2000 Presidential Election

Paper Summary:

This paper explains how the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the 2000 Presidential elections blurred the lines between the three branches of government and made expediency of more importance than rule of law. The paper also points out that, at the time the decision was made, the majority of the justices of the Supreme Court had been appointed by Republican presidents, either Reagan or Bush Sr. The paper also talks about the importance of precedence in Supreme Court rulings and how the decision made by the Supreme Court on the 2000 elections will have a "trickle down" effect not only on subsequent sitting Supreme Court decisions, but on the character of decisions made generally in the courts of the United States.

From the Paper:

"The dissenting opinions make it clear that the dissenters were acting on the principles set out in the Constitution, and according to the proper Constitutional structure and field of action of each branch of government. Justice Souter, agreeing with Justices Stevens, Ginsburg and Breyer, noted that the three issues before them were "straightforward". Among those issues were whether the Florida Supreme Court's interpretation of the election results violated a state law; whether the Florida Supreme Court had exceeded its powers in allowing a recount, and that those powers should have resided in the state's legislature, and; whether the variety of standards for interpreting the hard-to-read ballots constituted violation of equal protection or due process. Souter dismissed that third claim out of hand."

More papers on 2000 Presidential Election:

• Essay # 3750 : "Effects of Religion on the 2000 Presidential Election"
• Analytical Essay # 119360 : "The 2000 Presidential Campaign"
• Essay # 24524 : "2000 Presidential Election"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: