What kind of precedent does Bush v. Gore set for recounts in general?

[0rganism]

IIRC, the pro-curium opinion stated that continued recounts would undermine the "perception of legitimacy" of the outcome, and irreparably harm Mr. Bush. The SCOTUS sets precedents, "Justice" Scalia's penning to the contrary in that opinion aside, so couldn't ANY winner claim that extended recounts endanger the legitimacy of their victory? Does this do away with recounts entirely, or only those which would have to proceed past their pre-established time limits to be accurate? Would a counter-argument based on the "non-precedent" clause of the SCOTUS decision hold water?

[Dookus]

1. It sets no precedent whatsoever

the decision explicity states so.

[0rganism]

2. That statement undermines the legitimacy of the entire judiciary process

If taken at face value, it establishes a condition in which the SCOTUS, or any other court, can rule case-by-case WITHOUT SETTING PRECEDENT. This is unheard of, AFAIK, in the history of our judicial system. In other words, Bush v. Gore establishes a precedent which destroys the process by which precedent is established.

[Langis]

3. That is what makes Bush Vs. Gore so disgusting .

[0rganism]

4. Well, we have to pick one or the other

Either the decision establishes precedent which demolishes the judiciary system as we knew it, or it establishes precedent by which any recount is irreparably harmful to the initially-declared victor.

Rock and a hard place...

[Jacobin]

5. Yep. It's "limited to its facts"

In other words, a completely illigitimate on its face decision to pick a president. Period. It was a coup d'etat.

[Bandit]

6. The whole purpose of being for the Supreme Court is to establish

precedent. For them to say this case does not do so completely undermines the legality of the case. Bush* had no legal standing to even ask the Court to hear the case. It is impossible for Bush* to suffer any harm before the voting was certified. The only person/s that possibly have had any standing would be the voters themselves as it was their votes that were not being counted correctly. Neither Bush* not Gore could possibly have suffered any harm let alone irreparable harm without the votes being counted and certified.

[opihimoimoi]

7. I always thought the SCOTUS can reverse it self.???

If not, it should be. Sometimes Good Ideas/Improvements come by way of failure; If a given "Precedent is proven to be inferior to a new notion/concept.... why stifle it cause it came late or as an automatic no brainer next step?

[Gothmog]

8. The case is result oriented

If the case had any validity, then the Ninth Cir. would had stopped the California recall election.

There are so many things wrong with the Bush v. Gore decision that it is not funny.

[WilliamPitt]

9. None

It cannot, by decree, be used as precedent in any case, ever. The entire basis for the rule of law in the American judicial system is precedent - one case bolsters another, which bolsters another, etc. Bush v. Gore exists outside the realm of precedent, and therefore (IMHO) outside the boundaries of law itself.

[0rganism]

10. Except for the 9th Circuit using Bush v. Gore as precedent in 2003?

Apparently the rest of the judiciary isn't as happy with the destruction of precedent as the SCOTUS was in its pro-curium.

The Federal Appellate Decision Delaying the Recall: Bush v. Gore`s Tragedy Repeats Itself as California`s Farce
With Monday's decision delaying California's recall election, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has once again proven the wisdom of Karl Marx's old saw: "All history repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce."

Bush v. Gore was a tragedy. In one of the most nakedly partisan opinions in Court history, a narrow five-Justice conservative majority handed the presidency to a political compatriot. It did so by jerry-rigging an analytically indefensible argument that the Florida Supreme Court's approach to the hand recount of punch card ballots violated the Equal Protection Clause of the federal Constitution.

Now the farce is in full swing. Three quite liberal judges from the Ninth Circuit, the most liberal court of appeals in the country, have taken Bush v. Gore's much-criticized principles for judicial intervention into elections and applied them in the California recall.

More specifically, the three judges used these principles to change the date of the already bizarre California recall election to one far more favorable to Democratic and liberal interests. (Because the new election date will coincide with a Democratic presidential primary in March 2004, anti-recall and pro-Democratic forces will get a tremendous boost from increased turnout of their constituencies at that time.)

There is, of course, a delicious political irony in watching judicial liberals hoist the conservatives on their own petard. But the intellectual amusement just isn't worth the price. Our judicial branch is suffering an integrity meltdown. And that meltdown could not come at a worse time.
...

more: http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/lazarus/20030918.html