'Bush v. Gore' was decided a year ago. As expected, it evoked a flood of journalistic and academic commentary. The present authors write to express dissatisfaction with the resulting literature. They find it in general to be dominated by the usual political discourse conducted from opposite ends of the usual political spectrum, with both ends sharing an assumption that the Supreme Court was animated in its decision by the usual political motives that it has become conventional to see in the actions of that institution. Left almost completely out of view have been the more personal selfish motives of the Justices that seem to the present authors to be obvious, unusual, and paramount. Those motives and the reluctance of others to comment on them are here taken to suggest that either the Court nor its supporters or critics are seriously concerned, as these aurhors are, with the continuing decline of the right to self-government that is dramatically marked by yet another decision by Justices who demea the authority of elected officials.
Paul D. Carrington & H. Jefferson Powell, The Right to Self-Government After Bush v. Gore 1-19 (2001)
Library of Congress Subject Headings
Bush v. Gore, Judicial review, Election law
Available at: https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/830