9.01.2006
Editorial Observer; Has Bush v. Gore Become the Case That Must Not Be Named? (NYTimes.com)
By ADAM COHEN
Published: August 15, 2006
At a law school Supreme Court conference that I attended last fall, there was a panel on ''The Rehnquist Court.'' No one mentioned Bush v. Gore, the most historic case of William Rehnquist's time as chief justice, and during the Q. and A. no one asked about it. When I asked a prominent law professor about this strange omission, he told me he had been invited to participate in another Rehnquist retrospective, and was told in advance that Bush v. Gore would not be discussed.
The ruling that stopped the Florida recount and handed the presidency to George W. Bush is disappearing down the legal world's version of the memory hole, the slot where, in George Orwell's ''1984,'' government workers disposed of politically inconvenient records. The Supreme Court has not cited it once since it was decided, and when Justice Antonin Scalia, who loves to hold forth on court precedents, was asked about it at a forum earlier this year, he snapped, ''Come on, get over it.''
There is a legal argument for pushing Bush v. Gore aside. The majority opinion announced that the ruling was ''limited to the present circumstances'' and could not be cited as precedent. But many legal scholars insisted at the time that this assertion was itself dictum -- the part of a legal opinion that is nonbinding -- and illegitimate, because under the doctrine of stare decisis, courts cannot make rulings whose reasoning applies only to a single case.
Bush v. Gore's lasting significance is being fought over right now by the Ohio-based United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, whose judges disagree not only on what it stands for, but on whether it stands for anything at all. This debate, which has been quietly under way in the courts and academia since 2000, is important both because of what it says about the legitimacy of the courts and because of what Bush v. Gore could represent today. The majority reached its antidemocratic result by reading the equal protection clause in a very pro-democratic way. If Bush v. Gore's equal protection analysis is integrated into constitutional law, it could make future elections considerably more fair.
(More ... Editorial Observer; Has Bush v. Gore Become the Case That Must Not Be Named? - New York Times) ¶ 12:52
Published: August 15, 2006
At a law school Supreme Court conference that I attended last fall, there was a panel on ''The Rehnquist Court.'' No one mentioned Bush v. Gore, the most historic case of William Rehnquist's time as chief justice, and during the Q. and A. no one asked about it. When I asked a prominent law professor about this strange omission, he told me he had been invited to participate in another Rehnquist retrospective, and was told in advance that Bush v. Gore would not be discussed.
The ruling that stopped the Florida recount and handed the presidency to George W. Bush is disappearing down the legal world's version of the memory hole, the slot where, in George Orwell's ''1984,'' government workers disposed of politically inconvenient records. The Supreme Court has not cited it once since it was decided, and when Justice Antonin Scalia, who loves to hold forth on court precedents, was asked about it at a forum earlier this year, he snapped, ''Come on, get over it.''
There is a legal argument for pushing Bush v. Gore aside. The majority opinion announced that the ruling was ''limited to the present circumstances'' and could not be cited as precedent. But many legal scholars insisted at the time that this assertion was itself dictum -- the part of a legal opinion that is nonbinding -- and illegitimate, because under the doctrine of stare decisis, courts cannot make rulings whose reasoning applies only to a single case.
Bush v. Gore's lasting significance is being fought over right now by the Ohio-based United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, whose judges disagree not only on what it stands for, but on whether it stands for anything at all. This debate, which has been quietly under way in the courts and academia since 2000, is important both because of what it says about the legitimacy of the courts and because of what Bush v. Gore could represent today. The majority reached its antidemocratic result by reading the equal protection clause in a very pro-democratic way. If Bush v. Gore's equal protection analysis is integrated into constitutional law, it could make future elections considerably more fair.
(More ... Editorial Observer; Has Bush v. Gore Become the Case That Must Not Be Named? - New York Times) ¶ 12:52
