Bush v. Gore

The 2000 Presidential election ended in a collision of history, law, and the courts. It produced a deadlock that dragged out the result for over a month, and consequences--real and imagined--that promise to drag on for years. In the first in-depth study of the election and its litigious aftermath, Judge Posner surveys the history and theory of American electoral law and practice, analyzes which Presidential candidate ''really'' won the popular vote in Florida, surveys the litigation that ensued, evaluates the courts, the lawyers, and the commentators, and ends with a blueprint for reforming our Presidential electoral practices.The book starts with an overview of the electoral process, including its history and guiding theories. It looks next at the Florida election itself, exploring which candidate ''really'' won and whether this is even a meaningful question. The focus then shifts to the complex litigation, both state and federal, provoked by the photo finish. On the basis of the pragmatic jurisprudence that Judge Posner has articulated and defended in his previous writings, this book offers an alternative justification for the Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore while praising the Court for averting the chaotic consequences of an unresolved deadlock.Posner also evaluates the performance of the lawyers who conducted the post-election litigation and of the academics who commented on the unfolding drama. He argues that neither Gore's nor Bush's lawyers blundered seriously, but that the reaction of the legal professoriat to the litigation exposed serious flaws in the academic practice of constitutional law. While rejecting such radical moves as abolishing the Electoral College or creating a national ballot, Posner concludes with a detailed plan of feasible reforms designed to avoid a repetition of the 2000 election fiasco.Lawyers, political scientists, pundits, and politicians are waiting to hear what Judge Posner has to say. But this book is written for and will be welcomed by all who were riveted by the recent crisis of presidential succession.

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.

The Unfinished Election of 2000 gathers America's leading historians, political scientists, and constitutional lawyers to examine the strange and unprecedented events of the 2000 election. Together, these essays offer an election book very different from the ones we are too familiar with: not a journalistic account of campaigning and media strategy but a reflective assessment of the strangest election in modern American history.

""The Longest Night provides a comprehensive and insightful look at our country's most fascinating election. The contributions from political insiders are utterly absorbing. Sharply written and edited; an impressive collaboration."--Susan Estrich, author of "Sex and Power

"Arthur Jacobson and Michel Rosenfeld have provided a very important civic service. Their collection of commentaries on the disputed presidential election of 2000 brings all the confusion and frenzy of that event into clear intellectual focus. On one level it documents the most lively and informed reaction to the legal aftermath of the election. But it does more. It contains a range of erudite and well-reasoned interpretations, not just of the law and court decisions, but also of political institutions, the constitutional history, and the election itself."--Mary P Ryan, author of "Civic Wars: Democracy and Public Life in the American City during the Nineteenth Century

"The great strength of this book is its inclusion of international perspectives on the American presidential debacle of 2000. After reading the insights of commentators and scholars from France, Italy, Germany, and elsewhere, it becomes clear precisely why, like an aging Humpty-Dumpty, our patchwork set of elitist assumptions, idiosyncratic practices, and archaic democratic institutions came tumbling down in Florida. It is too late simply to put Humtpy-Dumpty back together again. "The Longest Night reminds us that the United States has much to learn from those countries that are boldly advandcing the future of democracy and leaving us in their dust."--Lani Guinier, coauthor of "The Miner's Canary: Enlisting Race, Resisting Power, Transforming Democracy

A collection of essays by leading scholars contemplating the future of American democracy.

The current five-vote majority on the Supreme Court may be the most divisive, anti-democratic court in American history. No one expects the justices to be a-political, but to say that there is 'no Constitutional right to vote' as they did in Bush v. Gore, is to go against everything America stands for. Overruling Democracy disputes the majority's awful rulings on third parties, race, high schools and corporations.