Justices silent on Bush v. Gore

Adam Cohen wonders whether Bush v. Gore, the 2000 Florida recount decision that flies in the face of the Rehnquist Court’s “states’ rights” mantra, has “become the case that must not be named.”

The ruling that stopped the Florida recount and handed the presidency to George W. Bush is disappearing down the legal world’s version of the memory hole, the slot where, in George Orwell’s “1984,” government workers disposed of politically inconvenient records. The Supreme Court has not cited it once since it was decided, and when Justice Antonin Scalia, who loves to hold forth on court precedents, was asked about it at a forum earlier this year, he snapped, “Come on, get over it.”

Chris Floyd calls Cohen’s article “an excellent analysis on how to transform Bush v. Gore from the most shameful Supreme Court decision since the Dred Scott case into a powerful weapon for a broader, deeper, more healthy democracy.”


You might want to subscribe to my free Substack newsletter, Ancestor Trouble, if the name makes intuitive sense to you.