Bush Gore

Ashton - a storm of financial practices of his campaign campaign confession for his adviser, the most dangerous moment of his political career, and his assistant confused to contain damage. Last week, Janet Reynolds Minister of Justice increased tension because he was considering whether the vice president's fundraising activities were inappropriate for such senior officials. The investigation may lead to the appointment of special prosecutor.

The main obstacle of the Bush v. Gore case is that no one truly believes that Bush vs. Gore will follow the logic of his decision after deciding the outcome of the 2000 presidential election. This is highly unlikely even in other election cases and the majority of the current Supreme Court judges are considered responsible for their Bush v. Goa judgment, not to mention cases outside the scope of the election It will be. The court himself said, "Our consideration is limited to the current situation." Then how do we explain the results of Bush vs. Gore to keep up with the usual demands of judicial review? Consistent coherent expectation? In abandoning the excuse that Bush vs. Goa is somehow related to the institutional doctrine, it is possible to construct explanations about court cases.

The contradiction between Bush vs. Goa, the equal protection of Bush v. Gore's equality and the general idea of ​​equal protection of the election law was only an aspect of the discrepancy of the decision. Harmonize the majority of positive attitudes towards buoy's serious equality protection claims and the relatively limited approach of the court to enforce equal protection rights in other more specific circumstances such as Fini and McLeskey It is difficult. However, the contradiction between Bush v. Gore and existing laws does not end with the ruling of equal protection of most people. Another contradiction is due to the fact that three agreed judges were applied to part 2, the first part is state interpretation by state courts.

U.S. Supreme Court ultimately applied the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to Bush v. Gore (Bush II) 1, but alternative theory under Article 2 of the US Constitution received important scientific support. In the second year after the decision. The second theory was proposed in the questions raised by the Chief Justice in the initial opinion of all (Bush I) 3 and oral discussion and was fully accepted with Bush II's consent. Written by Rehnquist Judge, Judge Scalia and Thomas joined. Relying on Article 2 calls for a unique view on the role of the national constitution in state government proceedings and the role of the federal court in overseeing this role. I agree to explicitly adopt the constitutional view of establishing federal restrictions