What do you think?
Rate this book
Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000
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.
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.
288 pages, Paperback
First published January 9, 2001
4 people are currently reading
213 people want to read
About the author
Alan M. Dershowitz
148 books318 followersAlan Morton Dershowitz is an American lawyer, jurist, and political commentator. He is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. He is known for his career as an attorney in several high-profile law cases and commentary on the Arab-Israeli conflict.
He has spent most of his career at Harvard, where, at the age of 28, he became the youngest full professor in its history, until Noam Elkies took the record. Dershowitz still holds the record as the youngest person to become a professor of law there.
As a criminal appellate lawyer, Dershowitz has won thirteen out of the fifteen murder and attempted murder cases he has handled. He successfully argued to overturn the conviction of Claus von Bülow for the attempted murder of Bülow's wife, Sunny. Dershowitz was the appellate advisor for the defense in the criminal trial of O.J. Simpson for the murder of his ex-wife Nicole Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman.
He has spent most of his career at Harvard, where, at the age of 28, he became the youngest full professor in its history, until Noam Elkies took the record. Dershowitz still holds the record as the youngest person to become a professor of law there.
As a criminal appellate lawyer, Dershowitz has won thirteen out of the fifteen murder and attempted murder cases he has handled. He successfully argued to overturn the conviction of Claus von Bülow for the attempted murder of Bülow's wife, Sunny. Dershowitz was the appellate advisor for the defense in the criminal trial of O.J. Simpson for the murder of his ex-wife Nicole Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
July 22, 2024
A FAMOUS LAWYER CRITIQUES THE SUPREME COURT'S 2000 DECISION
Alan Morton Dershowitz (born September 1, 1938) is an American lawyer, jurist, and political commentator. He wrote in the introduction to this 2001 book, "In this book, I will try to cast a bright light on the (Supreme) Court's decision and the justices who engineered it. At the same time, I will try to explain how we could have come to the point where five unelected judges, appointed for life and accountable to no one, could have had so much influence---in so partisan a manner---on the political destiny of a nation that proclaims itself to be the world's protector of democracy."
He observes that never before in American history had a presidential election been decided by the Supreme Court. (Pg. 5) He points out difficulties with the confusing "butterfly ballot" in Florida (where "voters who were confused by the ballot ... worried that they had accidentally voted for the wrong candidate"; pg. 23). Gore also lost 6,607 votes by people who erroneously "double punched" his name, as well as Pat Buchanan's: "more than ten times the number of votes he would have needed to overcome Bush's official 537-vote margin of victory." (Pg. 25)
He strongly disagrees with the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision to stop the recount in Florida, arguing that "there was no victim in this case other than the voters ... whose votes were never counted because of the Supreme Court's decision... disenfranchising thousands of voters." (Pg. 81) He suggests that the conservative majority "had additional possible motives to help ensure the election of George W. Bush." (Pg. 155) He is disappointed that they chose not to recuse themselves from voting.
This is an excellent analysis (from the strongly pro-Gore side, of course) of the legal side of the controversy.
Alan Morton Dershowitz (born September 1, 1938) is an American lawyer, jurist, and political commentator. He wrote in the introduction to this 2001 book, "In this book, I will try to cast a bright light on the (Supreme) Court's decision and the justices who engineered it. At the same time, I will try to explain how we could have come to the point where five unelected judges, appointed for life and accountable to no one, could have had so much influence---in so partisan a manner---on the political destiny of a nation that proclaims itself to be the world's protector of democracy."
He observes that never before in American history had a presidential election been decided by the Supreme Court. (Pg. 5) He points out difficulties with the confusing "butterfly ballot" in Florida (where "voters who were confused by the ballot ... worried that they had accidentally voted for the wrong candidate"; pg. 23). Gore also lost 6,607 votes by people who erroneously "double punched" his name, as well as Pat Buchanan's: "more than ten times the number of votes he would have needed to overcome Bush's official 537-vote margin of victory." (Pg. 25)
He strongly disagrees with the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision to stop the recount in Florida, arguing that "there was no victim in this case other than the voters ... whose votes were never counted because of the Supreme Court's decision... disenfranchising thousands of voters." (Pg. 81) He suggests that the conservative majority "had additional possible motives to help ensure the election of George W. Bush." (Pg. 155) He is disappointed that they chose not to recuse themselves from voting.
