Highly Unjust: How the Supreme Court Held Up the 2000 Election

Author: (American) Alan Dershowitz
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2003-10-01
Features: Who Really Lost the 2000 Election? "Although we cannot be absolutely certain about the identity of the winner of the 2000 presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. That is the nation's trust in judges as impartial guardians of the rule of law." —John Paul Stevens, Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, in his dissenting opinion in Bush v. Gore, which ended the 2000 election with a 5-4 vote by the five justices who stopped the manual recount in Florida, damaged the credibility of the U.S. Supreme Court, and their illegal ruling in Bush v. Gore presaged an impact on Americans that was likely to be more lasting than the election results themselves. In Unjust,, Alan Dershowitz—one of America's most distinguished legal experts—explains why the Bush v. Gore case will become a lasting legacy of the most contested election in American history. Dershowitz skillfully explains:
- Why the U.S. Supreme Court's decision was unprincipled
- How the U.S. Supreme Court betrayed the trust of both Democrats and Republicans
- How the U.S. Supreme Court failed the "Equal Footing Test"
- Why the moral authority of the U.S. Supreme Court is important and how it was compromised
- The lessons of Bush v. Gore for all of us
In 2004, voters had the opportunity to reassess the results of the 2000 election, but these five justices hold lifetime appointments and are accountable to no one. Dershowitz delivers a sharp critique of their actions, hoping the American people will ensure that future justices do not repeat such injustice.
The U.S. Supreme Court's controversial ruling in Bush v. Gore ended the 2000 presidential election, leaving countless Americans bewildered and furious. The U.S. Supreme Court holds a unique position in the system of checks and balances and is considered the embodiment of fairness and principle. Because it is believed to be above political conflict, how could it make a biased ruling, and how could it deliver a candidate to the White House who was, at the time, known to have actually lost the election?
In Unjust,, author and legal expert Alan M. Dershowitz directly confronts these questions, ultimately leaving those still angered by the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling no longer mystified by the Bush v. Gore case. Dershowitz, who once served as a law clerk to a U.S. Supreme Court justice, argues that in this case, the majority on the court prioritized a specific biased outcome over legal principles. Like in his other best-selling books, Dershowitz clarifies complex legal issues, explaining concepts such as "equal protection" and "irreparable harm."
After a thorough examination of the justices' previous writings and rulings, Dershowitz proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the justices who put George W. Bush in the presidency abandoned their earlier positions to achieve this goal. As one of the most biased rulings in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court, Bush v. Gore damaged the court's image—as an impartial arbiter of important national issues. Dershowitz believes that this has resulted in the loss of respect from the American people, severely threatening the court's position in the nation's affairs.
Nevertheless, Dershowitz sees that this constitutional crisis can produce something beneficial—if we learn the lessons of Bush v. Gore and take timely measures to prevent such an event from happening again.