It has been argued that none of the justices ended up voting in a way that was consistent with their prior legal jurisprudence, though this conclusion has been challenged by George Mason University law professor Nelson Lund (who argues that, unlike in suspect classification cases, the United States Supreme Court has never actually required a showing of intentional discrimination in fundamental rights cases, such as "Bush v. Gore" itself). The five conservative justices decided to involve the federal judiciary in a matter that could have been left to the states, while also expanding the previous US Supreme Court interpretations of the Equal Protection Clause. Meanwhile, the liberal justices all supported leaving the matter in the hands of a state and also sometimes advocated in favor of a narrower reading of existing Equal Protection Clause SCOTUS precedents. This increased the perceptions that the judges used their desired results to drive their reasoning, instead of using legal reasoning to arrive at a result. David Cole of Georgetown Law argued that, as a way of trying to rehabilitate the court's image after "Bush v. Gore", the court became more likely to reach a liberal decision in the four years after "Bush v. Gore" than they had been before the case, and that the conservative justices were more likely to join the liberals rather than the other way around.