We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
IS THE RULE OF LAW AN ESSENTIALLY CONTESTED CONCEPT (IN FLORIDA)?
- Authors
Waldron, Jeremy
- Abstract
In this article, the author discusses issues related to the invocation of the Rule of Law during the counting and recounting of votes in the State of Florida in the 2000 U.S. Presidential Elections. The author cites several examples about the uncertainty and controversies surrounding the content and implications of the Rule of Law to modern political institutions. He suggests that the way in which the Rule of Law was invoked in Florida, aroused doubts about whether the Rule consists of litigation or self-restraint, judicial supremacy or judicial deference, rules or standards, mechanical judgment or reasoned discretion. The authorization of recounts by the Florida courts appeared to some the antithesis of the Rule of Law, so long as no clear rules were laid down to govern the counting. But others said that the careful opinions of the Florida judges gave comfort to those who cherished the Rule of Law, because they had evidently done the best they could to balance the competing interests of the voters, the campaigns, and the officials concerned. A sort of fake legalism can be imagined that makes up an argumentation about the Rule of Law just to give political decision-making a spurious legitimacy under this head. The author feels that there might be greater reason for optimism even when it seems that such argumentation is taking place.
- Subjects
FLORIDA; UNITED States; RULE of law; VOTING; UNITED States presidential elections; LEGAL judgments; COURTS; RULES; POLITICAL participation; ADMINISTRATIVE law
- Publication
Law & Philosophy, 2002, Vol 21, Issue 2, p137
- ISSN
0167-5249
- Publication type
Article
- DOI
10.2307/3505128