Abstract

This Article considers the long-term implications of Bush v. Gore for the Court's institutional standing and legitimacy. First, the Article considers the possibility that the Court's legitimacy turns on the legal soundness of the reasoning of its opinions. If this is the case, I argue, the Court is in a lot of trouble, since few reputable lawyers will be convinced that the result was a product of anything but the conservative Justices' partisan preference for George W. Bush in the 2000 presidential election. Second, the Article considers the alternative (in my mind, more plausible) premise that history's verdict on a Supreme Court ruling depends more on whether public opinion ultimately supports the outcome than on the quality of the legal reasoning or the craftsmanship of the Court's opinion. The Article's strategy is to canvas some of the landmark decisions in American constitutional history ? Dred Scott v. Sandford, Brown v. Board of Education, Furman v. Georgia, Roe v. Wade, and others ? with the aim of deriving a list of factors that predict how particular rulings will affect the Court's reputation: the amount of opposition a decision generates, the intensity of opposition, perceptions of how efficacious a ruling is likely to be, the relative clout of constituencies supporting and opposing the decision, the continuing saliency of the issue adjudicated by the Court, shifts in public opinion regarding the issue resolved by the Court, the ability of the Justices to take advantage of subsequent opportunities to modulate their decision in light of hostile public opinion, and whether a particular decision is an isolated ruling or part of a package of controversial decisions. Finally, the Article considers how those variables apply to Bush v. Gore and predicts that the decision's long-term consequences for the Court's reputation are likely to be relatively insignificant, mainly because the underlying issue will rapidly become obsolete (unlike, say, the abortion or school prayer issues, which have remained controversial for over a quarter of a century).

Highlights

  • Became a cultural icon, and the Court's vanguard role in the civil rights movement has enormously enhanced its prestige among the American people."l This conversion of Brown from a target of vituperative legal and sociopolitical criticism into a cultural icon may suggest that the Court's long-term standing depends more on getting its decisions right, by which I mean ruling in a manner consonant with long-term public opinion, than on the quality of its legal reasoning

  • Bush's election to the presidency hung in the balance.'[29] in other settings, these three Justices have insisted that federal courts should defer even to state court interpretations of federal law unless "patently unreasonable."'30 It takes little imagination to picture the impassioned-characteristically vitriolic-assault on judicial activism and federal overreaching that Justice Scalia might have penned had the candidates been reversed and it was Al Gore asking the United States Supreme Court to resolve a presidential election contest by repudiating a state court's interpretation of state law.' 3'

  • TIMES, May 3, 1970, at 53; Public Opinion Online, accession # 0065113

Read more

Summary

Citation Published Version Citable link Terms of Use

Gore through the Lens of Constitutional History, 89 Calif.

Recommended Citation
CALIFORNIA LA W REVIEW
LONG TERM CONSEQUENCES
Findings
CONCLUSION
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call