Abstract

The 2000 Presidential election with its undeniable complications has forced most legal and constitutional scholars, legal journalists and Supreme Court journalists to examine critically the status of the Supreme Court's power. For example, articles related to the Court's accountability or lack thereof, Supreme Court appointments and possible reform and constitutional interpretation, have filled newspapers, weekly magazines and professional journals alike. Perhaps most problematic is the fact that the Court's opinion has been, for the most part, considered a partisan opinion. I maintain that the Court's decision is both reasonable and valid based on a particular interpretation of the purpose, not only of the law, but of the judiciary. There exists a tension in Florida Law between finality, namely, meeting the deadline, and disenfranchising the voters, namely, attempting to count all votes. I argue that the Majority decision upheld the importance of "finality" in rendering their decision. Like the Majority decision, I argue that the Minority dissent and opinion was valid. Unlike the Majority's concern with the issue of finality, the dissent attempts to uphold the importance of suffrage. They argue that the right to have all votes counted clearly outweighs the concern with "finality." As a consequence, I argue that the Majority and the Minority of the Supreme Court argue past one another. In other words, both positions can be considered valid if the underlying guiding principle is made explicit, i.e., finality with the Majority opinion and suffrage with the Minority opinion