The Supreme Court's Delphic Disposition on the Presidential Election

The Supreme Court's consideration of the presidential election dispute between Al Gore and George W. Bush was a complex and contentious process, with justices probing both sides on crucial points of law. Despite the tension and uncertainty surrounding the decision, the court's questioning remained distinctly human, with moments of levity and humor breaking through the tension.

Key Takeaways:

• The court's questioning was probing and skeptical, with several justices expressing concerns about the lack of a common recount process in Florida.
• Justice Sandra Day O'Connor asked a series of pointed questions, including whether a voter can be forgiven by the courts for not following ballot instructions.
• Justice Antonin Scalia bluntly stated that the use of two different standards in recounting ballots by two Florida counties was "just not rational."
• Justice Anthony M. Kennedy was particularly scrutinized, with several observers sensing that he may have been a potential swing vote.
• The court's decision was ultimately Delphic, with several justices expressing concern that the case may be sent back to Florida for further fact-finding.
• David Boies, the lawyer for Al Gore, made the concession that every vote should be counted, which was seized upon by Justice Souter as a key test of his case.

Statistics:

• The Supreme Court considered the case for five weeks.
• The court's questioning lasted for several hours.
• 10 justices participated in the case, including Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens, and this court's press corps.
• 5-4 was the margin when the Supreme Court decided to hear the case.

Sources:

• The New York Times, December 12, 2000.
• The New York Times, December 13, 2000.
• Supreme Court Transcript, Bush, et al. v. Gore, et al.
• ABC News "The Note" - December 12, 2000.