No Island of Sanity: Paula Jones v. Bill Clinton: The Supreme Court on Trial (Library of Contemporary Thought) (Paperback)

by Vincent Bugliosi (Author) "AS THE EXPRESSION goes when two people of opposite gender keep bumping into each other in different places, "We have to stop meeting like this,..." (more)
Key Phrases: defamation count, unofficial conduct, temporary immunity, Supreme Court, Paula Jones, United States (more...)

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com Review
Vincent Bugliosi, the former L.A. County prosecutor who chronicled his successful efforts to put Charles Manson away in Helter Skelter, isn't afraid to let people know what he thinks. Others might be content to label a Supreme Court decision "incomprehensible and terribly flawed," but few would go on to raise the question of whether that decision reflected "near-pathological dizziness and irrationality" on the part of the nine justices as Bugliosi does in No Island of Sanity, a spirited, 132-page essay that launches Ballantine's monthly Library of Contemporary Thought series.

Although it takes 30 pages of a general rant against modern society for Bugliosi to address the case of Paula Corbin Jones v. William Jefferson Clinton, once he starts, he gets right to the crux of the matter: What on earth compelled the Supreme Court to decide that Paula Jones's private lawsuit against Bill Clinton was of a higher priority than serving the public interest by having a chief executive undistracted from his work? The problem, as he demonstrates, is that Clinton's lawyers tried to convince the Court that a lawsuit against an incumbent President was a violation of constitutional separation-of-powers doctrine, in that it would allow the judiciary branch of the government to have undue influence on the executive branch's fulfillment of its duties. The president's team never tried to argue that the public interest was better served by delaying the Jones suit until after Clinton left the White House.

There are individual points on which one might quibble with Bugliosi--for example, whether America really deserves to be taken seriously by foreigners when scandals such as Clinton's alleged sexual conduct erupts. But Bugliosi's central thesis, that Bill Clinton's request to have Jones's lawsuit delayed was not an extraordinary request, and that consideration both of legal precedent and the public interest ought to have led to the granting of that request, is convincingly argued with passionate rhetoric and vigorous factual support.

Review
...trapped in his tirades is a persuasive critique of the ruling that a sitting President may be forced to defend civil suits arising out of prior conduct. -- The New York Times Book Review, Wendy Kaminer

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 160 pages
• Publisher: Ballantine Books; 1 edition (February 17, 1998)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0345424875
• ISBN-13: 978-0345424877
• Product Dimensions: 8.2 x 5.5 x 0.5 inches
• Shipping Weight: 6.4 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.0 out of 5 stars See all reviews (21 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #1,092,921 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

  Popular in this category: (What's this?)

  #100 in

  Books > Biographies & Memoirs > People, A-Z > ( C ) > Clinton, Bill

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

9 of 10 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Focus, Vince. Focus!, March 3, 1999

By A Customer

I have to chime in and agree with what most people are saying here. When he sticks to the point of the book, which is that the Supreme Court erred when it let the Paula Jones lawsuit proceed while President Clinton was still in office, this book is excellent. However, Mr. Bugliosi wants us to believe that this is merely an example of a whole society that's gone "insane" (using rap music, Ivan Lendl, and navel piercing in support of his argument). Hello? Is there an editor in the house? Bugliosi or his editor or someone should have made him stick with the Court's decision and left the rantings to letters to the editors. Fortunately, the book's not that long so it's a quick read. I'd recommend skipping the first section, though, which is just an irrelevant screed.

3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars not a classic;makes its point, September 13, 2002

By A Customer

Bugliosi begins with an irrelevant social commentary.When he gets to the subject,he makes his point well.The Jones v. Clinton decision of the Supreme Court was a tragic mistake,a travesty of justice that has forever altered the balance of power in the three branches of government,and may do untold harm in the future.

Any fair reading of the FERERALIST PAPERS leads one to conclude that the founders could not have intended for a federal district judge to have the power to compel a sitting president to answer a civil suit.Bugliosi uses Fed.69,by Hamilton,to argue that a sitting president could not even be arrested for murder without first being impeached and removed from office.
Bugliosi correctly sketches the true meaning of the case.The Supreme Court now views itself as the "first among equals" and wields the power of judicial review to assert iteslf against the other two branches,with no repect for precedent or original intent.
Bugliosi also takes on the question ignored by Mr. Clinton's lawyers:the need of Mrs. Paula Jones' interests to be balanced against the interests of all other Americans.Even a soldier undergoing basic training enjoys "temporary immunity" from lawsuits,but the President apparently does not.
On the negative side,Bugliosi's writing style is colloquialistic and unfocused.He can sometimes depart from sober analysis and launch into hyperbolic editorialism in the very same sentence.There is too much slang,and too much "tough guy language",and this does not serve to support his thesis in a meaningful way.
I believe that the Rehnquist Court has waged war against the rights of private citizens and against the traditional balance of the separation of powers.Bugliosi argues convincingly that the latter is,at least,the case.This book was written before the Clinton Impeachment.A revised edition is now in order.However,the legal reasoning would be the same.

5 of 6 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars A hundred unnecessary pages, September 5, 1998

By	J. Davis (San Diego, CA United States) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

This is the first book Bugliosi has written that I did not enjoy reading. His basic thesis is sound and would have been fine for a magazine article, but he goes way off the subject and rambles incessantly. His ego has reached immense proprtions; he can't stop talking about how brilliant he is and how stupid everyone else is. There are too many ad hominem attacks and irrelevant analogies that have nothing to do with the book's main subject ( I still don't understand what the Florida Marlins, Kevin Garnett, and Ivan Lendl have to do with the book's critique of the Court).