Editing Bush v. Gore (section)

===Article II===
Rehnquist's [[concurring opinion]], joined by Scalia and Thomas, began by emphasizing that this was an unusual case in which the Constitution requires federal courts to assess whether a state supreme court has properly interpreted the will of the state legislature. Usually, federal courts do not make that type of assessment, and indeed the ''per curiam'' opinion in this case did not do so. After addressing this aspect of the case, Rehnquist examined and agreed with arguments that the dissenting justices of the Florida Supreme Court had made.<ref name="rehnquist">{{Cite web|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZC.html|title=BUSH v. GORE concurrence}}</ref> Rehnquist also mentioned that he, Scalia, and Thomas joined the Supreme Court's ''per curiam'' opinion and agreed with the legal analysis presented there. The ruling also says that "the state legislature's power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by state legislatures in several States for many years after the framing of our Constitution. ... The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors."<ref>{{cite book |last1=Epstein |first1=Lee |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dnENEQAAQBAJ |title=Constitutional Law for a Changing America: Rights, Liberties, and Justice |last2=McGuire |first2=Kevin T. |last3=Walker |first3=Thomas G. |date=<!-- August 23, -->2024 |publisher=CQ Press |isbn=978-1-0719-0168-7 |page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=dnENEQAAQBAJ&pg=PA1108 1108] |access-date=January 12, 2025}}</ref>