John Leo

One of our best legal analysts, Stuart Taylor Jr., wrote on Slate: "In my view, the Florida Supreme Court's majority -- NOT the U.S. Supreme Court -- has betrayed its trust and done grave damage to the rule of law" in "a near-indefensible act of partisanship designed to flip a presidential election." Taylor, who says he has never voted for a Republican presidential nominee, asks: "Would the Florida court's majority have shredded so many legal norms and plunged the nation into so unnecesary a crisis had it been George W. Bush asking for more last-minute manual recounts to put himself over the top?"

The Florida court pushed the conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court toward two steps it hates to take: telling a state court how to interpret state law, and basing a crucial decision on the equal-protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Justices Breyer and Souter, although they dissented, agreed with the five-justice majority that there were fairness problems with a manual recount. If the conservative five had bent toward Breyer and Souter, the case would have been remanded to the Florida Supreme Court with intructions that any recount must be conducted under clear and uniform standards.

The five apparently had many reasons for resisting the two. Perhaps the dominant one was fear of much more chaos, two slates of electors and even more serious political damage. The court may have wished to avoid pushing Florida over the midnight "safe harbor" deadline for immunizing its electors from a challenge in Congress. Or maybe the short time frame helped polarize a court that badly needed the solid 7-2 vote that seemed to be within reach.

A remand to the Florida court might have created a messy recount and even more litigation. But time was running out, and if a fair recount proved impossible before Dec. 18 (the date for electors to meet and vote), the fault would have been that of the Florida Supreme Court for shortening the contest phase and failing to call for a statewide recount until the last minute. Michael McConnell, professor of law at the University of Utah, wrote: "Now, however, the Supreme Court has taken on its shoulders the responsibility -- in some quarters, the blame -- for putting the recount to an end, and it has done so by a fractured vote."

The Supreme Court is criticized all the time for being too political. In this case, it wasn't political enough: The partisan-seeming 5-4 vote should have been avoided for the sake of the nation's political health.

The court's ruling did not deny Gore the presidency. Bush was going to win anyway. A number of independent analyses came to the conclusion that the votes Gore needed wouldn't show up in a fair recount under uniform standards. And at any rate, the Florida Legislature and the U.S. Congress were ready to end the mess in Bush's favor.

The problem with the court's decision is that it fits so well into a stab-in-the-back conspiracy theory about the election that could rattle through our politics for some time. The theory can be summed up in two sentences: They didn't count all the votes. The five conservatives gave it to Bush. That is a simplemended assessment of what happened, but it may take a lot of time to put it to rest.

John Leo

John Leo is editor of and a former contributing editor at U.S. News and World Report.

Be the first to read John Leo's column. Sign up today and receive delivered each morning to your inbox.