precedents, such as the elections of 1824 and 1876, and pundits debated the constitutional questions. Meanwhile, the rest of the world waited to congratulate America's new leader. The situation seemed surprisingly calm, but still, uncertainty about who would occupy the most the world's most powerful position created unease in many quarters.
Against that backdrop, the U.S. Supreme Court intervened to finally end the 2000 election. By a 5-4 vote, the Court ordered the recounts to stop in Florida. The majority decision rested on the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection. According to the Court, differing recount standards among Florida's counties would result in disparate results. Thus, some ballots that might be counted in Dade County would not be counted in Palm Beach County. Therefore, the Court ruled in Bush's favor, effectively ending the election.
Not surprisingly, Bush's supporters applauded the decision and Gore's backers cried foul. But was this a partisan decision, motivated not by the interpretation of the law but by mere political preference? Chemerinsky, a professor of law at the University of Southern California, does not try to answer that question. His goal is not to wade into the political debate, but to analyze the Court's decision in Bush v. Gore strictly from a legal standpoint.
Chemerinsky attacks the decision on three grounds. First, he writes that the Court erred by taking the case at all. This argument is based on the Court's precedents and federal law. The author delves into the Constitutional principles of ôripenessö and ôstanding.ö Bush's claim was not ripe, and he lacked standing; therefore, according
...