Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000 [Hardcover]

Alan M. Dershowitz (Author)

Book Description

ISBN-10: 0195148274 | ISBN-13: 978-0195148275 | Publication Date: June 21, 2001 | Edition: 1st

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.

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

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.
Copyright 2001 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Library Journal

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.
Copyright 2001 Reed Business Information, Inc.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 288 pages
• Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA; 1st edition (June 21, 2001)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0195148274
• ISBN-13: 978-0195148275
• Product Dimensions: 9.2 x 6 x 1.2 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.2 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 4.1 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (126 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,183,302 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ is a Brooklyn native who has been called 'the nation's most peripatetic civil liberties lawyer' and one of its 'most distinguished defenders of individual rights,' 'the best-known criminal lawyer in the world,' 'the top lawyer of last resort,' and 'America's most public Jewish defender.' He is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. Dershowitz, a graduate of Brooklyn College and Yale Law School, joined the Harvard Law School faculty at age 25 after clerking for Judge David Bazelon and Justice Arthur Goldberg. While he is known for defending clients such as Anatoly Sharansky, Claus von B'low, O.J. Simpson, Michael Milken and Mike Tyson, he continues to represent numerous indigent defendants and takes half of his cases pro bono. Dershowitz is the author of 20 works of fiction and non-fiction, including 6 bestsellers. His writing has been praised by Truman Capote, Saul Bellow, David Mamet, William Styron, Aharon Appelfeld, A.B. Yehoshua and Elie Wiesel. More than a million of his books have been sold worldwide, in numerous languages, and more than a million people have heard him lecture around the world. His most recent nonfiction titles are The Case For Peace: How the Arab-Israeli Conflict Can be Resolved (August 2005, Wiley); Rights From Wrongs: A Secular Theory of the Origins of Rights (November 2004, Basic Books), The Case for Israel (September 2003, Wiley), America Declares Independence, Why Terrorism Works, Shouting Fire, Letters to a Young Lawyer, Supreme Injustice, and The Genesis of Justice. His novels include The Advocate's Devil and Just Revenge. Dershowitz is also the author of The Vanishing American Jew, The Abuse Excuse, Reasonable Doubts, Chutzpah (a #1 bestseller), Reversal of Fortune (which was made into an Academy Award-winning film), Sexual McCarthyism and The Best Defense.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

314 of 372 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A comprehensive and balanced analysis of the 2000 election., June 14, 2001

By A Customer

This review is from: Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000 (Hardcover)

Having received this book as a father's day present from my daughter, I felt obligated to read it immediately. As a supporter of George W. Bush's candidacy, I expected a one-sided liberal presentation of the positions constantly repeated by Al Gore and the democrats. Much to my surprise, Professor Dershowitz sets forth a thoughtful, well-reasoned and supported analysis of the events leading up to the December 2000 Supreme Court split decision. Though Professor Dershowitz makes no secret of his personal support for Mr. Gore, it is clear from the outset that the author has gone to great lengths to avoid any personal bias and present the reader with a balanced and facinating step-by-step critique of the personal and political workings of the State and Federal Supreme Courts. As I read this book, I found myself constantly challanged to reevaluate my view of the motivation behind the high courts acceptance of this case for review. Through historical analysis, and insight into the personal motivations of the nine justices, Professor Dershowitz deftly presents a logical case for his conclusion that the Courts involvement and ultimate decision was politically (and not judically) motivated. Any reader, no matter what your political beliefs may be, will find this work to be a masterful tutorial into the workings of our judicial system. Though I still firmly believe that election 2000 ended up at the correct destination, I must say that I am no longer certain that the road we took to get there was the right one. Thanks to my daughter for a delightful, challanging and memorable father's day gift.

287 of 362 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Kangaroo Court?, June 9, 2001

By 

Donald Mitchell "Jesus Loves You!" (Thanks for Providing My Reviews over 109,000 Helpful Votes Globally) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (HALL OF FAME REVIEWER)    (TOP 100 REVIEWER)   

This review is from: Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000 (Hardcover)

Remember the names of Scalia, O'Connor, Kennedy, Rehnquist, and Thomas. Those are the justices who produced the worst Supreme Court decision in over 100 years. How many decades will it take to undo the damage to the Supreme Court's credibility that they caused with the nonsense decision and opinion in Bush versus Gore during the recounts in Florida? I don't know, but Professor Dershowitz should be commended for calling these justices on the carpet for injudicious use of their power.

As a lawyer, I used to feel comfortable with the Supreme Court's ability to handle important issues. Whether I agreed with the conclusion of the case or not, I could predict the line of argument that led the court to its decision. I also knew that the court would try to intervene as little as possible. The only time that comfort level was violated was when the second Supreme Court decision came in Bush versus Gore and included a stay of the recount in Florida. I was flabbergasted. This book helps me to understand how such a result could have occurred. Every attorney, lawmaker, and citizen who cares about having a government of fairly administered laws should read this book, and take appropriate action to see that whatever happened in Bush versus Gore in the Supreme Court does not recur.

