Legal Implications of Bush v. Gore, 10 Years Later from The Takeaway: Early Edition by feedback@thetakeaway.org (Public Radio International and WNYC Radio)

It was ten years ago this week that the Supreme Court handed down their decision in Bush v. Gore. That decision effectively stopped the Florida recount in its tracks and placed George W. Bush in the Oval Office. Jeffrey Toobin, staff writer for the New Yorker and author of The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court, joins us to analyze the legal and political ramifications of that controversial Supreme Court moment.

Download the podcast here. The conservative magazine, the National Review attempts to pick apart Toobin's theses:

Toobin says that the Florida courts “order[ed] a statewide recount of all undervotes and overvotes.” The Florida courts did no such thing, and the point is significant for the reasons given in Bush v. Gore and in Chief Justice Wells’ dissenting opinion in the Florida Supreme Court. (Toobin doesn’t mention that three of the seven Florida justices, all Democrats, dissented from the decision that the U.S. Supreme Court reversed.)

Nelson Lund is the author of that article, and makes several other points, worth considering, about Toobin's arguments. Check those out, here. See also: Bush V. Gore: Exposing the Hidden Crisis in American Democracy: Abridged and Updated (Landmark Law Cases and American Society), Bush V. Gore: The Court Cases and the Commentary, Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush v. Gore (Oxford History of the United States), Too Close to Call: The Thirty-Six-Day Battle to Decide the 2000 Election