Search Results

In this afterword, the author discusses the events surrounding the 2000 U.S. Presidential election, in which George W. Bush became President based on a Supreme Court ruling that gave him the majority in the electoral college, defeating Vice President Al Gore, who had won the popular vote. The widely held ideal of a popular democracy is contrasted with the reality of the Twelfth Amendment system of electoral votes, and the author asserts that such contrasts point to the ongoing conflict between our “two constitutions” and our own sense of nationhood. Issues of voter disenfranchisement raised in the election are also examined.

Outlines the constitutional and statutory framework within which presidential elections are conducted in the USA. Provides a brief chronology and an account of the US (Bush vs Gore) presidential election of 2000. The different sections of the chapter are: How We Elect Our President (the constitutional and statutory framework); The 2000 Election and Its Aftermath; The Ground War in Florida; The Butterfly Ballot; ‘Count All the Votes’ — or at Least the Ones That Favour Gore; Bush Goes to Court; The Overseas Absentee Ballots; The Supreme Court's Initial — Unanimous — Decision; and The Supreme Court's Stay (the decision to stop recounting in Florida before even hearing an argument) — looks at other cases in which equal protection has or has not been applied by the US Supreme Court.

In the dispute over Florida's vote in the 2000 election, Al Gore and George W. Bush fought a fierce battle to determine the press frames that would govern the debate. Bush was far more successful, pushing frames including “chaos” and “military ballots” to the forefront. Subsequent analyses reveal that had press coverage been different, Gore could have won Florida and the presidency.

Gives an account of the final decision of the US Supreme Court on the Florida vote in the (Bush vs Gore) US presidential election of 2000. Includes discussion of the deliberations and decisions of the Florida Supreme Court in the case of the recount in that state. The main sections of the chapter are: Imperfect Ballots and the Misuse of the Equal‐Protection Clause; Discerning Intent; The Majority's Curious Use of Precedent to Reach Its Result — the inability of the majority of the Supreme Court to point to any case that supported its questionable interpretation of the equal‐protection clause; Of Fundamental Rights, Equal Protection, and Victims; Limited Circumstances — the statement by the Supreme Court that their consideration was limited to the 2000 US presidential election; The Article II Argument — by the US Supreme Court that the Florida Supreme Court had usurped the constitutional authority of the legislature; and Justification by National Crisis.

Aims to demonstrate that, during the (Bush vs Gore) US presidential election of 2000, by any reasonable standard of evaluation, the majority justices of the US Supreme Court failed to test the US constitutional system in ways that it had never been tested before, and did so not because of incompetence, but because of malice aforethought. Contrasts the prior decisions and writings of the particular majority justices with the opinions that they joined in this case; the dramatic discrepancies found raise troubling questions. Moves from this concrete evidence to a more speculative consideration of what may have motivated these inconsistencies. The different sections of the chapter look first at the decisions of Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, Justice Anthony Kennedy, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, and Justice Clarence Thomas. The following speculative sections first ask generally why each justice behaved as they did, and then go on to devote separate sections on the motives of each of the five justices.

If news is the rough draft of history, the draft written on November 7, 2000 was rougher than most. This chapter analyzes how the preconceptions journalists brought to election night 2000 resulted in critical errors in judgment, leading to mistaken calls alternately benefiting Al Gore and George W. Bush. While all the networks did not use the same frames to describe the same events, each was misled by the metaphors guiding their coverage.

In the 2000 election, journalists settled on twin portraits of Al Gore and George W. Bush that framed the coverage each received. Gore was portrayed as the lying panderer, while Bush was portrayed as the inexperienced dolt. These portraits then determined how campaign events were interpreted. While neither portrait was complimentary, in the end they worked to Bush's advantage, because no moral value was attached to inexperience, while a moral value was attached to Gore's alleged dishonesty.

Although George W. Bush is not more personally devout than Woodrow Wilson or Jimmy Carter, religious issues have played an even more important role in his presidency than for any of his predecessors. The impact of Bush’s faith is evident in his personality, rhetoric, campaigns, appointments, and policies. It has helped shape his electoral strategy, his political agenda, and his relationship with domestic constituencies and leaders of other nations. The nature of his personal faith, the many religious factors involved in his campaigns, and the influence of his religious convictions on his policies have provoked an immense amount of discussion, debate, and disagreement. More than that of any other president, his White House is filled with individuals who have strong faith commitments. Bush has been frequently accused of being a Christian zealot who wants to remake America in accordance with his own religious views, as evident in his domestic agenda, political appointments, and approach to international relations. Detractors also protest that many of Bush’s policies and his belief that he is God’s instrument violate First Amendment guarantees of church-state separation and are extremely dangerous. Bush faithfully reads the Bible and stresses the power of prayer. The support Bush received from evangelicals and conservative Catholics contributed significantly to his narrow victories in the 2000 and 2004 elections. Bush’s faith played a major role in his promotion of compassionate conservatism and faith-based initiatives. The war on terrorism and the invasion and occupation of Iraq have provoked substantial debate among America’s religious communities. Critics and supporters reach dramatically different conclusions about Bush’s faith and its effect on his presidency. Some argue that Bush’s faith is insincere, hypocritical, and a political cover for his right-wing agenda. Others counter that his faith has sustained him during crises, strengthened his resolve, increased his courage, confidence, and compassion, and shaped his policies in many positive ways.

