From Publishers Weekly
On December 12th, 2000, in a 5-4 decision, the U. S. Supreme Court put an end to the recounting of presidential votes in Florida, thus assuring that George W. Bush would win the election. This action by the Court's majority, argues trial lawyer and bestselling author Bugliosi, was a "judicial coup d'tat" that stole the election from U.S. citizens and simply handed the presidency over to the Court's guy, a conservative Republican like themselves. It was also treasonous, asserts Bugliosi, if not by statute it does not fit the legal definition of treason at least in spirit; the five justices are "criminals in the very truest sense of the word," he says, who have exhibited "the morals of an alley cat." The Florida recount, claimed the Court, was invalid because it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment; as different counties used different methods for determining voter intent, voters were being treated unequally. Bugliosi argues, in precise yet accessible language, on page after page, that this justification does not stand up to scrutiny; that it is an incorrect and unprecedented use of the equal protection clause, feebly applied and argued, and was simply the best excuse the Court majority could come up with. Bugliosi, perhaps best known as the author of Helter Skelter, often writes with the subtlety of a professional wrestler, but here he diverges from much of the outrage that passes for political commentary these days by backing up his bluster with careful legal analysis. The results which, Molly Ivins calls "the modern equivalent of `J'Accuse' " are troubling and fascinating. (June 1)Forecast: This originated as an article in the Nation that brought in more letters than any piece in the magazine's history. There are still a lot of disgruntled Democrats out there who will welcome this biting critique, so expect lively sales and lots of media controversy. Also, on June 18, Oxford University Press will publish Alan M. Dershowitz's take on the Supreme Court decision, Supreme Injustice.
Copyright 2001 Cahners Business Information, Inc.
From Library Journal
Bugliosi (Outrage: 5 Reasons Why O.J. Simpson Got Away with Murder), a former Los Angeles County prosecutor whose most famous trial was the Charles Manson case, uses passion and argument to establish that the U.S. Supreme Court unlawfully chose George W. Bush as president of the United States on December 12, 2000. This brief book affords the author many opportunities to express outrage about the 5-4 Bush v. Gore decision, which he believes was a tragedy for both the U.S. Constitution and democracy. He criticizes the judicial standards and constitutional logic of the Court's five conservative justices, seeing them as morally culpable and claiming that their behavior endangers essential constitutional freedoms. Further, he argues that their interpretation of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment was not founded in solid legal principles. His polemical arguments often move between a wide variety of disparate ideas and topics. Bugliosi's claims about the outrageous nature of the Court decision are quite different from diverse journalistic and scholarly analyses found in other current works, such as editors E.J. Dionne Jr. and William Kristol's Bush v. Gore: The Court Case and Commentaries (LJ 4/1/01). Selected public libraries may choose Bugliosi's trade paperback book for this alternative perspective. Steven Puro, St. Louis Univ.
Copyright 2001 Reed Business Information, Inc.