<<12/18/00 11:10 a.m.
Supreme Court 1, Anarchy 0
The Court?s raison d?etre.
By Brad Zuber, who is writing a book about government policies during the 20th century
Amid the collective hand-wringing over the finality of the U.S. Supreme Court's momentous involvement in the outcome of the presidential race, one simple ? yet important ? element has been overlooked. Those who fret over the damage this involvement will do to the high court's reputation for being above the fray seem to miss the fact that this is exactly what the Supreme Court of the United States is there to do.
Was this a contentious issue? A divisive issue? Yes, on both counts. But aren't we Americans used to seeing the Court smack in the middle of contentious and divisive issues? Abortion, affirmative action, and the death penalty come to mind.
If the nine justices cannot be seen to properly have a role as the final arbiter between two battling armies of lawyers in a controversial and bitter race for the leadership of our nation, then just when exactly would they have a role. It's not, as some have said, a foolhardy intrusion into a place they don't belong; it's their raison d'etre.
The recriminations about the Court becoming embroiled in a partisan political matter are equally wrong ? because this was not about politics. It's not like David Boies and Ted Olson were asking the court to rule on whether or not Bush's tax plan really was slanted toward "the top one percent" of taxpayers, or whether Al Gore really was guilty of using "fuzzy math." This entire sordid affair changed from a matter of politics into a matter of law in the wee hours of Wednesday, November 8th when Gore retracted his concession and a Florida airlift of lawyers for both sides commenced.
After 36 days of multi-pronged legal offensives from both sides, the American Constitution was about to be tested in a way seldom seen before. So, the Supreme Court resolved the issue before it went any further. It may have been a bit messier than we all would have liked, but certainly no more messy than the constant ups and downs of the last five weeks. In short, the Court did its job by stepping in ? and Americans should thank them for that.
Of course, this isn't how the talking heads see it. Newsweek's Jonathan Alter decried the fact that the Court's actions caused harm to "democracy and the legitimacy of the American presidency." The New York Times' Anthony Lewis tells us the public's view of the Court as trustworthy is now "thrown into question." Florida Democratic Congressman Robert Wexler calls it a "terrible, terrible precedent in America."
And the political opportunists are out. Jesse Jackson claimed Bush will lack the moral authority to be our president ? this from a man who did not seem to doubt the moral authority of a certain soon-to-be-former president when he was caught breaking the laws he was sworn to uphold. In the end, it doesn't matter. Serious people don't listen to Jackson anymore.
Serious people should, however, listen to what Al Gore told America in his concession speech ? that this important and divisive issue has now been resolved "as it must be resolved, through the honored institutions of our democracy." Al Gore has it right and the talking heads and partisan demagogues have it wrong.
Gore and his supporters ? and all Americans ? should take comfort in the fact that we live in a country that has a more than two-century tradition of gracious transitions of power. And, we should also take comfort in the fact that our founding fathers once again showed their wisdom and foresight by creating a Supreme Court that properly steps in when that tradition is threatened.>> |
