The legal precedents cited in the Supreme Court's decision to uphold George W. Bush as the winner of the disputed 2000 presidential election are examined and proven faulty in this probe first published in the New Republic . Specific examples of judges misquoting their previous decisions reveal that the legal grounding of the landmark case does not hold up under scrutiny. This blistering, no-holds-barred account offers an argument not based on partisan divisions as the author is a Republican and former advisor during the pivotal Watergate hearings.
Born in Milan, Italy, Adler grew up in Danbury, Connecticut after her parents had fled Nazi Germany in 1933. After attending Bryn Mawr, The Sorbonne, and Harvard, she became a staff writer-reporter for The New Yorker. She later received her J.D. from Yale Law School, and an Honorary Doctorate of Laws from Georgetown University.
Adler’s essays and articles have been collected in Toward a Radical Middle (1969) and A Year in the Dark (1970), Reckless Disregard (1986), and Canaries in the Mineshaft (2001). Renata Adler is also the author of two successful novels Speedboat (1976) and Pitch Dark (1983). Both novels are composed of seemingly unconnected passages that challenge readers to find meaning. Like her nonfiction, Adler's novels examine the issues and mores of contemporary life.
In 1987, Adler was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Letters. That same year, she received an honorary doctorate from Georgetown University. Her "Letter from Selma" has been published in the Library of America volume of Civil Rights Reporting. An essay from her tenure as film critic of The New York Times is included in the Library of America volume of American Film Criticism. In 2004, she served as a Media Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institute.
In IRREPARABLE HARM, Renata Adler, the long-time star of the New Yorker magazine who is also an attorney and a life-long Republican, takes a blistering look at the Bush v. Gore Supreme Court decision, and uncovers numerous problems, including instances where the judges mis-cited their own previous decisions, or reversed them.