My order was processed in an acceptable amount of time. Book was in condition as advertised.

Dershowitz makes this potentially dry subject very interesting, while remaining credible. Although I went into the book agreeing with the author, the book got me angry all over again. I'd guess that even those who wanted a Bush presidency would find much of the information in this book interesting.

The biggest dissapointment I had with getting this book is that I purchased the Microsoft Reader Version. One is led to believe that one can highlight, cut and paste, etc., by using this new tool for reading. Actually, all you get is electronic pages that are inert. They cannot be printed, one cannot cut and paste from them, all one can do is stare at them on the screen. In order to transfer the print from screen to one's computer, one must first copy (by hand) the print, re-type it on screen into another program, then save. In other words, the e-version, for the researcher is not only ABSOLUTELY USELESS, it DOUBLES THE AMOUNT OF WORK ONE MUST DO TO EXCERPT MATERIAL FROM A BOOK.
I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT KIND OF PERSON MICROSOFT HAD IN MIND WHEN THEY CREATED THIS INFLEXIBLE PRODUCT. IT IS CERTAINLY A DISASTER FOR ME, AND I INTEND TO REQUEST A REFUND ON MY "DIGITAL PURCHASE" SINCE ALL I PURCHASED WAS AN INERT, DOUBLE-THE-WORK TO READ AND EXCERPT BOOK. WHAT A DISASTER! WHAT AN UNMITIGATED DISASTER. IT SORT OF MAKES ONE WONDER WHY THEY EVEN WENT TO THE TROUBLE TO CREATE THIS PRODUCT.

For those who do not know the story, the American Presidential election in 2000 was very close. Democrat Al Gore received more popular votes than Republican George W Bush, but such elections are decided state by state, and the winner in Florida was to determine who would be President. In Florida, more voters intended to vote for Gore than for Bush, but due to several irregularities, the vote was very close. Close enough to require a mandatory recount. Close enough so that either candidate could ask for a hand count of disputed ballots.

As it turned out, a complete recount of all ballots would have confirmed that Gore had won. According to Florida law, such a recount should have been performed. When a recount got under way, it grew increasingly clear that Gore might well win. However, the Republican strategy (in a state where Bush's brother was the governor) was to refuse a recount or to delay any recount until the Presidential winner had to be announced. If the Democrats protested, they would take the case to court. To the Supreme Court. And if they lost that case, they would simply have the Florida legislature declare Bush the winner of the state. Either way, Bush would win an illegitimate victory.

Given that the initial count favored Bush, a Republican victory could not be prevented. And even in the unlikely event that a complete hand count (including "overvotes") favored Bush, neutral observers would still note that a plurality of the Florida voters had tried to vote for Gore, and that Florida law was to favor the clear intent of the voters. So the illegitimacy of the result was inevitable no matter how the hand count came out. The only question was where the blame would rest. Would it be on those in Florida who delayed the count? On the Florida legislature? On the Florida Courts? Or on the Supreme Court?

Dershowitz explains how the blame wound up being applied, quite accurately, to the Supreme Court, which took a case and judged it purely on a partisan basis. And he explains what the result of this mischief will be. First, unlike a miscarriage of justice in a criminal case, which might get blamed on the jurors, the Supreme Court judges are there for life. They'll be considered untrustworthy by a huge number of people for the rest of their lives, and that will make the Supreme Court less credible as long as any of them remain on it. Dershowitz also says that it will call into much greater question the entire process by which Supreme Court judges are selected. And of course, this entire affair has exposed the absurdities of our voting system to the world, which regards us with less esteem as a result.

Many Americans were annoyed with the Supreme Court simply because it picked someone other than the person they voted for. Others were angry because it picked the loser rather than the winner. However, Dershowitz is more concerned with the Supreme Court having showed partisanship at all, especially in a manner that threatens the carefully established checks and balances among branches of government so carefully laid out in our Constitution.

Finally, Dershowitz reminds us that the authority of the Supreme Court "rests on public acceptance of its status as a nonpartisan arbiter of law." Judicial integrity gets built up slowly and in this case was squandered quickly. This book does an excellent job of showing just how dismally the Supreme Court performed here.

U.S. Supreme Court Saved America from Civil War!
The USA Supreme Court saved America. The USA Constitution saved America from chaos, instalbiliy.

The Constitution created three distinct branches of government with "check and balaces". The "legislative", "executive", "judicial" are vested in three seperate branches of government.... and yet Presidents appoint Judges, the Senate can veto Presidential treaties, Congress can override the Presidents veto on a bill....

