Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review Feb. 20, 2001 / 27 Shevat, 5761

Nat Hentoff

Hentoff
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
MUGGER
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Roger Simon
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports


Misteaching the rule of law


http://www.jewishworldreview.com -- A FULL-PAGE ad in the New York Times -- signed by 585 law professors at 115 American law schools -- joined Jesse Jackson in declaring that George W. Bush is an illegitimate president because the U.S. Supreme Court was guilty, the ad read, of "Stopping the Vote Count in Florida."

This horde of independent academic minds makes me wonder about the quality of teaching in many of our law schools. The incensed law professors accuse the Supreme Court, for instance, of "suppressing the facts to make the Bush government seem more legitimate."

And on Feb. 4, Jeffrey Rosen -- a professor at the George Washington University law school, legal affairs editor of The New Republic, and a frequent television commentator -- chimed in, accusing the majority of the court in Bush v. Gore of "greatly damaging the Court's reputation" in the 5-4 vote.

What, then, are the actual facts -- and Supreme Court precedents -- that the 585 law professors themselves suppressed in their ad, and that professor Rosen chooses to overlook?

First, there were two parts to Bush v. Gore. In the first part, seven -- not five -- justices found a constitutional violation of "equal protection of the laws" in the chaos of Florida's presidential election. One of those seven justices was David Souter. He joined the four-justice minority in saying that the recount should continue. Nonetheless, he wrote the following about the remarkably different standards used for counting votes in Florida: "I can conceive of no legitimate state interest served by these differing treatments of the expressions of voters' fundamental rights. The differences appear wholly arbitrary."

The Supreme Court's Bush v. Gore decision came down on Dec. 12. Even if the Court had allowed further ballot counting under uniform standards, the absolute deadline would have been Dec. 18, as set by Congress -- the date when the presidential electors were to give their votes on "the same day throughout the United States."

Stuart Taylor, a former Supreme Court reporter for The New York Times, pointed out in the National Journal that this is what would have had to take place between Dec. 12 and Dec. 18: The Florida courts would have had "to hear testimony and opposing arguments before setting a uniform statewide chad-counting standard. Then the vote counters would have had to inspect the condition of the more than 60,000 undervote ballots while allowing time for attorneys for Bush and Gore to record objections."

Then there would have had to have been time for "ballot-by-ballot judicial review and the inevitable appeals up to the Supreme Court. It would have left no time to inspect the more than 100,000 so-called overvotes (let alone the rest of the state's 6 million ballots)."

Furthermore, considering how many of the disputed ballots had already been handled and rehandled, how many of them would have been degraded by then?

In addition, the 585 law professors and professor Rosen neglected to mention that in the historic one-man one-vote decision (Reynolds v. Sims), the Supreme Court of the United States underlined the 14th Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection of the laws" as being basic to our fundamental right to vote.

And in Anderson v. Celebrezze (1983), the Supreme Court ruled that a state's election law must be nondiscriminatory with regard to both state and federal offices. That means equal protection of the laws. Writing for the court, John Paul Stevens -- a bitter dissenter in Bush v. Gore -- stated: "The State has a less important interest in regulating statewide or local elections than in presidential elections" because "the president and vice-president are the only elected officials who represent all the voters in the nation."

In his accusatory New York Times article, professor Jeffrey Rosen -- who was almost hysterically indignant on National Public Radio the day the decision in Bush v. Gore was handed down -- charged that "the one branch of national government that still commanded respect in a fractious society is now as weakened and discredited as the others."

He also wrote, unwittingly describing himself and the 585 law professors, that "once you take a side in a polarized situation, you are likely to feel increasingly committed to it, even if the legal arguments on behalf of your opinion turn out not to be very convincing."

And the professor quoted William Jefferson Clinton as an authority on Bush v. Gore: "That was one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in my lifetime," Clinton told him, "and one of the five worst decisions of all time."

