George W. Bush should have won Bush v. Gore

I am not changing sides here as I fully supported the SCOTUS decision in this one. Point 1: Bush lost the popular vote Rebuttal: This is irrelevant since the US President is not elected by popular vote. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Point 2: "He [Bush] also would have lost Florida if all of the counties had counted their votes consistently with their standard". Rebuttal: This debate is in reference to the SCOTUS decision, not other recount methods. As my opponent's source makes clear, "The results of the study showed that had the limited county by county recounts requested by the Gore team been completed, Bush would still have been the winner of the election. " . http://en.wikipedia.org... So this was outside of the scope of the appeal for the SCOTUS decision and; therefore, outside the scope of our debate. Point 3: "Issues like this are not supposed to go to the supreme (sic) court (sic), as they are state law. " Rebuttal: Con is relying heavily on Justice Stevens' dissent as his source, but he should read further; Con will find that Justice Stevens acknowledges that the federal court can step in on state election laws, "On rare occasions, however, either federal statutes or the Federal Constitution may require federal judicial intervention in state elections. This is not such an occasion. " (Directly after Con's quote). Stevens never argued that the SCOTUS had no jurisdiction here; he only proffered that the Court should uphold the Florida Court's decision and not overturn it. Bush et. al. presented a federal claim (equal protection) so the SCOTUS was well within its Constitutional boundaries to hear this appeal as it is in any federal case. Many cases make it to the SCOTUS concerning state laws as the laws of the states must still adhere to the US Constitution. Stevens and Souter both agreed the equal protection claim had merit (see part C Souter dissent) Since this issue was substantial the judges agreed it was within the purview of the court and it is the issue which the per curium decision was based upon, so we will focus on it alone at this point. Souter made clear that the he felt the Court should never have granted certiorari, but this debate is about Bush v. Gore, not the previous vote by the justices to grant cert. so his comments on this point are merely dicta. Con's claim that state election laws are barred from SCOTUS review is without merit and is not supported by any decision I can find in the Court's record. Con must support this statement or dismiss it. The only question left is this: Does this issue warrant a reversal due to the Equal Protection Clause. Point 4: The Equal Protection Clause Rebuttal: Con is completely off base to claim that anyone who knows anything about the Equal Protection Clause knows it has no bearing on the case. I, as are all members of the SCOTUS presumably, am very familiar with the clause and such a brash statement is without warrant. I may disagree, but I am knowledgeable. Do not equate idiocy to opposition when basing your argument on incredulity. As can be read in the per curium decision, the recount method to be used was arbitrary (this is the whole issue). "Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another. See, e. g. Harper v. Virginia Bd. Of Elections, 383 U. S. 633, 665 (quote and citation in original) . http://www.law.cornell.edu... at pg 6 A "hanging chad" in one county did not equate to a "legal vote" in another: "The record provides some examples. A monitor in Miami-Dade County testified at trial that he observed that three members of the county canvassing board applied different standards in defining a legal vote. 3 Tr. 497, 499 (Dec. 3, 2000). And testimony at trial also revealed that at least one county changed its evaluative standards during the counting process. Palm Beach County, for example, began the process with a 1990 guideline which precluded counting completely attached chads, switched to a rule that considered a vote to be legal if any light could be seen through a chad, changed back to the 1990 rule, and then abandoned any pretense of a per se rule, only to have a court order that the county consider dimpled chads legal. This is not a process with sufficient guarantees of equal treatment. " Ibid at 8. Bush was not the one claiming equal protection per se; the voters were part of the lawsuit! If a "dimpled mark" was good in one county then it was good in another, but this was not the scenario presented and the Court pointed this fact out in the per curium opinion so the Equal Protection Clause applied hands down. The problem was simple: The voters would not vote again, but an appointed government official or a collective (the election commission) would decide the "intent of the voters", but the intent would be determined by marks on a paper, not direct testimony of the voters so the decision for electoral votes would fall on an APPOINTED official(s) and not the voters or the Electoral College. Stevens said this was an unimportant distinction (all the while acknowledging the Equal Protection Clause issue) but allowing this official to interpret the votes was the issue and the conservative majority stood against it, as they should have. Last Point: Something fishy going on around here Rebuttal: The Court decided along political lines (minus Stevens) but this is the image of impropriety verses actual wrong doing. I can see no way that Justice Scalia would approve an appointee to determine the "intent of voters". The "conservative" branch was following along with the same ideology as it always has: strict construction on all issues. The "liberal" branch was fine with not reviewing the case as an appointed official would determine the "intent" of the voters per the Florida Supreme Court. .. it hoped as this would be the only outcome to satisfy Justice Stevens' dissent. The problem was simply that the Court could not appoint the reviewer and no time was left to allow for the process to meet the deadline set by the Florida Court. Sure, the liberal wing did not want the Court to grant cert, but so what? Cert had been granted and they knew that granting cert brought the Equal Protection Clause into play due to the time restraints so they were stuck with little more than dicta, as is clear in the dissenting opinions. The Court was right in hearing this one and by hearing it, it may have made the Equal Protection Clause viable! They were stuck and did the best they could and they did very well. The election was upheld, states still maintain the administrative ability to address election laws, and the Court only ruled on the inevitable outcome: Bush wins Florida and the Presidency, as much as we may regret it now. Sorry, I am a democrat and an Obama supporter, but the court got this one right.