Available:*
Library | Call Number | Status |
---|---|---|
Searching... Stillwater Public Library | 973.931 DER | Searching... Unknown |
Bound With These Titles
On Order
Summary
Summary
Millions of Americans were baffled and outraged by the U.S. Supreme Court's role in deciding the presidential election of 2000 with its controversial ruling in Bush v. Gore. The Court had held a unique place in our system of checks and balances, seen as the embodiment of fairness and principle precisely because it was perceived to be above the political fray. How could it now issue a decision that reeked of partisan politics, and send to the White House a candidate who may have actually lost the election? In Supreme Injustice, best-selling author and legal expert Alan M. Dershowitz addresses these questions head-on, at last demystifying Bush v. Gore for those who are still angered by the court's decision but unclear about its meaning. Dershowitz--himself a former Supreme Court clerk--argues that in this case for the first time, the court's majority let its desire for a particular partisan outcome have priority over legal principles. As in his other bestselling books, Dershowitz clarifies complex legal issues, explaining concepts such as "equal protection" and "irreparable harm." Digging deeply into their earlier writings and rulings, Dershowitz proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the justices who gave George W. Bush the presidency contradicted their previous positions to do so. The most egregious ruling since the Dred Scott Decision, Bush v. Gore has shattered the image of the Supreme Court as a fair and impartial arbiter of important national issues. The resulting loss of the American people's respect, Dershowitz concludes, has severely compromised the Court's role in national affairs. And yet Dershowitz sees some benefit emerging from this constitutional crisis--if we understand its lessons and take action to prevent it from happening again.
Author Notes
Attorney and bestselling author Alan M. Dershowitz was first in his class at Yale Law School.
Dershowitz was editor-in-chief of the Yale Law Journal and the youngest full professor in the history of Harvard Law School. He is currently the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard University. He has served on the National Board of Directors of the American Civil Liberties Union. Dershowitz has represented many controversial clients, including O. J. Simpson, Claus von Bulow, Mike Tyson, Leona Helmsley and Patricia Hearst.
His books include Reasonable Doubt (about the O. J. Simpson trial) and Sexual McCarthyism: Clinton, Starr, and the Emerging Constitutional Crisis.
(Bowker Author Biography)
Reviews (3)
Publisher's Weekly Review
Harvard Law's Dershowitz (Reasonable Doubt, etc.) takes on the now famous, or infamous, Supreme Court decision Bush v. Gore, which ended the recount of votes in Florida and in effect handed the election to Bush. This decision, writes Dershowitz, was "the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history," based not on law but on the desire for "partisan advantage" and "personal gain." He launches a three-pronged attack, first on the decision itself, which found that different counties using different methods of hand counts violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. This is, Dershowitz argues in detail, a bizarre and unique application of this clause with no precedents, no clear victim of discrimination and no clear intent of discrimination, and as the Court stated applicable to this case alone. He next examines prior decisions of the Court in general and the five individual justices who formed the majority and concludes that nothing in their past remotely indicated their actions here. He thus looks to motivation, and while he finds no "smoking gun," he does suggest the justices were sufficiently partisan that they should have recused themselves from the decision. In short, Dershowitz offers a forceful condemnation of the Court's action, in findings that are strikingly similar to those of Vincent Bugliosi's The Betrayal of America (Forecasts, May 21). But where Bugliosi's prose recalls the fire-and-brimstone of a fundamentalist preacher, Dershowitz, at least at times, writes as if he were addressing a constitutional law seminar at Harvard interesting if not always exciting. Still, this is an excellent analysis of a troubling case. If these two books are any indication, controversy over Bush v. Gore is not soon to go away. (June 18) Forecast: Dershowitz, a popular media commentator on legal issues, will be quite busy promoting this new book: On June 18, he'll do the Today Show, Charlie Rose and Rivera Live, and in the following days a host of other national media, as well as national TV and radio satellite tours. Review coverage will undoubtedly be solid. Expect this to pop up on bestseller lists. (c) Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved
Booklist Review
This legal expert and best-selling author weighs in with his two-cents' worth on the subject of the 2000 presidential election. In unequivocal terms certain to generate discussion and debate, he finds the Supreme Court's involvement in the case to be a blatant example of partisan politics.
