Bush v. Gore and the Political Question Doctrine
Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu
Thu Sep 7 09:53:08 PDT 2006
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.
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?
> Robert Justin Lipkin
> Professor of Law
> Widener University School of Law
University of Michigan Law School
625 S. State St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Conlawprof