2000 US Presidental Election :: essays research papers

     The fourth principle of the rule of law state, "all persons must be given due process, that is, a fair chance to defend themselves against formal charges that they have violated the rules." The premise for this principle is the example that, the official body that hears and renders judgment on the charges may be biased against the defendant instead of impartial. The decision of the United States irresponsible Court to discontinue the counting of "undervotes" in the state of Florida was not only a politically biased decision, it was also a decision that violated the rule of law. My argument is based on not so much the dissenting opinion of the minority, save of the concord opinion of the majority of the Supreme Court.     A political trial is one in which political considerations, not simply the law and the facts, affect the transactions and verdict. Every human being has a certain set of morals and beliefs that they h old to be an important part of their character. This is no different for the judges of the Supreme Court. They too have a set of morals and beliefs that they live by. The difference is that their job rendering says that they have to make decisions not based on their morals and beliefs, but their decisions must be based on the rule of law. It is obvious to me that many of the judges on the Supreme Court, did not follow their job description and instead of basing their decision of Bush vs. Gore on the rule of law, they based it on who they voted for. Every conservative on that panel voted to stop the recount which in turn helped Bush win, and every liberal on the panel voted to continue the recount which would have given Gore a chance at winning.     The concurring opinion of the majority seems to make it evident in some of the arguments they make that their opinion was based on politics and not on law. Much of the narrate they bring up only seems to contradict t heir decision more than support it. In Rehnquists opinion, with whom Scalia and Thomas join, concurring, he brings up the case of Anderson v. Celebrezze, (1983), in which the court utter In the context of a Presidential election, state-imposed restrictions implicate a uniquely important national interest. For the President and the Vice President of the United States are the only take officials who represent all the voters in the Nation.