Library Journal Review
Dershowitz renowned lawyer, best-selling author, and member of the Harvard Law Faculty skillfully analyzes the U.S. Supreme Court's role and controversial ruling in Bush v. Gore. After outlining the central political and legal aspects of the Supreme Court's arguments, he uncovers key inconsistencies in the majority ruling and shows how they altered key "equal protection" ideas. He also examines possible constitutional foundations for this ruling. Dershowitz argues that Supreme Court justices "hijacked Election 2000 by distorting the law, violating their own expressed principles, and using their robes to bring about a partisan result." He seriously asks whether the Supreme Court has damaged its ability to decide national issues and has damaged the political system as well. This well-reasoned and controversial book asks central questions about American democracy and the role of citizens and courts in our society. Highly recommended for both public and academic libraries. Steven Puro, St. Louis Univ. (c) Copyright 2010. Library Journals LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Media Source, Inc. No redistribution permitted.
Excerpts
Excerpts
Introduction Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. -- Justice John Paul Stevens in his dissenting opinion in Bush v. Gore The five justices who ended Election 2000 by stopping the Florida hand recount have damaged the credibility of the U.S. Supreme Court, and their lawless decision in Bush v. Gore promises to have a more enduring impact on Americans than the outcome of the election itself. The nation has accepted the election of George W. Bush, as it must under the rule of law. It will have an opportunity to reassess this result in 2004. But the unprecedented decision of the five justices to substitute their political judgment for that of the people threatens to undermine the moral authority of the high court for generations to come. The Supreme Court, which consists of only nine relatively unknown justices with small staffs, has wielded an enormous influence in the history of our nation. It is the most powerful court in the world -- the envy of judges in every other country. Presidents accept its rulings, even when disagreeing. The public eventually embraces much of what the justices say in their judgments. Legislatures rarely seek to overrule their decisions. Though only one part of our delicate system of checks and balances, the high court speaks the final word on many of the most divisive and important issues of the day. This enormous power has always been viewed as legitimate because of the unique status of the justices as transcending partisan politics, eschewing personal advantage and pronouncing the enduring constitutional values of our nation. We defer to them because we respect them. Now in one fell swoop, five partisan judges have caused many Americans to question each of the assumptions undergirding the special status accorded these nine robed human beings. Bush v. Gore showed them to be little difference from ordinary politicians. Their votes reflected not any enduring constitutional values rooted in the precedents of the ages, but rather the partisan quest for immediate political victory. In so voting, they shamed themselves and the Court on which they serve, and they defiled their places in history. Because the Supreme Court lacks the legitimacy and accountability that come with election and the power that derives from the sword and the purse, its authority rests on public acceptance of its status as a nonpartisan arbiter of the law. This moral authority is essential to its continued effectiveness as an important guarantor of our constitutional liberties. Unless steps are taken to mitigate the damage inflicted on the Court by these five justices, the balance struck by our Constitution between popular democracy and judicial oligarchy will remain askew. Preserving this delicate balance is essential to our liberties and to our system of checks and balances. That is why I have written a book about the Supreme Court decision rather than about the election. Here I offer a critical assessment of the decision itself as well as the motivations of the justices who rendered it. I provide both direct and circumstantial evidence that some of them were motivated by partisan advantage, while others were motivated by expectation of personal gain. I explore the dangerous implications of the decision in Bush v. Gore for all Americans, regardless of party affiliation or ideology, especially since the Supreme Court -- prior to this case -- was among the last institutions whose integrity remained above approach. Finally, I propose steps that can be taken to avoid any repetition of this supreme injustice. Unless steps are taken to mitigate the damage inflicted on the Court by these five justices, the balance struck by our Constitution between popular democracy and judicial oligarchy will remain askew. The majority ruling in Bush v. Gore marked a number of significant firsts. Never before in American history has a presidential election been decided by the Supreme Court. Never before in American history have so many law professors, historians, political scientists, Supreme Court litigators, journalists