Recent commentary from National Journal: Social Studies: Vouchers—A Liberal Plot To Destroy Private Schools, by Jonathan Rauch (December 28, 2000) Conservatives who want to get the state out of public education may instead get it into private education. Legal Affairs: Why the Florida Recount Was Egregiously One-Sided, by Stuart Taylor Jr. (December 28, 2000) Not enough attention's been paid to what was wrong with the decision by Florida's state Supreme Court. Media: Next Year in Georgetown, by William Powers (December 28, 2000) Here come the next four years, and they're looking rosy. It'll be the Bush-Clinton era. Or, if we have anything to say about it (and we do!), the Clinton-Bush era. Legal Affairs: The Supreme Court—and Others—Flub the Challenge, by Stuart Taylor Jr. (December 20, 2000) If this cloud has a silver lining, it is as a reminder that judges are just as fallible as politicians. Media: Image-Poor, by William Powers (December 20, 2000) The strongest political story of modern times was perhaps the weakest visual story of modern times. Political Pulse: An Election—and Much More—Lost, by William Schneider (December 20, 2000) When the lawyerly fog cleared, Al Gore was a big loser. So was the Supreme Court. The Campaign: After All the Acrimony, the Election Ends on Grace Notes, by Carl M. Cannon (December 20, 2000) Gore conceded with grace and class, while Bush emphasized the need for bipartisanship. More from National Journal. Discuss this article in the Politics & Society conference of Post & Riposte.

Political Pulse: At Least It's Settled Though the Court's presidential ruling baffled many, the nation seems relieved by William Schneider December 28, 2000 The country was divided. It couldn't pick a President. The Supreme Court was also divided. But it went ahead and picked the President anyway. At what cost? Justice Felix Frankfurter once cautioned the Supreme Court not to venture into what he called "the political thicket." Last week, the Court did just that. Why? Because it had to. The U.S. Supreme Court is the voice of the Constitution. It was, therefore, the only institution in a position to resolve the situation. But it did so at a cost to George W. Bush. As the Rev. Jesse Jackson put it, "He'll be the President legally, but he does not have moral authority, because his crown did not come from the people. It came from the [Justices]." There was a cost to the Court as well. "This Court will go down in history as the most interventionist Court ever in deciding a political matter," Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, warned. "It is the most interventionist Court in this regard since the Dred Scott decision." The Court's Dec. 12 ruling exposed a deep division. The ruling said, "Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a remedy.... The only disagreement is as to the remedy." But what a disagreement. Only five Justices thought the appropriate remedy was to stop the Florida recount. A bare majority. But still a majority. The Justices insisted their ruling was the only way to stop an unconstitutional procedure; it had nothing to do with partisanship. Justice Clarence Thomas told a group of schoolchildren the day after the ruling, "I plead with you that, whatever you do, don't try to apply the rules of the political world to this institution. They do not apply." Hearing Thomas' words on C-SPAN, Chief Justice William Rehnquist remarked, "Absolutely. Absolutely." The Court baffled legal experts by creating a new equal-protection rule for ballot-counting procedures. "This case relies on a rather picayune and odd and literally unprecedented view of equality," a former clerk to Justice Stephen Breyer observed. Theoretically, the idea that ballots have to meet equal-protection standards could be construed to require uniform balloting procedures across the country. But then the Court went on to say that the rule did not apply beyond this case. "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities," the Court said. Critics noted the "cobbled-together" and "expedient" nature of the Court's reasoning, as if the Justices were searching for a pretext on which to make Bush the President. And then to quickly erase the precedent. In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote: "Although we may never know with complete certainty the winner of this year's presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law." Chiming in, Justice Breyer warned: "In this highly politicized matter, the appearance of a split decision runs the risk of undermining the public's confidence in the Court itself." Did it? A little. Not a lot. According to the Gallup Poll, a majority thought the Court's decision was based mostly on the legal merits of the case. About a third said the decision was driven by a desire to see Bush win. Two-thirds said the decision did not cause them to lose confidence in the Supreme Court. Nearly a third said it did. Interesting number, one-third. The same number who wanted President Clinton removed from office because of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Only this time, the angry third is on the left. Most Americans accepted the decision for the same reason the Court felt compelled to make it: political necessity. As John Yoo, former clerk to Justice Thomas, put it: "It's better for the Supreme Court to intervene and decide the case than to have this go into Congress. This is all child's play, compared to what would happen if Congress had to elect the next President." Even critics of the decision, such as Laurence Tribe, Harvard law professor and an attorney for Al Gore, conceded the point. Tribe said, "We will always have to realize that the judicial process—even when we disagree with it, even when it is divided 5-4—is our surest path toward creating a real basis for the rule of law to be enforced in a constitutional democracy." Gore pointed the way when he told the country, "Let there be no doubt: While I strongly disagree with the Court's decision, I accept it." President Clinton echoed those sentiments the next day when he said, "I am grateful to [Gore] for putting into words last night the feelings of all of us who disagree with the Supreme Court's decision but accepted it." "The Soopreme Court follows the iliction returns," Finley Peter Dunne's Mr. Dooley once said. In this case, the Supreme Court created the election returns. And the country seems more relieved than angry. The decision may not do permanent damage to the Supreme Court's legitimacy. But it will make it tough for Bush to appoint to the Court anyone as controversial as, say, Robert Bork or Clarence Thomas. It will also make it tough for the President to elevate Justice Antonin Scalia to Chief Justice, if that position becomes open. Nothing would look more like a political payoff. What do you think? Discuss this article in the Politics & Society conference of Post & Riposte. More from National Journal. More on politics and society in Atlantic Unbound and The Atlantic Monthly. William Schneider is the Cable News Network's senior political analyst. He is also a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., and a contributing editor for the Los Angeles Times, National Journal, and The Atlantic Monthly. His column appears every week in National Journal, a weekly magazine covering politics and government published in Washington, D.C. For information on National Journal Group publications, see NationalJournal.com. All material copyright © 2000 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.