2000 Election: Handout, Issue 7

Pre-Reading Questions:

1. What are the author's political views/ political ideology?
2. When was this written?
3. Was the author pro-Bush or did they think that the recount was purely unconstitutional?
4. Is there another side/ article that argues the Bush vs. Gore trial was decided unfairly?
5. Over all would the author, looking back on the Bush administration, agree or disagree with the statement:  It was a mistake deciding the Bush vs. Gore trial in favor of Bush?

Facts/ Comments about Article:

1. It seems that the author was bragging when he said, "Bush had, in practical effect, won seven to two," but is it right to say that Bush won by seven to two, it seem to be biased. (though my comment is also pro-Gore)
2. Gore was four votes short of the necessary 270 electoral votes.
3. Robert H. Bork represents, in the paper, the side that agreed with the decision of the Supreme Court
4. Cass R. Sunstein represents the side that thinks the Supreme Court's ruling was unfair.
5. Roberts sees a crack in the judicial system, saying that judges can be just as political as politicians
6. Roberts disagrees with the dimple/ intent being counted as a vote.

Post-Reading Questions:

1. Would Roberts have flip-flopped if Bush were on the losing side?
2. Did Roberts think the Supreme Court's decision was purely judicial or was there some political opinions that added to the decision?
3. Can all of Roberts arguments be taken in to account or do some of them, like the argument about the impossibility of the recount meeting its date, have to be looked over?
4. Is Roberts hypocritical when he says Gore had a win-at-any-cost temper, because the ignorance of the Republican side in regards to dimple chad, which George W. Bush agreed with?
5. What would Roberts say to a question asking about the list of criminals plus the list of similar names, of legal voters?