who cover the high court, and other experts -- at all points along the political spectrum -- been in agreement that the majority decision of the court was not only "bad constitutional law" but "lawless," "illegitimate," "unprincipled," "partisan," "fraudulent," "disingenuous," and motivated by improper considerations. In addition to the remarkable expert consensus regarding this case, there is also widespread popular outrage at what the high court did. Though the level of this outrage tends to mirror party affiliation, it is safe to say that the degree of confusion over what actually happened is not limited to one party. There are millions of Americans who do not strongly identify with the Democratic Party -- indeed, even some who voted for George W. Bush -- but who cannot understand how five justices could determine the outcome of a presidential election. Moreover, the furor within the Supreme Court itself -- among some justices and law clerks -- is unprecedented in the annals of this usually harmonious institution. In light of these factors, many Americans who believed that the Court was an institution that could be trusted to remain above partisan politics are now experiencing a genuine loss of confidence in the impartiality of the judicial branch of our government. This widespread loss of confidence, reaching to the pinnacle of our judiciary, should be the concern of all Americans, because the Supreme Court has played such a critical role in the history of our nation. Without its moral authority, we would be a less tolerant, less vibrant, and less free democracy. The high court, throughout its long and distinguished history, has helped us -- not always perfectly or swiftly -- through crises of institutional racism, religious intolerance, McCarthyism, systematic malapportionment, presidents who deemed themselves above the law, and governors who defied the Constitution. The Court stepped in when the other branches of government were unwilling or unable to enforce the constitutional rights of unpopular minorities. The justices were always at their greatest when they could act unanimously and on principles that could be easily justified and widely accepted. When they act in an unprincipled and partisan manner -- as they did in Bush v. Gore -- they risk losing respect and frittering away the moral capital accumulated by their predecessors over generations. That is what Justice Stephen Breyer was referring to when he wrote in his dissent in Bush v. Gore: "[I]n this highly politicized political matter, the appearance of a split decision runs the risk of undermining the public's confidence in the Court itself. That confidence is a public treasure. It has been built slowly over many years... It is a vitally necessary ingredient of any successful effort to protect basic liberty and, indeed, the rule of law itself... [We] risk a self-inflicted wound -- a wound that may harm not just the Court, but the Nation." That is why all Americans must care about this case and must derive appropriate lessons from it. The Supreme Court's moral capital will certainly be needed again in our future, and so it is a tragedy that it has been dissipated for short-term partisan gain in a case in which the Supreme Court had no proper role. Nor is it relevant to the point of this book that had the Supreme Court not stopped the hand count, Bush might well have won -- according to some accounts, by even more of a margin than the official count gave him. The Supreme Court did not know what the result of the hand count would be when it stopped it. A hijacking occurs when someone unlawfully seeks to divert a vehicle from its course. The fact that the vehicle ultimately ends up at its intended destination does not mitigate the hijacker's culpability. This book is about the culpability of those justices who hijacked Election 2000 by distorting the law, violating their own expressed principles, and using their own robes to bring about a partisan result. I accuse them of failing what I call the shoe-on-the-other-foot test: I believe that they would not have stopped a hand recount if George W. Bush had been seeking it. This is an extremely serious charge, because deciding a case on the basis of the identity of the litigants is a fundamental violation of the judicial oath, to "administer justice without respect to persons..." In this book, I marshal the evidence in support of this charge. In a larger sense, this book is also about the Supreme Court and its continuing importance to all Americans. Its purpose is to alert the American people to a serious problem in the hope that constructive criticism can help to avoid a crisis that could endanger our liberties. Excerpted from Supreme Injustice by Alan M. Dershowitz. Copyright © 2001 by Alan M.Dershowitz. Excerpted by permission. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments | p. xi |
Introduction | p. 3 |
1. Five Justices Decide the Election | p. 15 |
2. The Final Decision | p. 55 |
3. Would the Majority Have Stopped the Hand Count if Gore Had Been Ahead? | p. 95 |
4. The Inconsistency of the Majority Justices with Their Previously Expressed Views | p. 121 |
5. The Importance of Bush v. Gore to All Americans | p. 173 |
Notes | p. 207 |
Index | p. 261 |