Professor Dershowitz makes a bold claim that "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." "I believe that they would not have stopped a hand recount if George W. Bush had been seeking it." "In this book, I marshal the evidence in support of this charge."

The book describes in a layperson's terms the legal issues behind the case, and goes on to provide hypotheses about what happened.

Basically, two laws were in conflict in Florida. One called for elections to be certified by a certain date (determining who won and lost). The other called for the ballots to be counted in order to ascertain the intent of the person voting. For over 200 years, it has been established law that courts should decide such conflicts of laws. The Supreme Court of Florida had done so, and concluded that the recounts should continue. Candidate Bush appealed that decision. The Supreme Court of the United States took the case (something that it did not have to do), and remanded the case back to the Supreme Court of Florida for further clarification. That action seemed both proper and appropriate. Then candidate Bush appealed again, and the Supreme Court of the United States heard the case again (which it did not have to do).

The national Supreme Court voted 5-4 to stay (stop) the recount process, pending arguments, arguing that to allow the recounts to continue would cause irreparable harm to candidate Bush. The effect was to bring the electoral victory to candidate Bush. That decision made then and makes now no legal sense. There was no irreparable harm done to anyone by letting the recount continue. There was irreparable harm to those who ballots were discounted and to candidate Gore by stopping the recount. I cannot fathom this decision. It is the sort of thing that happens in tin-horn dictatorships all of the time to legitimize the conclusions of the person in power.

The final decision then rested on an argument that equal protection under the laws required that the certification law hold sway over the accurate counting law. This is the first time that that section of the Constitution had ever reduced the rights of voters. In the past, it had been used to expand the rights of people to have their votes included and counted. The origin of the section was to deal with racial descrimination against blacks after the Civil War so that their ability to vote would be protected. Now, suddenly, the intent of that part of the Constitution was being used to say that some votes didn't count. That's a very strange argument. In the future, that argument could be used to deny the ballot to minorities and people whose opinions are not popular.

The Supreme Court of the United States also said that the Supreme Court of Florida had no right to decide on the conflict of laws issue. There is simply no legal basis for that conclusion.

The problem with these arguments is that they would undermine all sorts of cases from the past. What is the lawnow, as a result? The Supreme Court of the United States said that they would interpret the law this way only in this one case. In other words, they made up the law to fit a compromise that they reached behind closed doors. That's not law, that's dictatorship!

Professor Dershowitz found lots of potential motives. He finds possible reasons for this conclusion for each of the five justices. O'Connor is reputed to want to retire and be replaced by another Republican judge. Having Bush be elected obviously would help. Kennedy apparently wants to be the next chief justice, and has a better chance with Bush. Thomas may want revenge against former Senator Gore's opposition to his nomination. Scalia may want to have more colleagues of his ideological persuasions be appointed. Rehnquist is described as continually meddling on behalf of Republicans in earlier decisions. Whether these motives were in play or not, many will believe that they were. That will hurt the court's credibility.

Obviously, the five justices could decide the case in whatever way they thought the law required. But they owed the rest of us a duty to follow the plain words of the law and legal precedents in the Anglo-Saxon tradition. They did not meet this test. Whether you wanted one candidate or the other to be elected, you were robbed by this decision.

Since these justices are still sitting, Professor Dershowitz argues that the problem can only be solved by appointing better justices who know the law and behave in the ways that Supreme Court justices have done for over 200 years. I agree. Whether you are an Independent, a Republican or a Democrat, I hope you will, too.

We need fairness in the Supreme Court more than anywhere else. What's more, we need the appearance of fairness just as much!

15 of 17 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A Kernel of Truth, June 18, 2001

By A Customer

This review is from: Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000 (Hardcover)

Am and have always been staunch Republican and usually...very conservative. Usually I am placed on the extreme right side of the bell curve. The 2000 election was alarming and hit me like a bug hits my windshield at high speed. I praise Dershowitz for his ideas. His words made me feel as if I were back in my graduate lecture hall in Political Science, "...I disagree with the professor's viewpoint, but listen to the lecture, take notes and know the info for the final exam..."!!!!

Something else happened. Mr. Dershowitz made me think about my political beliefs and I recognized that the separation of powers was jeopordized during past election. My vote was "messed with" by the Supreme Court. I realized that the Justices are humans and indeed do have political positions and allegiance. My vote was reconsidered by the Courts. Didn't we fight the American Revolution to avoid such impositions on voters? GREAT BOOK