In Bush v Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), the United States Supreme Court, in a per curiam decision, ruled that the Florida Supreme Court's method for recounting ballots was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Additionally, the Court ruled that noalternative method could be established within the time limits set by the State of Florida. Three concurring justices also held that the Florida Supreme Court had violated Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, by misinterpreting Florida election law that had been enacted by the Florida Legislature.
The Supreme Court can rule on the constitutionality of laws, but it can't rule on the Constitution itself.
Supreme Court cases diminished the scope of the exclusionary rule?
In Bush v. Gore the candidate Bush claims that he was the plaintiff. Plaintiff to what? Firstly, he was never a candidate. That's right, neither Gore or Bush were presidential candidates in 2000. They were prospective candidates to the 25 electors who were to meet in December. Please recall: we do not have a direct presidential election. The State of Florida has a Legislature which has selected a popular vote method to choose its 25 electors.Thus, the only candidates in Florida were the various "candidate for electoral office" which Katherine Harris certifies as winners. Even Katherine Harris (the Sect. of State) erroneously declared George Bush the victor when she certified the state vote tally. How could she declare Bush the winner when the electors had not yet met and cast their votes? Was she insane? Al Gore and George Bush had nothing to do with her certifying twenty-five electors.Therefore, neither Bush nor Gore were candidates and the Court had no jurisdiction over Bush's case. The only jurisdiction that the court may have had was over one or more of the 25 electoral candidates. The Supreme Court should have dismissed the case because Bush had no legal standing in his demand. The Court should have rule, "Case dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction!!"
No. Only the Supreme Court can rule on the constitionality of a law and once they rule, they are supreme- no appeals except to them.
The decision then remains what it was when appealed to the Supreme Court.
In 1977 the Supreme Court set a deadline for the restoration of civilian rule. Then in 1978 the Supreme Court upheld the death sentence for Prime Minister Zulifikar Ali Bhutto.
i think its the supreme court.
The Supreme Court can not elect a president. In 2000. the Supreme did rule against a Florida court case that demanded another recount of the presidential ballots and let stand. the results certified by the Florida Secretary of State These electoral votes from Florida did tip the election to Bush. If the court had ruled in favor of another recount. nobody knows what the recount might have shown.
The Supreme Court created an exception to the exclusionary rule for searches conducted by school administrators.
The Court ruled that the Espionage Act was constitutional.
The supreme court of Pakistan set a deadline of restoration of the civil rule for de jure powers. This is the outline of the constitution.
Yes, that is why the court is "supreme."
The case determined the power of the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of laws.
The Supreme Court ruled that the government had the authority to end labor strikes.
It established the authority of the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of an act of Congress.
Congress cannot change a supreme court decision. They can only implement new legislation which the court can continue to rule on. To change the basis of a supreme court decision, the constitution needs to be changed.
According to the Supreme Court Rules, Rule 10, the most important source is the US Court of Appeals Circuit Courts.
On November 13, 1956 the US Supreme Court rules that segregated busing was nnconstitutional.
The Supreme Court can rule that a law is unconstitutional, and since the constitution takes precedence over other laws, that effectively overturns it.
It established the authority of the supreme court to rule on the constitutionality of an act of congress