Ten years later, revisiting the Supreme Court case of Bush v. Gore
In the current issue of The New Yorker, legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin LOOKS BACK on the ruling of 10 years ago in which the U.S. Supreme Court, “by a vote of five-to-four, terminated the election of 2000 and delivered the Presidency to George W. Bush.”
What made the decision in Bush v. Gore so startling was that it was the work of Justices who were considered, to greater or lesser extents, judicial conservatives. On many occasions, these Justices had said that they believed in the preëminence of states’ rights, in a narrow conception of the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and, above all, in judicial restraint. Bush v. Gore violated those principles. The Supreme Court stepped into the case even though the Florida Supreme Court had been interpreting Florida law; the majority found a violation of the rights of George W. Bush, a white man, to equal protection when these same Justices were becoming ever more stingy in finding violations of the rights of African-Americans; and the Court stopped the recount even before it was completed, and before the Florida courts had a chance to iron out any problems—a classic example of judicial activism, not judicial restraint, by the majority.