was "right," then the USSC should not have stopped the re-counts AT ALL unless the Justices were UNANIMOUSLY in favor of that justification. The fact that they did what they did with only a 5-4 vote -- and that the 5 were not even unanimous among themselves about why they were doing it -- is an even worse fiasco.

Obviously, the only reason they stopped the re-count is because they wanted to be sure that Bush would be the next President.

Answer 2

I believe the issue was pressed by Al Gore. Al wanted recounts in certain districts that were really close. I think he would have demanded recounts till it came out in his favor then Bush would have had done something equally childish and demanded recounts in districts he lost but had a chance of pulling a recounted victory. If I remember correctly Bush appealed to the Supreme Court to basically shut him up after the first couple of recounts. Al had a good cry afterword and started accusing Bush of illegitimate victory. That's when he went into the Bush Bash...

Answer 3

They held, in stopping the count on December 9, that such counts would be likely to produce election results showing Gore won and that Gore's winning the count would cause "public acceptance" that would "cast[] a cloud" over Bush's "legitimacy" and thereby harm "democratic stability."

It's called the Gore exception. The five conservative justices had all in the past ruled many times in favor of states' rights over federal--except in this case.

They said, "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, as the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."

Of course, they never defined these "complexities."

Here's an amusing site with great explanation of the circular thinking of this decision:

http://hometown.aol.com/marklevineesq/myhomepage/election.html

Answer 4

Alexander Hamilton would have reported, .. "Wow! I in no way would have idea they'd attempt this!" From Hamilton's essay in Federalist seventy 8: "Whoever attentively considers the various departments of ability ought to choose that, in a authorities in which they're separated from one yet another, the judiciary, from the nature of its applications, will continually be the least risky to the political rights of the structure; because it truly is going to least in a ability to harass or injure them. ... The judiciary ... has no impact over both the sword or the handbag; no route both of the flexibility or wealth of the society; and ought to take no lively decision even with. it may somewhat be reported to have neither stress nor WILL, yet purely judgment; and ought to finally rely on the help of the governmentarm even for the efficacy of its judgments." on the different hand, Thomas Jefferson would have reported that he isn't any longer stunned: From a letter Jefferson wrote to a unique guy in 1820: "You look, sir, ... to guage the judges to be the purely right arbiters of all constitutional questions; an somewhat risky doctrine certainly and one which would position us lower than the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as uncomplicated as different adult males and in no way extra so. they have, with others, an same passions for get at the same time, for ability, and the privilege of their corps, ... and their ability is the further risky as they're in place of work for existence and are not responsible, as the different functionaries are, to the optional administration. Our structure has erected to such unmarried tribunal, understanding that ... its contributors would change into despots." To wolfs_bone: Of the 9 contributors of the best courtroom, in problem-free words 3 of them shook their fingers on the Florida state very best courtroom and advised them that they'd misinterpreted Florida regulation. chief Rehnquist's opinion replaced into in problem-free words supported by himself, Scalia, and Thomas. none of the different 6 Justices supported Rehnquist's *concurring* opinion.

Answer 5

They wanted Zeb's brother to get elected.