Landmark Supreme Court Case At the end of the 2000 presidential election, Americans had what seemed to be a simple question. Who won? The answer, it turned out, would be settled by the U. S. Supreme Court.
Background of the Case
The 2000 presidential election between Democratic candidate Vice President Al Gore and Republican Governor George W. Bush of Texas was a tight race. It became clear that whoever won Florida would have the 270 electoral votes needed to win. People in Florida voted by punching a hole in a ballot card. The votes were counted by a machine that detected these holes. According to the count Bush won Florida by a few hundred votes. However, about 60,000 ballots were not counted because the machines could not detect a hole in the ballot. Gore argued in the Florida Supreme Court that these ballots should be recounted by hand. The Florida Supreme Court ordered the counties to recount the votes. Lawyers for Bush appealed the case to the U. S. Supreme Court. They argued that it would be impossible to tell a voter ’s intent on a mismarked ballot.

The Court’s Decision
On December 12, the Supreme Court ruled for Bush in a 5-4 decision. It said that the votes could not be counted consistently across Florida in different counties that used different methods, because not every ballot would be treated equally. The Supreme Court ordered the recount to stop. The original result would stand. As a result, Bush won Florida by 537 votes. Winning Florida gave him enough electoral votes to win in the Electoral College. Bush received 271 electoral votes to Gore’s 266. George W. Bush became the 43rd president of the United States.

Why Is This Case Important?
In effect, the Supreme Court picked which candidate was the next president. The ruling raised issues about the fairness of American elections and the powers of the Supreme Court. Many thought that the Court had overstepped its authority by making a political decision beyond its jurisdiction.

Directions: Type your answers to the following questions in the text box below. Cite information from the Landmark Supreme Court Case to support your answers.

1. What is the background of the case?
2. Why was there an issue with the votes in Florida?
3. What was the Supreme Court’s decision?
4. How did this decision effect the election?
5. Why is this case important?

Per this theory, juvenile offenders learn to commit crimes through exposure to others. strain theory differential association theory neutralization theory social control theory none of the responses are correct. all of the responses are correct.

September 10, 2016: you’ve been assigned to investigate a hit-and-run incident. when you arrive at the scene, it’s raining and foggy. the roads are slick. it looks like the crash occurred during the early evening, about 5: 30 pm, a couple hours before dark. you notice a green 2010 chevrolet camaro lying off the road on an embankment and a blue 2014 toyota camry several yards back. both vehicles are damaged. robert b., the driver of the camaro, had severe back injuries and was taken to the hospital. the only witness is the toyota driver, fred h. fred h. was driving in the right lane when the accident occurred. according to fred, a red ford pickup truck (year and model unknown) suddenly swerved across the highway from the left lane. the pickup truck hit the front left side of the camaro in one of the center lanes, pushing it off the road before speeding away. the camaro lost control and sideswiped the toyota as it skidded across the highway, denting the toyota’s left side panels. the camaro then skidded across the grass to the right of the highway and crashed into a low concrete wall. the hood and both sides of the camaro have extensive damage. the toyota driver pulled up behind the camaro and called the police. the accident occurred near miami, florida, on i-95 northbound, a 5-lane highway. it happened just before the exit 16 offramp. fred h. and robert b. both passed breathalyzer tests. neither had any passengers in the car. as you search the scene, you notice: tire tracks/skid marks left on the pavement deep red scrapes across the camaro’s panels and green scrapes across the toyota’s panels broken car window fragments of a hood or panel a torn rag an empty beer can deep tire marks and footprints in the mud of the embankment at the scene use the information above to answer the following questions. for each of a – e above, give an example of a type of evidence you could collect from that item and how you would collect it. (one to two sentences each) fill out a crash form for the incident. use the form florida crash report and use the information in the description above to create a brief three- to five-sentence summary for the “narrative” section. use the witness’s description to draw a diagram of the incident. if you can’t find a piece of information for the form, just leave that part blank. impression evidence three separate tire marks were collected from the scene. the marks were found in a pattern that supports fred’s version of events. three tire tread marks, a, b, and c. tire a appears to be worn flat in the middle from overinflation, tire b is narrow and appears worn on the outside edges, tire c looks normal and is not worn at all tires leave different types of marks based on their wear patterns. for example, tires that are constantly flat will leave different impressions than tires that are normally inflated or overinflated. the tires tend to wear out on the parts that are most exposed to the road. you checked out the tires of the two vehicles at the scene. here’s what you found: two tires side by side. a camaro tire which appears to be in good shape, and a toyota tire which appears worn on the outside edges the camaro had normal tires, but the toyota’s tires were a little flat and overly worn on the outside edges. the condition of the red ford truck’s tires is unknown. match the three impressions with the cars that most likely created them. what can you hypothesize about the red pickup’s tires? could this have anything to do with the accident? explain your answer. (two to four sentences) a red pickup fitting fred’s description was later seen running a stoplight. police pulled it over for a check. its tire impressions looked like this: a single tire tread mark which appears worn on the outside edges based on the evidence, do you think this was the same red pickup that rammed the camaro? why or why not? (one to two sentences)

Do we actually do work like math, reading, etc? ?