Bush v. Gore

[Volokh, Eugene]

        Is it really accurate to read this sentence as a "declar[ation] that
there shall be no precedential impact of Bush v. Gore"?  Seems to me that
lots of cases stress that a decision rests on a particular factual scenario,
and that the situation may be quite different -- and unpredictably so -- if
some facts were changed, and that therefore the decision should not be read
as necessarily resolving other cases in which some relevant facts may be
quite different.

        Eugene

Jeff Segal wrote:

> Various postings on the Minnesota absentee ballot problem
> rely, in one way or another, on the equal protection argument
> set forth in Bush v. Gore. Recall, though, that the per
> curiam opinion declared that there shall be no precedential
> impact of Bush v. Gore (demonstrating that the justices who
> joined the opinion didn't believe their own arguments).  "Our
> consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for
> the problem of equal protection in election processes
> generally presents many complexities."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20021103/5d93778b/attachment.htm