Now that is a most impressive, dispassionate, scholarly analysis to be cited by law professor Rosen. How come the 585 other law professors left the famously credible Mr. Clinton out of their advertisement?



JWR contributor Nat Hentoff is a First Amendment authority and author of numerous books. Send your comments to him by clicking here.

Up

02/13/01: What a web!
02/06/01: All that jazz
01/30/01: History will also judge Robert Ray
01/23/01: History will not absolve him
01/08/01: Will Rice remember Rwanda?
01/02/01: Expanding the culture of death
12/26/00: Media should stop misleading public about High Court's actions
12/18/00: A government that executes children
12/11/00: Caucus speaks out on slavery in Sudan
12/04/00: This year, give the gift of the Constitution
11/27/00: Is capital punishment a deterrent?
11/20/00: Punishing the Boy Scouts
11/06/00: Joe Lieberman's excommunication
10/30/00: CNN discards journalistic responsibility
10/23/00: The basic flaw in the debates
10/16/00: Nader's American history lesson; or: Silencing Jesse Jackson
10/06/00: Hate-crime laws: The real message
10/03/00: Why Clinton was not convicted
09/25/00: Protecting babies born alive
09/25/00: A selective zeal for justice
09/06/00: The power of nonviolence
08/28/00: Should Dr. Laura be silenced?
08/22/00: Trashing the Bill of Rights in Philly
08/14/00: The repressive hand of China
08/07/00: A racial incident on a train
07/31/00: Attention Jesse Jackson: Sudanese children are still branded and enslaved
07/24/00: Open up the presidential debates!
07/17/00: A stealth attack on privacy
07/03/00: Plea to the Congressional Black Caucus
06/26/00: Burning 'bad' ideas at college
06/19/00: Affirmative action beyond race
06/12/00: Students discover the Constitution
06/06/00: The Liar's legacy and America's delusions
05/30/00: Reining in the majority's will
05/23/00: Press swoons for a bunco artist
05/15/00: The China that tourists don't see
05/08/00: The coverage of Reno's lawless raid
05/01/00: In Clinton and Castro's best interests
04/24/00: Elian's human rights
04/17/00: Crime's down, but arrests keep rising
04/10/00: Teacher brings Constitution to life
04/03/00: The Americans who keep disappearing
03/27/00: The censoring of feminist history
03/20/00: Should there be a chaplain in Congress?
03/13/00: Big labor, big China, spinning Gore
03/03/00: The ACLU violates its principles --- yet again!
02/28/00: Still two nations?
02/11/00: You bet we should disbar Bubba
01/31/00: Where was Jesse?
01/24/00: Is suing church for sexual harassment an entanglement?
01/18/00: Will Miranda make it?
01/11/00: ACLU: Guilty until presumed innocent?
01/03/00: Liberty lion should be Man of Century
12/28/99: Drug tests that tear families apart
12/20/99: Get ready for decisive ruling on school vouchers for religious schools
12/13/99: Guess who is taking the lead in anti-slavery movement? Hint: It ain't Rev. Jesse
12/06/99: When we refuse to buy the 'otherly-challenged' excuse
11/29/99: Expelling 'Huck Finn'
11/22/99: Pleading the First
11/16/99: Goal of diversity needs rethinking?
11/08/99: Prosecution in darkness
11/02/99: The accuracy that's owed to readers
10/26/99: Disappeared Americans
10/18/99: The blue wall of silence
10/11/99: Bill Bradley's speech tax
10/04/99: 'Technicalities' that keep us free
09/27/99: Our 'Americanism'-ignorant generation
09/20/99: ACLU better clean up its act
09/13/99: A professor of infanticide at Princeton
09/07/99: The Big Apple's Rotten Policing
08/23/99: Lawyerly ethics
08/16/99: To Get a Supreme Court Seat
08/02/99: What are the poor people doing tonight?
07/26/99: Lady Hillary and the press

© 2000, NEA