Now that the Supreme Court has spoken, history will judge the presidential election of 2000. Its verdict will ultimately depend on the willingness of the American people to rise above the sordid behavior of the candidates.

In January, George W. Bush will become the president. To say that anyone "won" this election, however, requires us to willfully overlook everything that has happened in the last five weeks. The two candidates, their supporters and their retainers have done their best to debase some of this country’s most fundamental institutions.

Al Gore received more votes than Bush nationwide. It is also quite probable that he did so in Florida as well. Had he honestly focused on a fair and accurate count of those votes, he may have prevailed. He would certainly have held onto the moral high ground.

Instead, the vice president concentrated on targeted recounts clearly intended only to add to his total. The effort rapidly took on the air of a win-at-all-costs attempt to find every Gore vote, while setting aside the ballots of as many likely Bush supporters as possible. That it disenfranchised overseas military personnel along the way was particularly shameful.

Gore’s team gave Bush every conceivable chance to act the statesman. That, however, seemed beyond the Texas governor. Rather than respecting Florida’s institutions, the candidate of small government and local control took his case straight to the federal courts. Rather than respecting Florida’s voters, Bush did his best to make sure the issue was decided by any means except ballot counting.

Finally, even the courts succumbed to the political heat of the moment. Between its critics’ spin and its own rulings, Florida’s Supreme Court has cast itself as a wholly political body. Worse, something similar may happen to the U.S. Supreme Court.

To elect a president by a single electoral vote — even one who lost in the popular vote — is one thing. To have a president elected by a one-vote margin of the Supreme Court, however, is something else again. That makes a mockery of a national election and puts the court’s authority at risk. Politicizing the courts threatens the rule of law.