The Judicial-Activist State

FEW court rulings have been denounced as swiftly or as harshly as the Florida supreme court’s decision on the night of November 21. At issue was a state statute establishing that within seven days of an election, the results are to be certified. In order to give three Florida counties time to complete their hand recounts of the presidential ballots, the court threw out the seven-day deadline and replaced it with a new one of its own devising.

The decision helped Al Gore, and Republicans—outraged—believed that it was designed to do so. The next day, George W. Bush said, “We believe the justices have used the bench to change Florida’s election laws and usurp the authority of Florida’s election officials.” The day after that, George F. Will wrote a ferocious column—all of his columns on Gore’s postelection campaign have been wonderfully ferocious—about the decision. The Florida court’s “radicalism,” he wrote, went far beyond “routine judicial activism.”

About the Author

Ramesh Ponnuru

Ramesh Ponnuru is the editor of National Review, a columnist for the Washington Post, and a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Featured Tags

Presidential Election

FEW court rulings have been denounced as swiftly or as harshly as the Florida supreme court’s decision on the night of November 21. At issue was a state statute establishing that within seven days of an election, the results are to be certified. In order to give three Florida counties time to complete their hand recounts of the presidential ballots, the court threw out the seven-day deadline and replaced it with a new one of its own devising.

The decision helped Al Gore, and Republicans—outraged—believed that it was designed to do so. The next day, George W. Bush said, “We believe the justices have used the bench to change Florida’s election laws and usurp the authority of Florida’s election officials.” The day after that, George F. Will wrote a ferocious column—all of his columns on Gore’s postelection campaign have been wonderfully ferocious—about the decision. The Florida court’s “radicalism,” he wrote, went far beyond “routine judicial activism.”