That may be good news for George W. Bush, but it would be terrible for the court. The justices, whose moral authority as a calm council of wise elders has survived many ideological battles, are now apparently as divided as the res…

Things are getting ugly at the U.S. Supreme Court. In the weeks since the election, the justices have tried to conceal their internal differences about how to resolve the political brawl in Florida–speaking, at least publicly, with one voice. But last week those barely hidden divisions became all too visible. In its extraordinary Saturday ruling that ordered Florida to halt manual recounts, the court split 5-4, along conservative-liberal lines. As the justices prepared to hear arguments sched

Things are getting ugly at the U.S. Supreme Court. In the weeks since the election, the justices have tried to conceal their internal differences about how to resolve the political brawl in Florida–speaking, at least publicly, with one voice. But last week those barely hidden divisions became all too visible. In its extraordinary Saturday ruling that ordered Florida to halt manual recounts, the court split 5-4, along conservative-liberal lines. As the justices prepared to hear arguments scheduled for Monday morning–warp speed for the court–the majority seemed to indicate that it was preparing to put an end to the recounts once and for all.

That may be good news for George W. Bush, but it would be terrible for the court. The justices, whose moral authority as a calm council of wise elders has survived many ideological battles, are now apparently as divided as the rest of us, and risk appearing to become just another bunch of partisan players in the political wars. If the justices cannot find a way to bridge their differences and speak with authority after Monday’s arguments, they could do incalculable damage to the public confidence that is so vital to the court’s role as the ultimate guardian of the rule of law.

The nine justices managed to hang together earlier this month, when they unanimously but subtly slapped the liberal Florida State Supreme Court for changing the rules after the election by extending the deadline for manual recounts. They ordered the Florida justices to rethink their ruling–with a closer eye on federal law and the U.S. Constitution.

That unanimity didn’t last long. In most cases, the justices deliver stay orders without any comment at all. But on Saturday, the court split into two warring camps, each side publicly sniping at the other. In a sharp dissent, the court’s four more-liberal justices–John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen M. Breyer–accused their conservative colleagues of "acting unwisely" and thwarting "the basic principle, inherent in our Constitution and democracy, that every legal vote should be counted." Preventing the recounts from continuing, the dissenters scolded their colleagues in the majority, would "inevitably cast a cloud on the legitimacy of the election."

The dissent provoked an equally pointed response from conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the five who granted the stay. Counting votes of "questionable legality," he wrote, threatens "irreparable harm" both to Bush and "to the country." He also questioned whether it was constitutional for the Florida court to allow "the standard for determination of voters’ intent–dimpled chads, hanging chads, etc.–vary from county to county."

Even more interesting, Scalia sent what seemed to be a clear and extraordinary signal that Vice President Al Gore would likely lose the case after Monday’s oral arguments. The simple fact that the court issued the stay, Scalia wrote, "suggests that a majority of the court… believe that the petitioner [Bush] has a substantial probability of success."

If Scalia’s odds are right, the court could be looking at an ugly 5-4 split decision that essentially hands the election to Bush. But the justices may strive to avoid that outcome. One possibility: they could punt the entire mess to Capitol Hill, ruling that the case raises questions that should be settled by Congress. True, such a decision would be derided by many Americans as cowardly. But the alternative, a bitter split that leaves the justices looking like pols, might be worse–for the court, and for the country.

The post The Snippy Supremes appeared first on Stuart Taylor, Jr..