The Integrity of Legal Reasoning: A Supreme Court Failure

The Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore sparked widespread criticism among law teachers, who felt that the court's majority opinion lacked convincing reasons for its conclusion. The court's failure to persuade with its decision-making process has serious implications for the legitimacy of its power and the public's perception of the institution.

Key Takeaways:

• The Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore was criticized for its unconvincing reasons, which led to a widespread perception that the court prioritized the result over the reasoning behind it.
• The majority opinion in Bush v. Gore ignored the equal-protection question raised by Governor Bush, which could have been resolved in ample time by the Florida Supreme Court.
• The court's decision was widely criticized for its lack of consideration for the Florida statutes, which aimed to balance the need for a timely certification of electoral votes with the need for a fair count.
• Professor Michael W. McConnell argued that the Dec. 12 deadline was not a critical issue, as states could choose to forgo the safe harbor protection and continue with their recount.
• Two dissenting justices, David Souter and Stephen Breyer, agreed that there were equal-protection problems and would have preferred a 7-2 vote to remand the issue to the Florida court.
• The majority's rush to judgment has left the country with the impression that the justices cared more about the result than the reasoning behind it.
• The Supreme Court's decision has been criticized for putting an "indelible stain" on the institution's reputation as an honest guardian of the Constitution.

Statistics:

• The Supreme Court's decision was made at 10 p.m. on Dec. 12, 2000.
• The Florida Supreme Court could have resolved the equal-protection question in ample time, but the justices in Washington sent the case back to them on Dec. 4 without addressing the issue.
• Many states have filed their electoral votes after Dec. 12, and Florida statutes aim to balance the need for a timely certification with the need for a fair count.
• Professor McConnell argued that the Dec. 12 deadline is not a critical issue, as states can choose to forgo the safe harbor protection and continue with their recount.

Sources:

• Michael W. McConnell, "The Supreme Court's Shameful Display of Judicial Activism" (The Wall Street Journal)
• Philip Stephens, "The Shimmering Reputation of the Supreme Court" (The Financial Times)
• H.I. Hayakawa, quoted in the New York Times article.