This is an excellent analysis (from the strongly pro-Gore side, of course) of the legal side of the controversy.
December 6, 2008
Brilliant, fascinating, analytical -- Bush v. Gore -- and how we got here. Dershowitz prove beyond any doubt (and I use these terms strictly) that the case was wrongly decided -- and shows exactly how this came about -- what motivated each of the offending Justices.
Rehnquist, Thomas, Scalia were all ideologues, of course; but Dershowitz shows, again beyond any doubt, how Scalia's opinions in Bush v. Gore absolutely ran counter, in a purely legal sense, to everything he had previously written and believed.
O'Conner was probably motivated by the naive view that Bush would be just another average Republican, and allowed feelings of party loyalty to trump logic and the law. And Kennedy, Dershowitz believes, most disgracefully of all was driven merely by personal ambition: the view that his vote would endear him the Republican Party and earn him the Chief Justice slot on Rehnquist's retirement or death.
Bush v. Gore: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._...
(with this, see Jeffrey Toobin's excellent book The Nine
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/24...
Rehnquist, Thomas, Scalia were all ideologues, of course; but Dershowitz shows, again beyond any doubt, how Scalia's opinions in Bush v. Gore absolutely ran counter, in a purely legal sense, to everything he had previously written and believed.
O'Conner was probably motivated by the naive view that Bush would be just another average Republican, and allowed feelings of party loyalty to trump logic and the law. And Kennedy, Dershowitz believes, most disgracefully of all was driven merely by personal ambition: the view that his vote would endear him the Republican Party and earn him the Chief Justice slot on Rehnquist's retirement or death.
Bush v. Gore: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._...
(with this, see Jeffrey Toobin's excellent book The Nine
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/24...
October 16, 2016
Most of this book just got me worked up again by the sheer audacity of the action, but Dershowitz goes through the 2000 election and the Supreme Court decision to become involved in a clear way. The political ramifications have had far reaching affects, and he discusses the many ways it will change our country. I found this book clearly defines the role of the Supreme Court and what it means to overreach.
January 4, 2021
Twenty years after the Supreme Court delivered this disaster of an opinion, this book is even more prescient, more relevant for modern readers than in January 2001. As I finished this less than a week before the US House and Senate will convene to count the votes from the 2020 election, Americans are worried. Over the past two months the Trump campaign and his supporters have made some pretty dumb arguments, to wit:
1). Texas and about 20 other states filed suit in the Supreme Court to overturn the votes in Michigan, Georgia, Penn., and Wisc.;
2). Several members of the House brought suit last week, seeking a declaration that the Vice President has sole discretion to determine the winner of states' electoral college votes;
3). The Trump campaign has filed dozens of suits in multiple swing states, seeking to nullify votes despite his own attorney general stating that there was "no evidence of fraud" and despite the US Department of Homeland Security stating that this 2020 election was the "most secure in US history."
So what does any of this have to do with Bush v Gore, you ask? It's about credibility and the rule of law. In the months leading up to the 2020 election, many Americans found themselves asking whether the voting really mattered. (We should be otherwise pretty confident that dumb arguments will result in dismissals). Do we still live in a democratic republic, or are our close elections to be decided by the Courts? In this book Dershowitz points out how the majority justices decided to stop the votes in Florida based on a violation of the Equal Protection Clause despite: those judges historically limiting equal protection claims to race-based claims; failing to even identify the class of persons against whom there was discrimination; treating the Florida Supreme Court as though it was some lower Federal Court (and, again, this was contrary to States' Rights advocates positions that these very judges had taken). Bush v Gore left a very bad taste in the mouths of many Americans, leaving us cynical, jaded, hurt.