That how it is supposed to work. Each of the three branches is distinct, seperate, and yet still exercise power over the other.

The USA Supreme Court stepped in to stop the endless recount and saved America from a Civil War. The Supreme Court did the job it was supposed to. The Supreme Court did the job given by the Constitution.

THOSE CAN DO WILL DO, THOSE CANNOT DO WILL TEACH.

Dershowitz is an academic, with tenure, of course, job for life, until he drops dead. Academic never have to work, compete, produce goods, services like in the real world.

If this know-it-all is so smart, why doesn't he run for Congress or President.

Those cannot do will get a job teaching.

I agree with the arguments in the book, but as I progressed past the first chapter I got the feeling the Author was strecthing it out to turn his magazine article into a book.

I was reluctant to read this book, after all he helped get OJ aquitted! but I was blown away! I found his arguments flawless! With the election coming up I hope people will not forget what the Republicans pulled in Florida.

This screed from Dershowitz analyzes the Supreme Court's role in the 2000 election from a legal focus. The point is that the Supreme Court's actions, decisions, and very involvement in the election were unethical and unconstitutional, and here Dershowitz provides plenty of evidence from constitutional law (both Federal and State), court precedents, and each Justice's prior statements in similar cases. Other reviewers have criticized Dershowitz's partisanship - he's a staunch Democrat - and that is a valid concern when it comes to his writing style and frequent lapses into big statements and polemics. Dershowitz's writing is a severe weakness here, with a convoluted and extremely repetitive law-school style, while the later parts of the book drift into speculation and conjecture, especially when examining each Justice's personality and motivations.

However, the evidence is convincing that the five Justices who gave the election to Bush were acting politically and ideologically, with future rewards for themselves in mind, and things would have been different if "the shoe were on the other foot," as Dershowitz says about a thousand times. Most telling are the inconsistencies that Dershowitz finds in each Justice's use of precedents, and deviations from their own previous judicial philosophies, as they waffled in Bush's direction. Dershowitz clearly shows the severe travesty of how the Court found ways to justify not counting all the votes for Gore. However, the Court essentially invalidated the votes for Bush as well, by taking it on itself to decide the election. Thus both sides should be appalled at this collapse in the Supreme Court's respectability. [~doomsdayer520~]

If you don't despise lawyers, a careful reading of Dershowitz' book should help you well along that road. He wants to prove that the Supreme Court decision giving Bush the victory over Gore was not just an error, but a travesty engendered by partisan hacks. He spends a chapter each on attacking the hidden motivations of the judges favoring the Bush side, with cautions that one cannot truly know what motivated the Justices beyond what they wrote. When it comes time for conclusions, however, he assumes that every scurrilous accusation he made was proved beyond doubt. There is a pound of scathing conclusion for every ounce of evidence. And the Justices who supported the Gore side? There are no chapters on their motivations, in fact no mention at all. No need for that in a political hatchet job.

In the legal arguments, Dershowitz' approach is to beat a straw man to death, then dismiss the real issue with a sentence or two. Article II of the Constitution says that state legislatures may select presidential electors in the manner they choose. Article II also reserves to the states powers not granted otherwise by the Constitution. So one issue is to what extent the state courts can interfere with the legislature's seeming right to choose electors in the manner they choose. Dershowitz cites evidence that the majority Justices have supported state powers to legislate rules interpreted by the state courts, but dismisses in a few sentences the possibility that the selection of presidential electors is an exception carved explicitly by the Constitution. One seems to be getting a discussion of the important issue, when in fact it was ducked.

Dershowitz concludes that Congress needs to appoint only "great" Justices to the Supreme Court, and he supposes that only Republican partisanship has prevented that. The "solution" he leaves us therefore amounts to no more than appointing partisan Democrats. The unpleasant cleverness of lawyers is to frame issues in a way that presuppose the answers. Everyone is in favor of "greatness" for Supreme Court justices, right? Yes, certainly. Therefore the Court needs to be loaded with liberal Democrats, right? No, there are other possibilities.

I enjoyed this book and Dershowitz's commentary. I agree with Dershowitz, about the 2000 election but also think that his argument could have been much shorter. Overall, however, it was a quick and informative read written easily for all of us that are not accustomed to legalise. Skim this book and get the main ideas, but don't spend too long - there are too many other good books out there.