Supreme Injustice

Mr. Dershowitz argues Bush v. Gore from every possible angle and the verdict is the same: 5 Supreme Court Justices handed the presidency to G.W. Bush. It doesn't matter who "really" won in Florida. The election was decided elsewhere, by 4 men and a woman who were not elected and who are supposed to be above partisan politics.For those concerned about the state of democracy, this is a truly scary book. As with Dershowitz's other books, it is meticulously researched and yet totally readable.

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

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.

I have been waiting for the book that would explain in detail just how corrupt and partisan Bush v. Gore really was, and this is it. I'm not a big Dershowitz fan, but he has actually performed a public service with this book. The juxtaposition between, for instance, the five conservative justices' votes on death penalty stays and on the stay in this case, will leave you scratching your head at how they define irreperable harm. Dershowitz calls for a change in the way we choose our justices and after reading SUPREME INJUSTICE I say let's do it.

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 irr