The Supreme Court's Ruling in Bush v. Gore: A Rhetoric of Inconsistency

This critique of the Supreme Court ruling in Bush v. Gore establishes judicial and political contexts to ground a critical reading of the text. It finds that a majority on the Court, and some dissenters, violated their previously established realms of legitimate linguistic possibilities to make their arguments. The majority's rhetorical inconsistencies with their past rulings, particularly those immediately preceding Bush v. Gore, prevented consensus and attempted to rationalize a politically charged decision. This study explains how the Court's credibility was damaged.