Bush v. Gore and the Political Question Doctrine

[Scarberry, Mark]

One problem, of course, is that there was another court that had already decided that the matter was justiciable (the Florida Supreme Court). The effect of the US Supreme Court refusing to act might not have been to leave the matter in the hands of the political branches of the US govt (or the Florida state govt) but rather, as a practical matter, in the hands of the Florida Supreme Court. The concurring opinion in Bush v. Gore (and the initial per curiam decision IIRC in the Palm Beach County case) reflect the concern that the Florida Supreme Court was inappropriately substituting its judgment for that of the Florida legislature.
 
Mark Scarberry
Pepperdine

________________________________

From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu on behalf of Douglas Laycock
Sent: Thu 9/7/2006 8:56 AM
To: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Bush v. Gore and the Political Question Doctrine



Louise Weinberg has a long article on Bush v. Gore, arguing, if I remember right, that they can decide questions about elections, but they can't decide the election, and that Bush v. Gore stepped over the line.  Whether she put this in terms of the political question doctrine I don't remember.  But it might have been hard to avoid talking about it.

Quoting RJLipkin at aol.com:

> Is there any literature  arguing for and against the political question
> doctrine's applicability to  Bush v. Gore?
>
> Bobby
>
> Robert Justin Lipkin
> Professor of Law
> Widener  University School of Law
> Delaware
>


Douglas Laycock
University of Michigan Law School
625 S. State St.
Ann Arbor, MI  48109-1215
  734-647-9713

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20060907/d37cc416/attachment.htm