Bush V. Gore Case Study

Instead of sticking to a strict constructivist approach, the court as a majority was willing to identify new rights in the constitution and agreed to hear cases on hotly debated social issues such as abortion, gay rights, affirmative action, and the death penalty, which conservatives thought should be decided by Congress and state

The presidential election of 2000 is the most controversial election in US history and led to a Supreme Court case between the two candidates, George W. Bush and Al Gore. Bush v. Gore has forever tainted the election and the integrity of the Supreme Court.

People went to bed one night thinking that Gore had won, but when they woke up they found out that bush had won with Florida’s twenty-five electoral votes. It happened on November 7, 2000. Bush charged that the recounts in Florida broke the rules of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. A 7-2 majority ruled that the Florida recount was being conducted unconstitutionally. The case was covered in controversy as the Majority versus minority opinion on the redress was split along the lines of the more reactionary justices voting in favor of Bush and the more liberal justices voting in favor of Gore. The minority disunity noted these issues and other including the principle of equality and

In the Albert Gorse versus George Bush election of 2000, Albert Gorse won the popular vote by 547,398 votes. However, George Bush won the election because of the Electoral College process. Normally, the winner of the popular vote wins the office or election. However, during this election it was not the case. Albert Gore did not win by a landslide; nevertheless, he still won the popular vote (Deatrick, 2012). While the typical American citizen may say that this one case is insignificant compared to the other elections, the significance recides in the mind of the person who was running for President and for the American citizens who voted for their

The Marbury vs Madison decision created lasting effects for the history of American politics by establishing judicial review. Judicial review provides the Supreme Court with the ability to determine the constitutionality of an act or issue passed by the legislative or executive branches. The case took place early in American history where the powers of the Supreme Court were only outlined in the Constitution but never explicitly exercised in public. The Marbury vs Madison decision is significant in formation of contemporary American politics because it affirmed the process of judicial review within the Supreme Court which secured the principles of the Constitution and entrenched the separation of powers idea among the bodies of government in the United States.

George Bush’s eventual triumph exposed everything: the pain of winner-takes all allocation of electors in 48 of the 50 states; the hazards of the electoral college, where if three electors with cold feet had votes for Al Gore instead of Bush then he would have won the presidency, Florida recount be damn; but, above all, the injustice of a system wherein the popular vote winner can lose.” There have been an alarming number of instances where the Electoral College set back the country due to the problems it has caused, and will continue to cause if it’s not replaced.

It is also important because of the limitations that it placed on the Affirmative Action program and the fact that the court was divided on this ruling.

The 2000 presidential election was a major eye opener for many people. As it appeared to also be the dismay of many, the candidate who won the most popular votes nationwide actually lost the contest. In the election's risen moment, popular attention centered around the Electoral College and its role in the presidential election. Under the U.S. Constitution, the people did not necessarily direct vote for the President in a nationwide election; rather, the people in each state would vote for electors from that state, who in turn would cast the constitutionally decisive votes for President and Vice President. Moreover, not only is the people's influence indirect, the Electoral College's voting pattern does not necessarily track the national popular

Tushnet’s book helps teach why the Supreme Court has ruled the way it has. In 2015, Obergefell v. Hodges legalized homosexual marriage, this would not have been possible 30 years ago. Tushnet describes this in his book, the Supreme Court doesn’t always go with whether the subject is constitutional or not, public opinion, and whoever is president at the time, determines mostly how the court rules on most decisions. In many Supreme Court cases, cases pass or fail due to a 5-4 vote, this further helps Tushnet’s case that The Court Justices hold their own personal political agendas.

Governor Bush was leading in the poles by 1,800, because it was so close Florida’s laws had to call for an automatic machine recount of votes. The votes were so close that Florida law let Gore the choice of a manual vote recount in the counties he wanted. The trial of Palm Beach Canvassing Board v. Katherine Harris was a response from the Bush campaign to state litigation against extending the deadline for recounts. Gore’s campaign finally agreed to Florida’s Supreme Court decision for the recount.