In the month before the 2020 election, the President himself stated that "this election will be decided by the Supreme Court," and then, in a naked grab for power, the Republican-controlled senate rushed to install a supreme Court justice (who was actually very qualified according to the American Bar Association). This Senate confirmation hearing became one of the most important events of 2020 (a year with lots of important events) for all Americans because our belief in the Supreme Court had been tarnished: no longer was this the unbiased, principled bastion of the Rule of Law, but just another political body, not a check on the power of the executive, but a functionary of the executive.
Dershowitz also points out, and this is really crucial, that Bush v Gore is not just among the most damaging, ill conceived opinions of the Supreme Court in US History. It is almost WORSE than Plessy v. Ferguson, worse than Dred Scott, worse than Korematsu -because the judges who decided those cases at least thought they were doing the right thing. Bush v Gore (and this is according to Dershowitz) reflects the decision of political actors making a decision that favors one litigant over another just because of that litigant's political party. Indeed the Court should be free of dirty politics, not rolling around in the mud with pigs. Likely the Court (I found his arguments to be persuasive), will have a hard time pulling itself out of the mud for a long, long, time.
1). Texas and about 20 other states filed suit in the Supreme Court to overturn the votes in Michigan, Georgia, Penn., and Wisc.;
2). Several members of the House brought suit last week, seeking a declaration that the Vice President has sole discretion to determine the winner of states' electoral college votes;
3). The Trump campaign has filed dozens of suits in multiple swing states, seeking to nullify votes despite his own attorney general stating that there was "no evidence of fraud" and despite the US Department of Homeland Security stating that this 2020 election was the "most secure in US history."
So what does any of this have to do with Bush v Gore, you ask? It's about credibility and the rule of law. In the months leading up to the 2020 election, many Americans found themselves asking whether the voting really mattered. (We should be otherwise pretty confident that dumb arguments will result in dismissals). Do we still live in a democratic republic, or are our close elections to be decided by the Courts? In this book Dershowitz points out how the majority justices decided to stop the votes in Florida based on a violation of the Equal Protection Clause despite: those judges historically limiting equal protection claims to race-based claims; failing to even identify the class of persons against whom there was discrimination; treating the Florida Supreme Court as though it was some lower Federal Court (and, again, this was contrary to States' Rights advocates positions that these very judges had taken). Bush v Gore left a very bad taste in the mouths of many Americans, leaving us cynical, jaded, hurt.
In the month before the 2020 election, the President himself stated that "this election will be decided by the Supreme Court," and then, in a naked grab for power, the Republican-controlled senate rushed to install a supreme Court justice (who was actually very qualified according to the American Bar Association). This Senate confirmation hearing became one of the most important events of 2020 (a year with lots of important events) for all Americans because our belief in the Supreme Court had been tarnished: no longer was this the unbiased, principled bastion of the Rule of Law, but just another political body, not a check on the power of the executive, but a functionary of the executive.
Dershowitz also points out, and this is really crucial, that Bush v Gore is not just among the most damaging, ill conceived opinions of the Supreme Court in US History. It is almost WORSE than Plessy v. Ferguson, worse than Dred Scott, worse than Korematsu -because the judges who decided those cases at least thought they were doing the right thing. Bush v Gore (and this is according to Dershowitz) reflects the decision of political actors making a decision that favors one litigant over another just because of that litigant's political party. Indeed the Court should be free of dirty politics, not rolling around in the mud with pigs. Likely the Court (I found his arguments to be persuasive), will have a hard time pulling itself out of the mud for a long, long, time.
March 2, 2019
If, like me, you were either too young to remember this case--or want a detailed account of it--this book will be a good read. Dershowitz is a prominent legal educator in his own right, and approaches the topic from a fair, albeit partisan, standpoint.
Bush v. Gore radically changed the landscape of this nation and America's foreign policy. I often find myself wondering what life would be like had Gore been given the presidency.
Bush v. Gore radically changed the landscape of this nation and America's foreign policy. I often find myself wondering what life would be like had Gore been given the presidency.
January 26, 2020
Well written, but not a memoir or autobiography. It's an analysis of the 2000 election.
Read
March 9, 2017Important to read.
April 11, 2012
A very long rant against the Supreme Court that hijacked the 2000 Election and made cynics of many people in their attitude towards the Supreme Court.
And a well deserved rant it is.
Mostly true, too.
