Bush vs. Gore

Paper Summary:

This paper examines how the Supreme Court used political bias, not legal formalism, to decide the George Bush vs. Al Gore case.

From the Paper:

"It is the claim of this brief that the chain of arguments guiding the decision in Bush v. Gore is fallacious. The manual recount, as ordered by the Florida Supreme Court, did not violate Article II because the Court was merely performing its job of interpretation nor did it violate the Equal Protection clause as demonstrated by the principle of state sovereignty. Further, even if the 14th amendment violation had occurred, the recounts could have been altered to fit within the constitutional boundaries as opposed to being canceled altogether. It is the implied, and sometimes explicit position of this brief, that the justices were conveniently applying principles and argumentation to lead to their desired end. Although this occurred on both sides of the political divide, the burden of proof on Bush was not sufficiently met to warrant the Supreme Court decision. Instead, the conservative judges were motivated by their desire to maintain control over the elite positions in the federal government."

More papers on Bush vs. Gore:

• Analytical Essay # 126167 : "Bush vs. Gore"
• Analytical Essay # 4357 : "The Legal Lessons of the 2000 Elections"
• Analytical Essay # 29053 : "Bush vs. Keynesian Economics"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: