The Vote: Bush, Gore, and the Supreme Court (Paperback)

by Cass R. Sunstein (Editor), Richard A. Epstein (Editor) "On January 20, 2001, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist administered the traditional oath of office to George W. Bush, the forty-third president of the United..." (more)
Key Phrases: newest equal protection, county canvassing board, contest statute, Florida Supreme Court, Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, Fourteenth Amendment (more...)

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly
This collection of articles on the presidential election, selected by two distinguished legal scholars from the University of Chicago, vary wildly in quality from subtle brilliance to pure bunk. None of the U.S. Supreme Court's defenders actually defends its final decision in Bush v. Gore Epstein and Richard Posner, for instance, attack the Florida Supreme Court in strained support of the Rehnquist/Thomas/Scalia concurrence; John C. Yoo, ironically, ends up defending the Court's legitimacy by arguing that the majority has been consistently hypocritical regarding its own judicial activism. Some critics partially return the favor of self-inflicted wounding, most notably Sunstein, who endorses the notion that the Court helped avoid a "constitutional crisis" (which Sunstein never adequately explains). Pamela S. Karlan and Richard H. Pildes offer excellent studies, illuminating the Court's disturbingly unacknowledged anti-democratic patterns. Pildes explores the justices' intuitions regarding the nature of democracy it is fragile and dangerous for the conservatives, robust, trustworthy and self-correcting for Stevens and Ginsburg reflected in decisions on issues such as fusion candidacies and candidate access to TV debates. Karlan places their equal protection decision in a larger pattern of conservative 14th Amendment judicial activism that has struck down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as well as redistricting plans giving racial minorities roughly proportional political representation, creating an unacknowledged line of precedent hostile to legislative protections of minority rights. Some other critics reveal a disturbing naivet‚ in their almost mystical trust that the Court is beyond partisanship that befuddles otherwise promising, trenchant analyses. (Oct.)Forecast: This postelection analysis is for lawyers and scholars, not the general reader.

Copyright 2001 Cahners Business Information, Inc.

From Library Journal
Two University of Chicago professors of law and jurisprudence, assisted by other nationally renowned legal scholars from Harvard, Columbia, Berkeley, the University of Michigan, and the University of Utah, here dissect last year's Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore. Just as the Supreme Court was split 5-4 in its decision, the contributors to this scholarly, technical volume apparently split 6-5 in their view that the high court was wrong to take the case. The authors submit varying remedies, from declining to take the case in the first place, to sending it to Congress, to applauding the Court for administering "rough justice" to end the election's chaos. Replete with footnotes and detailed discussion of the legal underpinnings of the Court's decision, this collection will delight legal scholars on both sides of the fence, especially those weary of election-inspired books with a single viewpoint. The contributing professors have done their homework, even if they can't agree on the outcome. For specialized law collections. Harry Charles, Attorney at Law, St. Louis
Copyright 2001 Reed Business Information, Inc.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 232 pages
• Publisher: University Of Chicago Press (October 1, 2001)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0226213072
• ISBN-13: 978-0226213071
• Product Dimensions: 8.2 x 5.2 x 0.5 inches
• Shipping Weight: 13.4 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.0 out of 5 stars See all reviews (1 customer review)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #929,763 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

2 of 5 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Disappointingly uneven, but worth it , August 30, 2007

By	Allan Brain (Houston, TX USA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

In late November and early December of 2000, the American public got what started out as a promising lesson in civics and constitutional law. That is, until the outrageous decision in Bush v. Gore, which only a few serious scholars support. A couple of them contribute to this book and they are as unconvincing as ever. But then some, inluding the ubiquitous Richard Posner, are on record supporting other notoriously wrong decisions.

But you don't have to read the contributions of Epstein, Posner, or Yoo. The book is worth it for the Richard Pildes piece, "Democracy and Disorder"", a discussion of several Supreme Court decisions where the Court has made what I believe to be egregious and erroneous rulings that protect the existing two-party system from innovations that would arguably strengthen our democracy. Consistent dissenters from that line of cases are the two justices perhaps most likely to retire soon, Stevens and Ginzburg, who were the most vigorous of the dissenters in Bush v. Gore.

Why are these decisions erroneous and egregious? Well, for one thing, the Constitution does not even mention political parties. Pildes's point is that the Court seems afraid of democracy and any tendency toward disorder that may spring from such innovations as blanket primaries--primary elections systems that would allow voters to vote for candidates in either party. What he fails to develop is the point that these so-called "conservative" justices are mostly the very bloc that claims not to be making law, just interpreting the Constitution according to the intent of the framers.

Alas, another problem with Pildes's otherwise excellent essay/article is that it is plagued by academic jargon, including for example the use of the term "context" repeatedly where the word should be "circumstances", or "situation". This is tiresome and rises to the level of mannerism as the term is stretched to serve almost as a syntactical transition here and there and gratutiously employed to serve almost every purpose. For example, one of the footnotes suggest that the reader refer to another book "for greater context" on the legal questions.

Editor Sunstein also has his favorite vogue words, one of which seems to be "cabin" used as a verb to mean "confine" or "restrict". This too becomes tiresome.

The University of Chicago Law School is a very presitigious institution and the University itself is affiliated with a manual of style used by professional writers. So these stylistic errors, which are annoying in several of these articles, are unfortunate.

I concur with other reviewers that this book is for law students and lawyers, not the general public. That too is perhaps unfortunate in that the arguments and points could have been simplified and explained more clearly for a lay readership, leaving the abstruse legal matters to the footnotes. And speaking of the footnotes, and to end on a positive note, at least they are at the bottom of the page, not at the end of the book, though perhaps if the book had been aimed at a less specialized or lay reader, the notes would be less distracting at the end.