Certainly the author is a very biased liberal Democrat. But his arguments are quite on point. And he proves his case quite well, in my opinion. The strongest part of the book is that he takes the majority Justices' own prior rulings and principles, and then shows how these prior principles were simply ignored and contradicted in order to achieve a predetermined victory for Mr. Bush. Indeed, he lets the Justices judge themselves, and to their great shame they are found guilty. Guilty of rigging an election; guilty of not upholding the law; guilty of partisanship; guilty of injustice. His case is well proved, I say.
Finally, I think that the author is onto something when he posits that the most fundamental reason why the Supreme Court has become so political (as opposed to impartial) is because of Roe v. Wade. A majority of Americans who feel this ruling is illogical and despicably unjust have been co-opted by the fringe right into supporting ever more radical politicians, who in turn appoint radical Justices that care more about ideology than law. But how can you not? When the slaughter of millions is happening before your very eyes, will you sit idly by, or will you try anything to stop it? Indeed, I think the author has it right: a wanton abandonment of the rule of law (which is what happened when the decision of Roe v. Wade stopped giving the protection of the laws to those who need it the most) can only breed despotic disregard for the rule of law. Especially when half the population is addicted to their wanton disregard of their own children.
Or, as the wise Mr. Chesterton once put it: `When you break the great laws, you do not get freedom; you do not even get anarchy; you get the SMALL laws'. In this case, rules of procedure, regarding how you *must* vote (and apparently via mechanical means only) in order for government to better be able to disregard your voice and do what it wants to do anyway.
And a well deserved rant it is.
Mostly true, too.
Certainly the author is a very biased liberal Democrat. But his arguments are quite on point. And he proves his case quite well, in my opinion. The strongest part of the book is that he takes the majority Justices' own prior rulings and principles, and then shows how these prior principles were simply ignored and contradicted in order to achieve a predetermined victory for Mr. Bush. Indeed, he lets the Justices judge themselves, and to their great shame they are found guilty. Guilty of rigging an election; guilty of not upholding the law; guilty of partisanship; guilty of injustice. His case is well proved, I say.
Finally, I think that the author is onto something when he posits that the most fundamental reason why the Supreme Court has become so political (as opposed to impartial) is because of Roe v. Wade. A majority of Americans who feel this ruling is illogical and despicably unjust have been co-opted by the fringe right into supporting ever more radical politicians, who in turn appoint radical Justices that care more about ideology than law. But how can you not? When the slaughter of millions is happening before your very eyes, will you sit idly by, or will you try anything to stop it? Indeed, I think the author has it right: a wanton abandonment of the rule of law (which is what happened when the decision of Roe v. Wade stopped giving the protection of the laws to those who need it the most) can only breed despotic disregard for the rule of law. Especially when half the population is addicted to their wanton disregard of their own children.
Or, as the wise Mr. Chesterton once put it: `When you break the great laws, you do not get freedom; you do not even get anarchy; you get the SMALL laws'. In this case, rules of procedure, regarding how you *must* vote (and apparently via mechanical means only) in order for government to better be able to disregard your voice and do what it wants to do anyway.
July 24, 2007
Read this book for a paper my senior year in college. I was rather disappointed on the author's criticism of the judges of the case it dealt with. I think I would've enjoyed it more if it wasn't being used for a scholary paper.
Read
May 1, 2009Most of this book was great - a thorough criticism of the court's decision with some helpful background on precedents and the justices. In the last 15 pages though, he kind of goes after Roe v. Wade, which seems to come out of left field, and isn't fully explained.
October 20, 2007
Guaranteed to get your blood boiling.
Want to read
January 28, 2008"Unprecedentd" Documentary
November 27, 2011
A tough read to understand. I got the basic idea.
January 20, 2016
Readers should take into account liberal bias by the author. Still, intellectually stimulating and good expalantions of what went down in Bush v. Gore.
March 13, 2016
As in his other books, Alan Dershowitz clarifies complex legal issues, explaining concepts such as "equal protection" and "irreparable harm" as it concerns the Bush election process in 2000.
Currently reading
January 26, 2016O auge da supremacia judicial.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews