Please share your reaction to the film Recount. What role did the Courts and Constitutional Theory play in the process? Did the Constitution work or did it become a political machine?
Obviously the film was pretty sensationalized, but it brought up an interesting point about how the electoral college and constitution work. I definitely thought recount was pretty swayed towards Gore and the writers definitely thought Gore should have won, but it does bring up the doubt. The Supreme Court decision was pretty political, but most are which is how it has been historically. I do think if the majority was liberal the same thing would happen, just from past precedent.
I felt that Recount was a very informative telling of the events of the 2000 election. Seeing as I was only a small child when these events occurred, I knew only vaguely what happened. After the movie, I feel that I better grasp the real process of what happened. I feel that the court began to block the recount from happening, thus using its power to sway an election. In doing so, the court departed from its usual standpoint of neutrality and became more politically charged. Also, I found it strange that they specified that the ruling applied to only that case, something that had never happened before. I do not believe that this was the ends that were intended by the framers of the Constitution, but there's really not that much that we can do about it now.
Recount was a great medium for me to understand the 2000 election...since I was 5 years old when it happened. The Courts played a significant role in the whole process, but I cannot say the same for constitutional theory. While I would like to think that the Court remained a body committed to and focused on maintaining the constitutional integrity of this nation in all aspects, this movie raised some personal doubts. The most glaring doubt being the "limited circumstances" opinion the Court returned. What was the Court saying that their ruling applied to only the current situation, and not for future dilemmas of the same nature. For that reason, I feel that the Court became too political. After all, they basically decided the election. I do not think that the Constitution presented any flaws. Rather, the interpretation of the Constitution (the Court's role by definition) not failed, but came up short.
"Recount" was a good, if dramatized, explanation of the events of the Bush v. Gore election. It managed to take an interesting if slightly dry topic and turn it into a involving drama. Within the actual election, the Supreme Court had to step into its role as a "cultural tribunal" and resolve a key issue that was plaguing the nation's minds. If not for this intervention, the doubt that would have resulted over a potentially "stolen election" would have cast a shadow over the nation for the next four years. That being said, the supreme courts "singular ruling"-in which it refused to set precedent via the case and instead tailored the judgement to the case alone-causes me to be skeptical as to whether or not truly fair justice was served. While I do not like dealing in hypotheticals, I can not help but quote the scene in the movie in which one of the gore lawyers asks "if Bush would've asked for the recount, would they have stopped counting?" I believe that the combination of Bush's brother in office in Florida and political dealings within the supposedly impartial supreme court led to an election stolen via a political machine.
"Recount" was a well made, interesting film. As a child, I remember some sort of scandal involving the 2000 election, but I never realized the scope of the conflict. Within the scope of the courts I do believe they were partially used as a political machine to place Bush into the white house. However despite this complant, the system worked. There was no cue or uprising, no riots or rebellion. The constitution and the court held the peace and peacefully moved power. The question will always remain if the election was stolen, but there is no dispute that the system did work.
"Recount" was a good dramatization of the Bush v. Gore election. The 2000 election brought forth a real conflict in the election process that has forced people to change the way we vote forever. There were no violent rebellions against the government, the courts, or the state of Florida. The system worked as it should have, but I think that the courts did favor Bush. Everything though was handled constitutionally. I don't feel that it was a stolen election, but Bush's brother and a favorable Supreme Court did help. The ruling given failed to close up any gaps in the law, but rather solved the current problem because of the political implications.
i really enjoyed watching recount and i thought it was a great depiction of the bush/gore election. the election changed the way voting worked and it was extremely interesting to watch the process come about. by recounting and recounting and recounting the votes, the system really made sure they had the correct number of votes for each candidate. it showed that the system can be flawed though and everyone needs to respect that.
I really loved Recount. The dramatization of the event was brilliant and really wonderful to watch because we were so young when it happened. The suspense was palpable and the acting was really wonderful. It highlighted- but did not focus- on the Supreme Court's role in establishing voting regulations when a said conflict occurred. I was still astonished that they were allowed to use the "singular ruling" card. It was a great demonstration of American justice.
Obviously the film was pretty sensationalized, but it brought up an interesting point about how the electoral college and constitution work. I definitely thought recount was pretty swayed towards Gore and the writers definitely thought Gore should have won, but it does bring up the doubt. The Supreme Court decision was pretty political, but most are which is how it has been historically. I do think if the majority was liberal the same thing would happen, just from past precedent.
ReplyDeleteI felt that Recount was a very informative telling of the events of the 2000 election. Seeing as I was only a small child when these events occurred, I knew only vaguely what happened. After the movie, I feel that I better grasp the real process of what happened. I feel that the court began to block the recount from happening, thus using its power to sway an election. In doing so, the court departed from its usual standpoint of neutrality and became more politically charged. Also, I found it strange that they specified that the ruling applied to only that case, something that had never happened before. I do not believe that this was the ends that were intended by the framers of the Constitution, but there's really not that much that we can do about it now.
ReplyDeleteRecount was a great medium for me to understand the 2000 election...since I was 5 years old when it happened. The Courts played a significant role in the whole process, but I cannot say the same for constitutional theory. While I would like to think that the Court remained a body committed to and focused on maintaining the constitutional integrity of this nation in all aspects, this movie raised some personal doubts. The most glaring doubt being the "limited circumstances" opinion the Court returned. What was the Court saying that their ruling applied to only the current situation, and not for future dilemmas of the same nature. For that reason, I feel that the Court became too political. After all, they basically decided the election. I do not think that the Constitution presented any flaws. Rather, the interpretation of the Constitution (the Court's role by definition) not failed, but came up short.
ReplyDelete"Recount" was a good, if dramatized, explanation of the events of the Bush v. Gore election. It managed to take an interesting if slightly dry topic and turn it into a involving drama. Within the actual election, the Supreme Court had to step into its role as a "cultural tribunal" and resolve a key issue that was plaguing the nation's minds. If not for this intervention, the doubt that would have resulted over a potentially "stolen election" would have cast a shadow over the nation for the next four years. That being said, the supreme courts "singular ruling"-in which it refused to set precedent via the case and instead tailored the judgement to the case alone-causes me to be skeptical as to whether or not truly fair justice was served. While I do not like dealing in hypotheticals, I can not help but quote the scene in the movie in which one of the gore lawyers asks "if Bush would've asked for the recount, would they have stopped counting?" I believe that the combination of Bush's brother in office in Florida and political dealings within the supposedly impartial supreme court led to an election stolen via a political machine.
ReplyDelete"Recount" was a well made, interesting film. As a child, I remember some sort of scandal involving the 2000 election, but I never realized the scope of the conflict. Within the scope of the courts I do believe they were partially used as a political machine to place Bush into the white house. However despite this complant, the system worked. There was no cue or uprising, no riots or rebellion. The constitution and the court held the peace and peacefully moved power. The question will always remain if the election was stolen, but there is no dispute that the system did work.
ReplyDelete"Recount" was a good dramatization of the Bush v. Gore election. The 2000 election brought forth a real conflict in the election process that has forced people to change the way we vote forever. There were no violent rebellions against the government, the courts, or the state of Florida. The system worked as it should have, but I think that the courts did favor Bush. Everything though was handled constitutionally. I don't feel that it was a stolen election, but Bush's brother and a favorable Supreme Court did help. The ruling given failed to close up any gaps in the law, but rather solved the current problem because of the political implications.
ReplyDeletei really enjoyed watching recount and i thought it was a great depiction of the bush/gore election. the election changed the way voting worked and it was extremely interesting to watch the process come about. by recounting and recounting and recounting the votes, the system really made sure they had the correct number of votes for each candidate. it showed that the system can be flawed though and everyone needs to respect that.
ReplyDeleteI really loved Recount. The dramatization of the event was brilliant and really wonderful to watch because we were so young when it happened. The suspense was palpable and the acting was really wonderful. It highlighted- but did not focus- on the Supreme Court's role in establishing voting regulations when a said conflict occurred. I was still astonished that they were allowed to use the "singular ruling" card. It was a great demonstration of American justice.
ReplyDelete