From Library Journal
Do the political and legal consequences of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore (2000) relieve societal unease about the way democratic and political systems were altered during the 2000 presidential election? Ackerman (Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science, Yale Univ.) here collects a series of extended discussions on this topic by a distinguished array of current and former law professors representing many different ideological stances. The essays were written long enough after the decision to provide a different perspective from books published immediately afterward, such as Richard Posner's Breaking the Deadlock: The 2000 Election, the Constitution, and the Courts and Howard Gillman's The Votes That Counted: How the Court Decided the 2000 Presidential Election. The 13 articles almost equally address whether this decision had a solid basis in the "rule of law" or a foundation in legal principles and whether the U.S. Supreme Court should have used the doctrine of "political questions" and allowed either state or congressional institutions to resolve such disputes. Some argue that taking that path would prevent judges from immersing themselves in political thickets and thereby creating dangerous threats to the court's legitimacy with the American public and elected officials. This deft examination of the various legal and political implications of Bush v. Gore will attract readers in academic and law libraries. Steven Puro, St. Louis Univ. Machinery of Death: The Reality of America's Death Penalty Regime.
Copyright 2002 Reed Business Information, Inc.
[A] deft examination of the various legal and political implications of Bush v. Gore. -- Library Journal