Do you think the Supreme Court made the right decision in the Bush vs. Gore case in 2000?

Question

If you don't know much about the case read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v_Gore
and this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_U.S._presidential_election
B4U respond

And pleas back up your god damn answers. Yes and No do me no good. I want to know what ppl think and WHY?

Answer 1

Technically yes, but I think any candidate who wins because of the electorial college and didn't win the popular voe shouldn't become president. Electorial College should be thrown out.

Answer 2

No I don't. I completely understand why the court was reluctant to wade into this issue. It was a political nightmare waiting to happen, and they did not want to set a precedent of having a presidential election decided by the Supreme Court. But the grounds they found to avoid the issue were so narrow as to be silly, and I agree with the 4 dissenting justices that the gravity of the issue should have outweighed the nervousness of the court in taking it on. There is abundant precedent for counting ballots according to the clear intent of the voters, even when this conflicts with the procedures established by the jurisdiction where the election takes place, and courts all over the country have consistently rules so. The process in Florida was such a transparent attempt by one political party to interpret policy in a way that would sway the outcome of the election that there is no way it should have been allowed to stand. I think historians of the court will see the decision as one of marked judicial cowardice.

Answer 3

No. The Supreme Court should not be deciding who becomes President. The fact that Bush took such extreme legal action to stop recounting the votes goes directly against our Democratic Process. One person, one vote.

Katherine Harris should have waited to certify the vote AND BY LAW she could have amended the vote at no extra cost to tax payers. The recounts were allowable by LAW and blocked for political reasons only. She was in their pocket from the beginning and it was an obvious move by her. Coincidence that Jeb was the Governor at the time?

Why weren't their consistant standards before the vote was taken? Because our system is flawed, in national elections there should be one standard in every state to avoid such problems in the first place. IT'S THAT IMPORTANT.

Americans bought another line of propoganda by the Rove Turdblossom machine that it was putting the country through too much turmoil to recount the votes.

And we can complain as much as we want, it's our right to do so. If they had just allowed the recount in the first place it wouldn't have had to go to the supreme court. But no, Katherine Harris had the backing BY LAW to include the amended counts of only four counties. Her decision did not have to meet any guidelines what-so-ever, it was arbitrary in my mind and one elected official should not have a say over who becomes President, no matter what party they are from.

Oh and Bushes lead went down with each count, fancy that.

This is why I believe the popular vote should count, get rid of the electoral college altogther.

Answer 4

Yes. Gore was trying to change the voting standards, trying to 'interpret' the intent of the voters without any sort of consistent and verifiable standard. The votes that could be cast, the votes that were 'obvious' and legal by the standards in place at the time of the election should have been sufficient. The problem that Gore had with this standard, however, is that it didn't favor him. He was convinced, because of 'polling data' that he won the state and wanted the ballots to prove his conviction. The courts were right in stopping a recount based on a new standard not in place at the time of the election. You can't change the rules after the game's been played so the losers win.

Since the decision, recounts were carried out by every possible organization using even the most liberal interpretations and ALL ended in favor or George Bush.

The hardest games to lose are the close ones. Sorry Democrats.

Answer 5

Yes, I believe the Supreme Court made the right decision. I may not a lawyer, but I can not find anything in the Constitution that would support Al Gore's arguement.

There is a remedy of the disputed election in the Constitution. Why didn't Gore go through the Constitutional method? The Florida vote would be upheld and the House of Representatives would vote to decide the issue. In 2000, the Republican Party made a majority in the House, so Gore knew that he could not win. So he tried to back door the Constitution through the courts. People who still believe that Al Gore should have been president (he is a "star" now), should look at the tricks he tried to pull.

And before you scream "Diebold!", ask yourself how many dead people have voted in Cook County.

Answer 6

I do, yes, but the whole thing left me a little uncomfortable. I felt the left leaning FLA State Supreme court was making rulings based on their liberal bias. How can I be certain that the right leaning US Supreme court didn't make a ruling on its conservative bias? Answer, I can't. I may agree with the decision but I am biased too. I still think the country is better off for not having Al Gore win, and certainly better than John, the gigolo Kerry. I am from Massachusetts, so I know, Kerry has brought this state nothing but embarrassment. I guess I was naive in hoping the courts would rule without political bias in a case so important

Answer 7

I think their reasoning was faulty. The fact that votes in different counties are being recounted with different procedures doesn't violate equal protection. By that logic, even letting the counties count their own votes would violate equal protection. They should have remanded the case to the Florida supreme court to determine the legislature's intent on recounts.

Answer 8

"Right" decision? Legally? What are our criteria here? The answers to the question will all be based on partisan sentiments, just as the SCOTUS decision was. The Supreme Court decided not as a matter of law but as a matter of partisanship. at any rate, the question is moot, and the damage is done.
A far better question would be, "Do you believe that more Florida voters wanted to vote for Gore or Bush?" In all honesty the answer would be"Gore". But alas, the tragic accident of history that is Geo. Bush is a reality.

Answer 9

Yes. We live in a democratic republic NOT a pure democracy. Thus the winner is not the one that wins the popular vote but the one with the most electoral votes. (Though most of the time they agree, in this instance they did not.) This is supposed to keep candidates from buying there way into office through bribes. (Personally I think they ALL have found other methods to buy their way in but that is neither here nor there in relation to your question.)

Answer 10

To answer Steve C:
The will of the American people IS inferior to law. When you promote the will of the people above the law you have mob rule. Our constitution was created to protect us from the majority.