Bush vs. Gore and the Rule of Law.

The New York times recently had an article on how the case of Bush vs. Gore is now being cited in other cases, despite the fact that the court decision specifically said "“Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances". I'm no fan of that decision, but it is essential to ignore the Supreme courts hedging qualifier. That qualifier violates the entire principle of rule of law. Kant said that the essence of morality was the Categorical Imperative: the principle that what you are doing has to be capable of being made into a universal law. The criminal thinks it's OK for him to steal, but no criminal would ever say it was OK for other people to steal FROM him. That is why everyone implicitly acknowledges that stealing is wrong--even those who steal.

The Supreme Court knew that they were only interested in making sure their man got elected, not in developing a principle that could be used to decide anything in the Future. So like the thief they wanted to do something that would get them what they wanted, but could not be translated into a Universal principle. Kings and Tyrants can get away with such things. That is why we have laws, to stop our leaders from becoming tyrants. If other Lawyers do manage to translate Bush vs. Gore into a principle that serves justice, it will be in spite of the Supreme Court's intentions, not because of them.