Four years later, something similar happened again: the polls in Taiwan's general election. The same goes to the Supreme Court. Lien Chan's claim that due to Chen Shui-bian's swindling of the shooting incident, the election should be invalidated and the election should be invalidated, which was finally rejected by the Supreme Court.
It seems easy to draw a conclusion: Whenever involved in a political event, the best court will calculate a muddled account - allowing "bad guys and scoundrels" to succeed.
But let's cite two precedents that really let the bad guys get their way: Miranda v. Arizona and the famous "trial of the century" Simpson's wife murder case. I will not repeat the details of these two cases. Together they reflect a basic principle: procedural justice is higher than substantive justice.
Looking back at Bush v. Gore (which, oddly enough, the plaintiff and the defendant were reversed), why did the Supreme Court majority think that the votes should not continue to be counted? First, before the lawsuit hit the Supreme Court, the Florida Secretary of State had already declared Bush elected, which means that, procedurally speaking, Bush was already elected (no matter how much trickery there is). Second, Gore asked for a recount, which was upheld by the Florida Supreme Court decision. This verdict ignores the previous results confirmed according to the law (Bush leads 300 votes and is confirmed to be elected), ignores the current objective situation (whether it is possible to complete the counting of votes in just 3 days), and ignores possible future results (if the counting is not completed on time vote, Bush would still be legally elected). If the recount according to the Florida Supreme Court's decision cannot be completed within the specified time, according to Florida law, the Florida government (that is, the government of Bush's younger brother) will designate electors. At that time, no matter whether the recount result of Gore is reversed or not, it will not be able to prevent Bush from being elected. However, if Gore does turn the tables in the recount, Bush's presidential legitimacy will be seriously questioned, and this will be a serious constitutional crisis for the entire country. That's why Gore said in the movie "Even if I win, I can't win".
Supreme Court Justice Stevens dissented the majority's decision, famously saying: "We may not be 100% sure who will win this year's presidential election, but in the end the losers are clear. That is the country's trust in the judges as the guardians of the rule of law and justice." This passage actually expresses the helplessness of the Supreme Court in this dispute. They believe that they have saved the country and avoided a possible constitutional crisis, but they have taken the blame for interfering in politics. As a rule, the election of the president is determined by the votes of the voters and confirmed in Congress. Even if you want to argue, it should go to Congress), not the Supreme Court. In Fahrenheit 9/11, we did see that during the confirmation process, many congressmen spoke out questioning Bush's election. However, we also saw that it was precisely because the Supreme Court made a final decision that this farce came to an abrupt end. In the subsequent congressional confirmation process, the members of the House of Representatives only complained, but no senator seconded (the law stipulates that the protest must be seconded by a senator to be effective). Don't the Democratic senators have any idea how unfair the result is to them? But what they know more clearly in their hearts is why the Supreme Court made the previous judgment - in order to maintain the stability of the country and the dignity of the Constitution.
In the movie, Baker said proudly: "There are no tanks on the street, which shows that the system has worked." He should really be proud of it.
------
Finally, a word about the verdict on Taiwan's general election. If the Supreme Court of Taiwan upholds the principle of procedural justice over substantive justice, such a decision would be reasonable. If it is said that Chen Shui-bian cheated a lot of tragic votes because of the shooting, which is very unfair, then we can only blame the inexperience of the Taiwanese. It's the turn of the 2008 general election, isn't it safe and sound - everyone has experience. Similarly, in the 2004 election in the United States, we also gained experience and did not go to court.
View more about Recount reviews
