Has Bush v. Gore Become the Case That Must Not Be Named? - New York Times

We agree.

But if the Supremes and lower courts fail to even recognize Bush v. Gore, does that make the entire Bush presidency illegal?

Has Bush v. Gore Become the Case That Must Not Be Named? - New York Times:

At a law school Supreme Court conference that I attended last fall, there was a panel on 'The Rehnquist Court.' No one mentioned Bush v. Gore, the most historic case of William Rehnquist's time as chief justice, and during the Q. and A. no one asked about it. When I asked a prominent law professor about this strange omission, he told me he had been invited to participate in another Rehnquist retrospective, and was told in advance that Bush v. Gore would not be discussed.

The ruling that stopped the Florida recount and handed the presidency to George W. Bush is disappearing down the legal world's version of the memory hole, the slot where, in George Orwell's '1984,' government workers disposed of politically inconvenient records. The Supreme Court has not cited it once since it was decided, and when Justice Antonin Scalia, who loves to hold forth on court precedents, was asked about it at a forum earlier this year, he snapped, 'Come on, get over it. (Not a chance, you old goat)