In an email to the Washington Post, Bush said he had asked his top legal advisers to „find the best constitutional lawyers to inform me of my constitutional duties as governor. I withdrew from my responsibilities in terms of constitutional law, but I had ministerial tasks that I wanted to do. It has been argued that none of the judges voted in a manner consistent with their previous jurisprudence,[19][53] although this conclusion was challenged by Nelson Lund, a law professor at George Mason University (who argues that, unlike suspicious classification cases in fundamental rights cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has never required evidence of intentional discrimination). like Bush v. Gore himself). [80] [61] The five conservative justices decided to involve the federal judiciary in a case that could have been left to the states, while expanding previous interpretations of the equality clause by the U.S. Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the liberal judges were all in favor of leaving the case in the hands of a state and sometimes advocated a narrower interpretation of the existing precedents of the SCOTUS equal protection clause. This reinforced the perception that judges were using the desired outcomes to advance their reasoning rather than using legal reasoning to reach a conclusion.
David Cole of Georgetown Law argued that to change the image of the court after Bush v. Gore, the court was established within four years of Bush v. Gore that before the fall, and that conservative judges join the Liberals rather than the other way around. [53] Governor Bush was optimistic about his chances before adviser and confidante Karen Hughes approached him five days before the election with the news that a journalist had discovered a quote about drunk driving that Bush had received years ago. Bush had considered disclosing the DUI early in his political career, but decided not to do so because, as he claimed, he did not want his daughters to be aware of his irresponsible behavior. „Not disclosing the DUI on my terms was perhaps the most costly political mistake I have ever made,“ Bush later wrote. Laura called her daughters to let them know about the announcement before they knew it from the news. Bush made a succinct statement: „I have been arrested. I confessed to the policeman that I had been drinking. I paid a fine.
And I regret that this happened. But it worked. I learned my lesson. Despite the reminder that this case is „an election for the President of the United States,“ ante at 112 (REHNQUIST, C.J., agreed) demanded that no outstanding legal or practical concerns related to the legal issues of this court hear this case, let alone issue a deferral that stopped Florida`s recount process in its tracks. With one exception, the petitioners` demands do not ask us to justify a constitution to stop the counting of legal votes, the majority today deviates from three venerable rules of judicial restraint that have guided the Court throughout its history. When it comes to constitutional law, we have always respected the views of the highest courts of the states. With respect to issues where the resolution is at least largely entrusted to another branch of the federal government, we have interpreted our own jurisprudence narrowly and exercised it with caution. With respect to federal constitutional issues that have not been fairly referred to the court whose judgment is under review, we have cautiously refused to give an opinion. The majority acted recklessly.
[A] Residency should only be granted if an applicant significantly demonstrates the likelihood of irreparable harm. In this case, the petitioners did not bear this heavy burden. The counting of any vote legitimately cast shall not constitute irreparable prejudice. On the other hand, there is a risk that a stay will cause irreparable harm to respondents – and in particular to the general public. Preventing the recount from being completed will inevitably tarnish the legitimacy of the election. [18] This story could help explain why I find not only legally false, but also very unfortunate that the court simply ended the florida recount. Those who warn against judicial restraint in the settlement of political disputes have described the essential case of this reluctance as one characterized, among other things, by „the strangeness of the problem“, its „tenacity towards a principled solution“, its „pure scope“. which tends to unbalance the judicial verdict“ and „the internal vulnerability, the self-doubt of an institution that is irresponsible under electoral law and has no land to draw its strength“. Id., p. 184.
Those characteristics characterise the present case. The political implications of this case for the country are of great importance. But the federal legal issues raised are, with one exception, irrelevant. It was the biggest and bloodiest political-legal brawl since the presidential elections of 1800. Working on the Republican side has been a big career change for ambitious conservative lawyers. (What a wonder? Two of Barrett`s future banking colleagues on the Supreme Court — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh — were both members of Bush`s legal team.) Should we seriously believe that Barrett does not remember the work she did at this historic moment? Apparently, Klobuchar knows what it was. And then we moved on to the relevance of this work for our current moment. Ronald Rotunda, a professor at Chapman University School of Law, responded that Democratic-appointed Florida Supreme Court justices had also ruled against Gore: 1 See also Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1032, n. 18 (1992) (South Carolina could defend a regulatory measure „if it objectively reasonably applies the relevant precedents [by its courts].
Uses that can be used in the circumstances in which the country is currently located“); Bishop v. Wood, 426 U. pp. 341, 344-345 (1976) (Decision as to whether North Carolina created a recognizable property right under the due process clause by reference to state law as interpreted by the North Carolina Supreme Court). Similarly, gurley v. Rhoden, 421 U.S. 200 (1975), a gasoline dealer, argued that due process allowed it to deduct a state excise duty on gasoline when calculating the amount of its sales subject to state turnover tax, on the ground that the legal impact of the excise duty was attributable to its customers and that it had acted solely as a collector of the tax. The Mississippi Supreme Court held that the legal impact of the excise duty rested with the applicant. We noted that „the highest court of a state is the final judicial arbiter of the service of the laws of the state“ and stated that „[w]here a state court has made its own final decision on the operational impact. We place great importance on this conclusion in determining the natural effect of a statute, and if it is consistent with the reasonable interpretation of the law, it is considered conclusive.
„Id., p. 208 (citing American Oil Co. v. Neill, 380 U. S. 451, 455-456 (1965)). In addition to these difficulties, the actual process by which votes had to be counted after the Florida Supreme Court decision raises other concerns. The order did not specify who would recount the ballots. District advertising committees were forced to form ad hoc teams of judges from different backgrounds who had no prior training in the manipulation and interpretation of ballots. While others were allowed to observe, they were also forbidden to object during the recount.
A vote to be legal when all light could be seen through a Chad, reverted to the 1990 rule and then abandoned any pretext of a per se just rule to get a court order that the county considers Grübchen-Chads legal. This is not a process with sufficient guarantees of equal treatment. The court ruled 5-4 that no constitutionally valid recount could be completed before the December 12 safe harbor deadline. The Court noted that „the Florida Supreme Court has declared that the legislature intends for state voters to `participate fully in the federal electoral process,` as provided in 3 U.S.C. § 5.“ The court effectively ended the proposed recount because „the Florida Legislature intended to obtain the benefits of the 3 U.S.C. §5 Safe Harbor.“ Souter said bluntly: „The 3 U.S.C. §5 is no big deal. [40] Breyer`s dissent was as follows: „By stopping the manual recount and thereby ensuring that uncounted legal votes are not counted to any standard, this court is creating a remedy that is disproportionate to the alleged harm. And this remedy undermines precisely the interests of fairness that the Court is trying to protect. [39] The Protocol contains a number of examples. A Miami-Dade County observer testified in court that he observed that three members of the county`s Solicitation Council had applied different standards to define a legal vote.