It hindered the re-vote of the presidential election between the two. If the recount had been allowed Gore may have become our then president, instead of Bush. There were also other different significants that came out of this case.
Chat with our AI personalities
The Court's conservative majority issued a ruling that helped a conservative candidate win the presidency.
The Supreme Court ended an order for a recount in Florida that had stalled the election. Thus the original results stood up and Bush won the state of Florida.
US Supreme Court
After the 2000 election the Supreme Court ruled that a candidate could not choose which precincts would be recounted. A recount had to include all votes equally. The Legislature had to standardize voting and recounting throughout an entire state. How a recount would be held would not be an administrative or judicial decision but a legislative decision. 10 years later Tammany Hall still runs the elections in New York City. In spite of the fact that they are well represented on the US Supreme Court, New Yorkers do not believe that Supreme Court decisions apply to them. Californians have the same opinion.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist presided over the Court in 2000. President Nixon appointed Rehnquist to the Supreme Court as an Associate Justice in 1972, and President Reagan elevated him to Chief Justice in 1986. Rehnquist lead the Court until his death in 2005.
Yes, they can.However, if the decision involves a question of federal or constitutional law and the case is petitioned to the US Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, and if the U.S. Supreme Court grants certiorari, and if the U.S. Supreme Court rules differently from the state supreme court, the state is bound by the U.S. Supreme Court decision under the doctrine of Stare decisis, which is abbreviated from a Latin phrase that means "let the decision stand."
In Bush v Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), the United States Supreme Court, in a per curiam decision, ruled that the Florida Supreme Court's method for recounting ballots was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Additionally, the Court ruled that noalternative method could be established within the time limits set by the State of Florida. Three concurring justices also held that the Florida Supreme Court had violated Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, by misinterpreting Florida election law that had been enacted by the Florida Legislature.