George W. Bush should have won Bush v. Gore

Points 1 and 2 can be skipped in light of my opponent's clarifications. Point 3: My point concerning Steven's opinion was simple: state voting procedures are not barred from the review of the SCOTUS; Stevens makes this very clear. He continued by writing that the Court should uphold the State Court's ruling as he was fine with allowing one official to decide for the whole state. The problem with Steven's opinion is that he felt the SCOTUS was substituting its opinion for that of State Court, but the SCOTUS was doing no such thing as the majority made clear that any decision allowing for a recount would 1) allow for arbitrary standards by county to county or 2) allow one appointed official to make a decision for the whole of the state's voters. Neither decision could uphold the constitutionally supported Electoral College, as the second choice put an appointed official in control of what is or is not a "legal vote" and the first option disenfranchised certain voters based on subjective (and ultimately arbitrary) standards. The election commission is in no position to determine the "intent of the voters" by reviewing dimples or chads or any other marking which allows for ambiguity. Souter and Dicta: Dicta is not controlling in any case and is even less important in a per curium decision. Souter can complain about the cert grant till the cows come home and it has no bearing on the decision at hand. The paradox here is that the SCOTUS had to review the decision of the State Court, but by doing so it brought the Equal Protection Clause into play due to the time constraints. Souter realized this as well, but still insisted the Court should have left this alone, allowed the recount and be done with it. The problem? Bush or Gore could have simply filed another lawsuit AFTER the recount using a Constitutional claim as the court did not hear the first one. In the end this was a mess. Souter realized that as well, but took jabs at the cert approval which he knew would have no bearing on the decision. He was simply complaining at that point so it has little to do with the decision in Bush v. Gore. Point 4: Con is contrasting county ordinances with equal protection for voting laws. Yes, laws are different in every county, but ALL must abide by the US Constitution. A county cannot make an ordinance requiring people of one color to pay a pole tax, or take a voting test; nor can a state require all of its citizens to take a test to vote either. . http://www.law.cornell.edu... (equal protection claim on poll tax) and gerrymandering . http://www.law.cornell.edu... (equal protection again) The SCOTUS has never been reluctant to step in when the "one man, one vote" issue comes into play. No the state or county has an unadulterated right to change voting regulations arbitrarily. Voting is a constitutional right, speeding is not. Anytime an arbitrary distinction is made in reference to what is/is not a "legal vote" then the Equal Protection Clause will be addressed, no matter how trivial it may seem to Justice Stevens in any case. The comparison of county ordinances to voting rights is faulty. Final Point: This was not a State's rights case per se. The state does not have the right to violate the US Constitution and either decision the State Court made would have done just that, so the SCOTUS was right to stop all action and let the votes stand as per the original count. Time was a big issue here and the decision to do a per curium decision was done to allow expediency and made clear the case was for these facts only. A per curium decision is generally short and does not get the full treatment as a standard SCOTUS decision. This is not new for the Court as it has used the same process in the past. I see nothing special here and both wings (liberal and conservative) upheld their general views of the law; the only difference is that the liberal and conservative candidates were on the other side of the case. At best, Con can show the image of impropriety, but I see no wrong doing here as this decision is in line with the Court stepping in when equal protection is at stake. Any decision by the State court would have violated the Clause as the time limit was mandatory by a previous decision. Everyone was stuck and the actions by the SCOTUS were the most appropriate in a messy situation.