Appropriate and necessary: The U.S. Supreme Court’s need to intervene in Bush v. Gore

Type :

Presentation

Pages :

6 pages

Format :

.doc

Published date :

12/18/2008

Category :

Political science

Sub category :

Political science

Oboulo.com selection criteria

$ 12.95 Add to cart

Summary :

Introduction.
1. The presidential election of the year 2000.
2. Split on ideological lines in the court
The real question of whether the U.S. Supreme Court should have heard the case.
Where the court erred.
1. Neglecting to consider Title 3, Section 5 of the United States Code.
2. Its unwillingness to defer to statutes enacted by the Florida legislature.
3. The 'shall' and 'may' conflict.
The Florida Supreme Court.
The court's reasoning that manual recounts can take place even without machine error.
Florida Supreme Court's ruling on Gore v. Harris ignoring the Supreme Court's remand.
1. An ever-growing legal quagmire.
2. The second decision that did not clarify Florida law or the court's previous ruling.
3. Five days to conduct a full, state-wide recount.
Florida Supreme Court's failure to consider the federal mandates.
Conclusion.

Abstract

The presidential election of the year 2000 will be the source of controversy for years to come. Since its conclusion on Dec.12, 2000, in the U.S. supreme court, volumes have been written criticizing the court's decision in bush v. gore - which stopped hand recounts of ballots in Florida and gave George W. bush the presidency. The justices themselves have come under considerable fire. They have been called "treasonous" by famed prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi, and threatened with impeachment by the San Diego County Democratic Party and Cal State San Marcos professor Mike Byron. With the court split on ideological lines, the decision certainly appears questionable, but looking back on the flood of litigation that erupted after Nov. 7, 2000 - partisan differences aside - should the supreme court have even heard the case? Did it overstep its bounds by reversing a state supreme court's interpretation of state law, or was the decision appropriate based on provisions in the U.S. Constitution and federal law?