Florida law in this matter provided some odd provisions for closure. First, an automatic recount is invoked when elections are close. This requires no intervention or agreement from political bodies but is rather part of the process of counting the votes. Then there is a one-week protest phase before the vote is certified by Florida Secretary of State. During this phase, candidates may protest to each county wh

However, the decisions set forth by the different courts begin to test the definition of an impartial jury. The courts in Florida, the majority being liberal, handed down decisions seeming to favor the Democratic candidate. The United States Supreme Court, with its conservative slant, wrote decisions appearing to be line with Republican candidate. A quite convincing argument can be made that decisions were made based on the political leanings of the judges. Further, allegations were made as to a conflict of interest with Justice Scalia stemming from his son working for the law firm that employed Bush’s council. The allegations were quite unfounded, as Scalia’s leanings would have produced a similar opinion if his son were council for Gore. However, the difference between a political judgement and a judgement based in political leanings is a primary one. A well-founded decision will rely on the beliefs and opinions of its members without seeking political ends. Being equitable in judgement lies with making judgements based on facts presented rather than outcomes. Without this, the court seems no more than an extension of the political bodies that employ it.

Now that the battle was on the legal front, every decision made by the lower courts was appealed to higher courts. When the Florida Supreme Court extended the deadline for reporting election results, the federal judiciary’s head turned. The Supreme Court was soon brought into the mix and asked to comment on the issues raised by the Florida Supreme Court. It handily accepted to review the case on a fast track. At first, the U.S. Supreme Court simply asked for an explanation of the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling. But when this state court did not comply, the U.S. Supreme Court found it necessary to cast final judgement on the issue.

ere they have a dispute. After certification begins the contest phase, a legal proceeding in court that can result in ineligible votes being thrown out or a recount being ordered. Here again, candidates are contesting the tallies of the specific counties where they feel inadequacies.

Some political pundits would make the argument that the Court’s distance from popular will is precisely why it does not belong in decisions about a popular election for the Presidency. However, the Court is not completely separated from popular will. As the Court stated in Roe v. Wade, “The Court must take care to speak and act in ways that allow people to accept its decisions…as grounded truly in principle, not as compromises with social and political pressures.” While being separated from the immediate will of the people, the Court has no method of execution without agreement from the executive and legislative bodies, which are both elected by the people. More importantly, the Court has limited its decisions to issues of constitutionality and

Some topics in this essay:
Supreme Court’s, Supreme Court, Katherine Harris, George Bush, Roe Wade, Florida Secretary, Justice Scalia, Florida Legislature, Bill Clinton, Court Florida, supreme court, florida supreme, florida supreme court, equal protection, supreme court’s, florida statute, court limited, article 2, based political leanings, clause provided, provided federal, meet safe harbor, federal statute, clause provided federal, harbor clause provided,