Greenhouse discusses Bush v. Gore

Linda Greenhouse, esteemed court reporter for The New York Times and 1998 winner of the Pulitzer Prize, discussed the ramifications of the Supreme Court's decision in Bush v.Gore on Nov. 14, 2001, at the Glass Pavilion.

Co-sponsored by Phi Sigma Alpha and the Pre-Law Society, the event was entitled "The Supreme Court After Bush v. Gore." During a 40 minute speech, Greenhouse addressed both the general stance of the court as well as the impact of the past election and the recent terrorist acts on its judicial orientation.

She commenced with a clear comparison of Chief Justice Rehnquist to former Chief Justice John Marshall, citing Rehnquist's immense admiration for the former chief justice. Last February, Rehnquist even celebrated the 200th anniversary of Marshall's ascendancy to the position, claiming that America should "elevate Marshall to founding father status like George Washington," said Greenhouse.

"This offers a clear insight into the dominance mode of the current Supreme Court in the aftermath of the 2000 election," said Greenhouse, since Rehnquist aspires to the flexible use of judicial review as applied by Marshall.

"The Rehnquist court has been flexing its muscles for a time now," said Greenhouse. "And when the court helped to pick a president, it engaged in a completely voluntary action."

At the time, this expression of judicial power and the electoral indecision was viewed as a political "crisis," said Greenhouse, but our definition of crisis has evolved since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11.

"Now we've learned what a crisis is, and Bush against Gore was an exercise in democratic politics," said Greenhouse. "It was a bump in the democratic road."

Then, Greenhouse proceeded to give a linear account of the court proceedings following the 2000 election.

"In hindsight, it was a strategic error [of Gore] to limit his recount claim to three counties," stated Greenhouse.

Moreover, she felt the election was decided primarily by lawyers.

"To say this case was in lawyer's hands was more than obvious," said Greenhouse. "They were finding laws, making laws, because there was no obvious federal laws to apply."

The final decision of Bush v. Gore was a close 5-4 vote, said Greenhouse, and Justice Antonin Scalia took a predominant role in the opinion.

"Scalia's provocative language gave many people the notion that Scalia was driving the train," said Greenhouse. "But I think the others may have been discreet but not passive."

Essentially, the election was decided by five Americans. "The court issued its ruling, left town and the election was over," said Greenhouse.

However, Greenhouse emphasized two important characteristics of the court's final decision. The decision was neither signed by the justices nor headed with an official vote count. Though the decision was 5-4, there is controversy, with Republicans wanting to represent the decision as a strong 7-2 victory because of some of the language in the opinions. Greenhouse countered the 7-2 argument.

"Seven justices agreed there were constitutional problems with the recount of the state court," said Greenhouse. "But two of them would continue the recount under their view of the proper standards."

Had the court left the issue to normal political proceedings Greenhouse felt the election would have effectively been resolved and would have ended in a similar result. However, the court felt a need to intervene with the immediacy of the final date for election results: Dec. 12.

"The majority grew impatient and didn't trust the process," said Greenhouse. "So the Court plunged into what was a political struggle."

"It is very difficult to take the court seriously," said Greenhouse. The majority argument, justifying its decision with the equal protection clause, is widely viewed to be faulty.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court disregarded the need for a convincing legal argument in order to end the conflict, said Greenhouse. This amounted to what Greenhouse called, "the court-took-a-bullet school of thought."

Aside from the political ramifications, "as a reality check, it's worth looking at how the public perceives the Supreme Court," Greenhouse said. She cited a survey from the University of Wisconsin of the public perception of Bush v. Gore.

Contrary to expectations, she concluded, "Bush v. Gore did very little to change average person's opinion of the Supreme Court."

"The biggest measurable change has nothing to do with the Supreme Court but to increase the public's working knowledge of the court," said Greenhouse. Whereas before the election debacle, 16 percent of the population knew the name of the Supreme Court justices, after the election an immense 16 percent were informed of these facts.

"The court's role was an outgrowth of the Rehnquist mindset, judicial triumphalism or the attitude that the court knows best," said Greenhouse.

She also went on to say that the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 will counter the dominant tendency of the Supreme Court. After her speech, members of the audience were invited to ask questions.

President of Phi Sigma Alpha, Molly Newton, said the event was supported by a $350 grant received from the organization's national office. A club member wrote a grant proposal for the funds.

Newton was satisfied with the event.

"It gave students here the opportunity to speak with someone with first hand knowledge of the Supreme Court," said Newton.

The Pre-Law Society also helped in the preparation for the event.

""We came in fairly late, about 2 1/2 to three weeks ago," said junior Aidan Smith.

Smith expressed dissatisfaction with the minimal turnout, but "it's always difficult to mobilize people to come out on campus to anything," he said.