WRITE IN OWN WORDS

1. The legacy of the Rehnquist Court is characterized by its assertiveness in shaping American constitutional law and its promotion of judicial supremacy. One significant case that exemplifies this legacy is the United States v. Lopez, decided in 1995, which the Court ruled that Congress exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause (Video 3, 7:42).

This decision marked a significant departure from previous interpretations of the Commerce Clause, which had broadly expanded congressional authority. By limiting Congress's power in this area, the Rehnquist Court reinforced principles of federalism, and the separation of powers, emphasizing the importance of respecting the boundaries between federal and state authority. This legacy has established a precedent for judicial review of federal legislation and affirming the Court's role as the ultimate arbiter of constitutional disputes.

2. One case from the videos that I wish the Rehnquist Court had decided differently is Bush v. Gore, decided in 2000. In this case, the Court intervened in the disputed presidential election and effectively halted the recount of votes in Florida, leading to George W. Bush's victory over Al Gore. I believe the Court made the wrong decision in this case because it undermined the principles of federalism and judicial restraint.

The Court's decision to intervene in a highly politicized electoral dispute was controversial and raised questions about the judiciary's role in resolving political matters. By effectively determining the outcome of the presidential election, the Court risked damaging its credibility and impartiality. Furthermore, the majority's reasoning in Bush v. Gore was criticized for being inconsistent with the Court's usual deference to state law and judicial independence. While the decision may have resolved the immediate election dispute, it raised broader concerns about the Court's legitimacy and its adherence to constitutional principles. (Video 5)