The circumstantial ad hominem, unlike the abusive variety, attacks a particular person by showing that his or her argument is inconsistent with his or her prior positions or circumstances. The difference between valid and fallacious uses of this form of argument is illustrated through analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of Bush v. Gore, which effectively halted the manual recount of disputed ballots in 2000 and effectively awarded the presidential election to George W. Bush. In its commission of the circumstantial ad hominem, the Court acted improperly. Broader implications for the use of this form of argument are recommended. This essay is based on a presentation at the 2002 conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, and is reprinted from a conference volume, Anyone who has a view: Theoretical contributions to the study of argumentation (Frans H. van Eemeren, J. Anthony Blair, Charles A. Willard, and A. Francesca Snoeck Henkemans, Ed.), pp. 297–308, published by Kluwer Academic Publishers (a forerunner of Springer) in 2003, and reprinted by permission.