Download this Paper Open PDF in Browser

Bush V. Gore and the Distortion of Common Law Remedies

The Final Arbiter: The Consequences of Bush v. Gore for Law & Politics (Christoper Banks, David Cohen & John Green, eds. SUNY Press 2005)

19 Pages Posted: 22 Jul 2002 Last revised: 12 Jan 2016

Tracy A. Thomas

University of Akron School of Law

Date Written: 2005

Abstract

The book The Final Arbiter addresses the legal and political consequences of the Bush v. Gore decision. This article presented as Chapter 4 addresses the lasting impact of Bush v. Gore on the law of remedies. While others have focused on what the Court should or could have done in the case, this article focuses on what the Court actually did by analyzing the text of the decision and the remedial platform that formed the Court's consensus. The Court in Bush adopted a new model of prophylactic relief that provided too much, not too little relief. Yet this prophylactic remedy was disconnected from prior legal principles guiding the judicial use of this unique remedial power. The result of this novel use of a prophylactic remedy is the creation of a future model of expansive relief for constitutional violations. However the case also provides a model of federal court use of a remedy to nullify state rights.

Keywords: prophylactic, remedy, Bush v. Gore, equal protection

JEL Classification: K19

Suggested Citation

Thomas, Tracy A., Bush V. Gore and the Distortion of Common Law Remedies (2005). The Final Arbiter: The Consequences of Bush v. Gore for Law & Politics (Christoper Banks, David Cohen & John Green, eds. SUNY Press 2005). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=316580 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.316580

Tracy A. Thomas (Contact Author)

University of Akron School of Law ( email )

150 University Ave.
Akron, OH 44325-2901
United States
330-972-6617 (Phone)
330-258-2343 (Fax)

Paper statistics

Downloads
64
Rank
293,714
Abstract Views
1,084