Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Left Wing Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (933)	12/13/2000 11:34:59 AM
From: Dr. Id	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6089

No, 7 Justices had constitutional problems with the Florida Supreme Court. The vote was 5-4 to stop the recount. High court ruling may taint court - - - - - - - - - - - - By Associated Press Dec. 13, 2000 \| WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruling in Bush v. Gore may be remembered by history as the case that changed the place of the court in modern political life. The court's conservative majority led the 5-4 ruling to stop presidential vote recounts, almost certainly marking the end of the long post-election court battle -- and with it Democrat Al Gore's hopes for the White House. The justices split along the same ideological gulf that marked its vote to stop recounts on Saturday, and will reinforce the suspicion that the court was meddling in politics, several legal scholars said. "This really does not put the court in a good light. It's made them look obstructionist," said Yale law professor Jack Balkin. "It leaves them with less legitimacy than they had before." At one time or another, the court has considered just about every controversial issue in American life -- from slavery and suffrage through segregation, Watergate, abortion, prayer in schools and even Paula Jones. Never before, however, has the court been a central instrument in choosing a president. "To be divided closely on the one instance in American history where the Supreme Court chooses the president rather than the other way around is not likely to sit well over time, either with the American people or with historians," said Laurence Tribe, a Gore lawyer and longtime court scholar. Georgetown University constitutional law professor Richard Lazarus said it is too soon to tell whether the case will do lasting harm to the court's reputation for impartiality, but he foresees some trouble. "By ultimately deciding the election by a 5-4 vote, there is the possibility of the public reacting quite adversely," Lazarus said. The unsigned majority opinion acknowledges the court is in an awkward position as it delves into an election. "When contending parties invoke the process of the courts ... it becomes our unsought responsibility to resolve the federal and constitutional issues the judicial system has been forced to confront," the justices wrote. The five justices who sided with George W. Bush were named to the court by Republican presidents, while the dissenters include two moderates named to the court by Republican presidents and two named by President Clinton. The court had already compromised its nonpartisan reputation by agreeing to hear disputes over the election twice -- both times at Bush's request, scholars said. The court found a way to paper over obvious ideological differences the first time, issuing an unanimous ruling that sent the issue back to the Florida courts for clarification. Most court scholars read that move as recognition from the justices that the court risked lasting damage if its ruling on that case appeared as baldly partisan as the justices' questions indicated it might be. The justices stunned nearly everyone, including many in the campaigns themselves, by plunging back into the election morass just days later, and with ideological colors flying. The 5-4 vote Saturday to suspend the hand counts that might have meant Gore's resurrection was accompanied by extraordinary written explanations from both wings. Tuesday's decision contained overlapping opinions that generally used muted language, with the notable exception of Justice John Paul Stevens. Stevens pointed a stern finger at his colleagues for sullying the court. "Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the law." Americans of all political stripe tell pollsters they basically trust the court to be impartial. On Sunday night, after a month of election-related litigation, The Washington Post and ABC News polled people about their faith in the court system generally to deal with political cases. Sixty-three precent said they had less confidence than before the election, while 20 percent said they had more confidence.