The United States Supreme Court. Defender of our constitution. Hallmark of our democratic values. Principled, impartial and fair. Well-not this time!

I have rarely agreed with the decisions of this particular majority of Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and O'Connor. But, I have never before doubted that they were acting on deeply held principles and a profound respect for our Constitution. This time, they betrayed my confidence. I read the entire opinion in the case of Bush v. Gore and found it very disturbing.

We Americans must have confidence in our highest court. Even if we disagree with its decisions, we must believe in its integrity. This Supreme Court majority, in deciding Bush v. Gore, undermined its integrity, putting politics ahead of principle.

This same majority has staunchly defended states' rights. As Justice Stevens wrote in his dissent, "it is our settled practice to accept the opinions of the highest courts of the States as providing the final answers" regarding state laws. In a 1999 opinion, the justices wrote that "Federal courts defer to state high courts' interpretations of their state's own law." Which is precisely what the Florida Supreme Court was doing in the Florida election. The U.S. Supreme Court majority violated its own principles by intervening.

The majority determined that meeting Florida's "safe harbor" deadline of December 12 for certifying electors was paramount. Yet a more recent Florida law said the "rejection of a number of legal votes sufficient to place in doubt the result of an election" constitutes grounds for a recount. Still another Florida law specifies that no vote shall be disregarded "if there is a clear indication of the intent of the voter as determined by a canvassing board." Despite the unequivocal language of Florida law, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a "safe harbor" date was more important than the right to have your vote counted.

When the majority decided to stop the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court, Justice Kennedy ruled that continuing the recount would cause "irreparable harm" to Governor Bush. Because it might show he'd lost the election? We'll know that sooner or later anyway. What about the "irreparable harm" to Vice President Gore, for whom the stay meant certain defeat? The "irreparable harm" argument was blatantly political.

Maybe even more cynical was the majority's decision to permanently stop the recount because there was insufficient time to count the votes since December 12 had arrived. This lack of time, however, was a result of the Supreme Court's stopping the recount in the first place. To make it worse, Florida really had 6 more days, until December 18, to certify its electors. But, the U.S. Supreme Court wanted finality, and in ordering that, disenfranchised thousands of voters.

To justify this, the majority wrote something surprising to most of us, "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States" unless state legislatures grant them that right. Once that right is granted, however, "the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental." So, do we or don't we have the right to vote for Presidential electors? And, if it's a state legislature that grants that right, not the federal constitution, what business does the U.S. Supreme Court have in interfering with an election?

As one last gratuitous attempt to excuse themselves, the majority wrote, "None are more conscious of the vital limits on judicial authority than are the members of this Court, and none stand more in admiration of the Constitution's design to leave the selection of the President to the people, . . .and to the political sphere." This, after they, five Justices, had just effectively chosen the next President of the United States.

I think Justice Breyer was closer. He wrote, "The court is not acting to vindicate a fundamental constitutional principle, . . ." [I]n this highly politicized matter, the appearance of a split decision runs the risk of undermining the public's confidence in the Court itself. That confidence is a public treasure." Today, sadly, that treasure is badly a tarnished.