Revista da EMERJ - V. 20 - N. 2 - Maio/Agosto - 2018

 R. EMERJ, Rio de Janeiro, v. 20, n. 2, p. 8 - 53, Maio/Agosto. 2018  50 efficacious decisions in the Court’s history. The conservative majority ruled that the Florida manual recount must stop; Al Gore conceded the election within twenty-four hours. 223 This efficacious a ruling, on this divisive an issue, is certain to generate tremendous resentment toward the Court. As to the relative power of the constituencies impacted by the Court’s decision, both Democrats and Republicans have plenty of political and economic clout in American society. Thus, Bush v. Gore is not a case where the Court’s critics are relatively disadvantaged in the public relations battle that follows the ruling. On the other hand, it is hard to think of a constitutional issue that is more destined to become obsolete. George W. Bush will be president, possibly as a result of the Supreme Court’s ruling, for four years. (If he ser- ves eight years, an intervening independent cause–a second electoral victory–will greatly reduce the Court’s responsibility for the second term.) There is unlikely to be another presidential election like this past one during the lifetime of anyone now living. Moreover, the Su- preme Court’s ruling in Bush , by design, will have implications for no other constitutional issue, but rather is destined to be treated by the Court as a decision “good for this day and train only.” 224 Memories of what most Democrats will regard as the judicial theft of a presidential election will survive, but they will be just that–memories. Bush’s pre- sence in the White House for four years will constitute a short term reminder of the Court’s decision. But this is not like the abortion issue, which just won’t go away, and thus serves as a constant remin- der to right-to-lifers of Supreme Court decisions like Roe and Casey . On the other hand, unlike with regard to an issue like racial segregation, where public opinion transformed over time, popular at- titudes toward Bush v. Gore probably never will change very much. Democrats are likely always to believe that the Supreme Court interve- ned in the 2000 presidential election because the conservative Justices 223 One can only marvel at the enormous prestige of an institution that could command such total obedience to such a lawless decision. Imagine how different the reaction of the Jeffersonians would have been two hundred years earlier had counterfactual litigation resulted in a Federalist Supreme Court awarding victory to John Adams (or Aaron Burr) in the disputed presidential election of 1800. The Marshall Court was too intimidated by the Jefferson administration even to order the Secretary of State to deliver commissions to justices of the peace appointed by outgoing President Adams. See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803). The idea of that Court attempting to adjudicate the results of a presi- dential election–and having anyone pay attention to its determination, should it dare to do so–is simply incomprehensible. 224 Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 669 (1944) (Roberts, J., dissenting).