The Court's Place in Politics

In the wake of its historic 5-4 decision Tuesday night, the Supreme Court has been the target of criticism from pundits and politicians alike. In particular, many have said that the narrow margin by which the court ruled in favor of Texas Gov. George W. Bush will damage its credibility as an unbiased arbiter and nonpartisan enforcer of the law. One of the strongest statements of this feeling came from a surprising source: the Supreme Court itself.

"Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear," writes Justice John Paul Stevens in a sharp, biting dissent destined to join those of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Class of 1863, in the history books. "It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law."

Stevens's pessimism has been widely echoed. Indeed, everyone fervently hoped that the court would be able to find some sort of consensus and ensure maximum possible credibility for the next president, protecting the court's image in the process. That hope has evaporated; despite the spin of Bush's advisors calling this a 7-2 ruling, the reality is perfectly clear. In the end, the justices were split right down the middle on the ideological and partisan lines that were crystal-clear even before they granted Bush's ludicrous request for an emergency stay based on the potential "irreparable harm" of a recount.

But this decision, narrow though it may be, should not endanger the court's reputation in the long run, the irresponsible personal attacks on certain justices notwithstanding.

The court, despite its place as the guardian of justice, has always been a political institution. For evidence of this, one need look no further than the recent campaign. Abortion was one of the few issues on which Bush and Vice President Al Gore '69 strongly disagreed, and activists on both sides of the abortion debate said that this election was crucial because the next president will have the opportunity to significantly reshape the court. No one pretends that the court's stance on abortion is based solely on the rule of law; it relies on the political framework through which the justices view the Constitution.

Though the court's decision was narrow, people have accepted Bush as the next president, as they should. In his concession speech last night, Gore called for the nation to unite behind the new president. Hopefully, this has brought an end to the most closely-contested election in the nation's history.

For the election must end sometime. Even with a recount and an extended deadline, whoever came out on top was doomed to be haunted by legitimacy doubts for the next four years. The race was so close that it was within the margin of error of any vote-counting method, leading Agassiz Professor of Zoology Stephen Jay Gould to suggest that the election should be decided by a simple flip of a coin.

Though many feel the court made the wrong decision and that a fair recount would have put Gore in the White House, the country and the court will move on. Dramatic and striking though it was, with any luck Stevens's dissent will prove unfounded.

--David M. DeBartolo