Presents the author's strong opinions on the ending of the 2000 US presidential election. Starts by pointing out that the five justices who ended the 2000 election by stopping the Florida hand recount have damaged the credibility of the US Supreme Court, and that their lawless decision in Bush vs Gore promises to have a more enduring impact on Americans than the outcome of the election itself. The USA accepted the election of George W. Bush, as it must under the rule of law, but the unprecedented decision of the five justices to substitute their political judgement for that of the people threatens to undermine the moral authority of the high court for generations to come — for the Supreme Court consists of only nine relatively unknown justices with small staffs, and it has wielded an enormous influence on US history. The majority ruling in Bush vs Gore has marked a number of significant firsts in American history; these are outlined and it is noted that there is now a widespread loss of confidence that reaches to the highest part of the judiciary, that the Supreme Court decision may well have violated Article II of the Constitution, and, furthermore, determined a presidential election on doubtful equal protection grounds. Attempts to explain the Court's decision and the justices concerned, and establish how the USA has reached the point where five unelected judges could have had so much influence on the political destiny of a nation.

Aims to demonstrate that, during the (Bush vs Gore) US presidential election of 2000, by any reasonable standard of evaluation, the majority justices of the US Supreme Court failed to test the US constitutional system in ways that it had never been tested before, and did so not because of incompetence, but because of malice aforethought. The author states that he is convinced that if it had been Bush rather than Gore who needed the Florida recount in order to have any chance of winning the election, that at least some of the five justices who voted to stop the recount would instead have voted to allow it to proceed. The main sections of the chapter are: Judicial Impropriety; Hypothetical Cases Involving a Supreme Court Decision Regarding a Presidential Election; The Difficulty of Proving an Improper Motive; Academic Defenders of the Majority Justices; Ad Hominem Arguments and Analysis of Motive; and Analysing the Justices’ Motives in Bush vs Gore: A Prelude.

Aims to demonstrate that, during the (Bush vs Gore) US presidential election of 2000, by any reasonable standard of evaluation, the majority justices of the US Supreme Court failed to test the US constitutional system in ways that it had never been tested before, and did so not because of incompetence, but because of malice aforethought. Discusses the importance of Bush vs Gore to all Americans, and starts by noting that Bush vs Gore is certainly not the first bad Supreme Court ruling. It looks at some of the other evil, immoral, and even dangerous, decisions made, most of which have been overturned by later courts and condemned by the verdict of history. However, for the most part, the justices who wrote or joined the majority opinions for these terrible decisions were acting consistently with their own judicial philosophies; Bush vs Gore was different because the majority justices violated their own previously declared judicial principles, and in this respect, the decision in the Florida election (recount) case may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history. The different sections of the chapter discuss why criticism and accountability are important, some lessons to be learned from Bush vs Gore, the wages of Roe vs Wade (a controversial abortion case that helped to secure the presidency for Ronald Reagan), and changing how justices are selected.

In times of crisis, the press acts in a patriotic role, fostering national unity and defending American institutions. After George W. Bush was inaugurated, the press ignored evidence that Al Gore had as much of a claim to be the victor in Florida as Bush, shaping stories about postelection analyses of the Florida vote to make only a Bush victory seem legitimate. On September 11, journalists filled in rhetorical gaps in Bush's performance, then changed the criteria by which the president was judged.

Examines the role journalists adopt during presidential campaigns, and how that role determines the frame of campaign news. Assuming that what is presented to the voters is a persona, journalists act as amateur psychologists, seeking to discover the “real” person behind the candidate. They then focus on the moments or events that reinforce the conclusions they have made about the candidates’ respective characters.

This chapter describes voting problems surrounding the 2000 presidential election that provided the margin of victory for George W. Bush over Al Gore. The chapter historicizes electoral intimidation and disenfranchisement of minority voters. The chapter sees the events surrounding the 2 and 2004 elections as a reinvention of older conservative electoral strategies of voter denial.

In one of the closest and most hotly contested presidential elections in American history, the outcome came down to Florida. And in the weeks that followed, Americans watched in disbelief as a series of bizarre ballot problems, an aging senior population, and a political donnybrook threatened the election outcome. This chapter focuses particularly on the events that unfolded in Florida and the ways in which its disparate constituencies divided over the presidential candidacies of Democrat Al Gore and Republican George Bush. With Jeb Bush as governor, and a popular one at that, most thought his brother George would capture the state. But Florida was as sharply divided in this contest as the rest of the nation, and the response of its constituent groups mirrored voting patterns elsewhere and among other like-minded groups. Both parties in Florida thought the other was trying to steal the election, and both pushed the envelope in asserting the claims of their respective candidate. On one side stood the Governor, the legislature, and the U.S. Supreme Court, and on the other, the state Attorney General and the Florida Supreme Court. It was mayhem.

This chapter argues that the politics of the next four years will be shaped by doubts about the legitimacy of the 2000 election. There has been, and will continue to be, an ongoing dispute over the meaning of these events and the legitimacy of the Bush presidency. That dispute, in turn, will be shaped by how well the political parties handle the crises, difficulties, and opportunities of the next several years. By themselves the September 11 terrorist attacks do not decide the eventual verdict—they merely help define the terrain in which the dispute over legitimacy will be played out.

This chapter reviews the historical record to determine whether such a decisive home state advantage has ever happened, and concludes that it has not. Even so, it is possible that a decisive advantage could happen, and that it might have happened if in past close elections a presidential candidate had selected a different running mate. This chapter estimates the counterfactual effect of a vice presidential finalist who was not chosen by the presidential candidate, based upon past empirical predictors of state voting. In one instance, the results suggests that a running mate could have provided an electorally decisive home state advantage. Specifically, had Al Gore selected then-Governor Jeanne Shaheen in the 2000 presidential election as his running mate, all things being equal, the counterfactual Gore/Shaheen ticket would have won New Hampshire’s electoral votes, and with it a majority of votes in the Electoral College.