They allude to the unanimous 9-0 decisions the Supreme Court has made as a strong indication that the court remains neutral. Chief Justice Roberts also recently stated at a Boston law school: “We don’t work as Democrats or Republicans” (Savage, 2016, p. 1). Moreover, Justice Scalia, when defending his conservative vote in a 5-4 ruling, claimed: “’I prefer not to take part in the assembling of an apparent but specious unanimity’” (Kuhn, 2014, p. 3). However, decisions become unanimous only when the ideological stakes are not large enough. As for extremely controversial topics, nearly every single recent 5-4 decision has been divided perfectly along ideological lines. The conservative majority, praised by Republicans, has unbelievably struck down major parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, upheld an individual’s right to own guns, and has allowed unlimited corporate spending in campaigns (Kuhn, 2014). These types of decisions have caused the divided Supreme Court that we have today. Looking at a more psychological and scientific perspective on this overall issue, an investigation by Anna Harvey and Michael J. Woodruff of the New York University found that the direction of decision and vote of the Supreme Court is frequently contaminated by confirmation bias; justices seeking out facts and reasoning that

Gore is arguably one of the most biased decisions the Court has reached in the last couple of decades, perhaps even in their history. However, how biased of a decision was it? The Rehnquist Court ruled in favor of Bush with a 7-2 decision stating that the order by the Florida Supreme Court to recount the ballots was unconstitutional. They also ruled with a 5-4 decision that since different standards were applied amongst the ballots, precincts and counties the Court held that no constitutional recount could be conducted in the short time remaining. Also, the opinion limited the holding to the case at hand meaning that it applies to that case alone. Rehnquist also argued that the recount was illegal because the Florida Supreme Court made new election law which is something only the legislature is capable of doing. However, the decision claiming that no recount could be fashioned in the time remaining is a little different. Breyer and Souter argued that a constitutional recount could be fashioned since time is no factor when constitutional rights are at risk. Also, Ginsburg and Stevens argued in their dissent that the Florida Supreme Court was right since the Constitution requires every vote be counted. The Bush v. Gore case was an extremely high-profile case since it essentially decided who won the election of 2000. Seeing that there was adequate material in the Constitution backing the decision of the Florida Supreme Court and that the votes not being counted in the

Stare Decisis plays a large role in Judicial Restraint. Stare Decisis is sticking to an established ruling that was handed down by past judges or jurors. A form of judicial restraint is called the political question doctrine, and it is significant in understanding this interpretation of the law. The political question doctrine is when a court acknowledges that the constitution is violated but does not decide to act. There are plenty of examples of Judicial Restraint throughout our history but the one that stands out the most in my mind is Gore Vs. Bush. In this case the Florida supreme courts methods of recounting the presidential ballots was considered and ruled as having violated the Equal Protection Laws which is under the fourteenth amendment in a presidential election. Everyone seems to know that something wrong was done, but no one really understands what happened. Before this debate I didn’t realize that this was an example of Judicial Restraint. And this is why I caint agree with either interpretations of the law.

The Supreme Court of the United States of America often makes decisions, which change this great nation in a great way. These changes can affect society in many different ways. In many instances there is dissonance over their decisions and the court itself is often split as to how the views are looked upon. The effect of the Courts decision generates discourse and on occasion, violence. This is what happened in the case of Miranda v. Arizona in 1966. This case changed the history of this country and left a tremendous impact, which many challenge, the ruling and still protest today.

W.L. Gore and Associates is a privately owned company which has continually turned a profit over its 50 plus year history. This Company’s management was designed on a lattice based structure, with no management layers or organizational charts. W.L. gore has leaders not bosses and for new hires it has sponsors. They believe in commitments instead of assignments and create and environment in which employees are free to experiment and is energizing and demanding. Even through this companies growth they have maintains a sense of unity and collegiality. W.L Gore is clearly a company which will continue on into the future because they have unlocked the fundamentals to management innovation.