The Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore, shutting down the recounts of Florida's vote in the 2000 presidential election and effectively awarding the election to George W. Bush, has struck many observers, including myself, as outrageous.' Decisions of the Supreme Court should be more than mere reflections of ideological or partisan preference thinly camouflaged behind legalistic language. It would therefore be pleasant to be able to believe that they are more than that. Accordingly, Judge Richard Posner's analysis,2 in which he defends the result reached by the Court-though not the path by which it got there-is particularly welcome. Though Judge Posner is a person of conservative political orientation, he is also fiercely independent-minded. Given that he sees merit in the Bush decision, then perhaps we can give more credence to the proposition that-whether ultimately we agree with the decision or not-it was a plausible response to a difficult situation, rather than a flagrant act of judicial usurpation.
Friedman, Richard D. "Trying to Make Peace with Bush v. Gore (Symposium: Bush v. Gore Issue 2001)." Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 29, no. 2 (2001): 811-69.