Apart from the daily wrangling back and forth, the battle between Al Gore and George Bush gave us a rare close-up of the United States Supreme Court in action. The Court, clothed with an aura of moral authority, conducts its business behind the scenes and rarely has to deal with the intense glare of the media and the prying eyes (ears) of mere mortals. What did we learn?
There is an old saying: “Decisions of the Supreme Court are not final because they are right, they are right because they are final.” As the court of last resort there is no appeal. Thus, the Supreme Court can be wrong (as it has been in the past) and have the last word. Time will tell whether the Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore was proper. A bare majority (5 to 4) ruled against resuming the count of Florida undervotes. The four justices in the minority dissented vigorously, with Justice Stevens sending a sharp warning that our democratic process was in danger and another Justice intentionally omitting the word “respectfully” from the statement of dissent. The Court was as fractured as the American public, largely on ideological lines.
Pundits have suggested that the Court placed the perceived need for finality ahead of the need for justice. The Court’s action might be defensible in the short run, but the long term implications may prove troublesome. The Miami Herald is already making arrangements to have the votes counted using a “big-eight” accounting firm. By Spring we should know whether the Court’s rush to a conclusion yielded true justice, or merely justice lite.
– Kevin Palmer