During the course of American history, wrongful events have occurred and certain Americans have stood up and spoken out against these wrongs: Tom Paine, Edward R. Murrow, Daniel Ellsberg. Vincent Bugliosi takes his place in this special pantheon of patriots with his powerful, brilliant, and courageous expose of crime by the highest court in the ...
During the course of American history, wrongful events have occurred and certain Americans have stood up and spoken out against these wrongs: Tom Paine, Edward R. Murrow, Daniel Ellsberg. Vincent Bugliosi takes his place in this special pantheon of patriots with his powerful, brilliant, and courageous expose of crime by the highest court in the land. When an article he wrote on this topic appeared in The Nation magazine in February 2001, it drew the largest outpouring of letters and e-mail in the magazine's 136-year history, tapping a deep reservoir of outrage. The original article is now expanded, amended, and backed by amplifications, endnotes, and the relevant Supreme Court documents.
Fine. B000V4SX7W Like New. Clean, Tight and Neat. Five star seller-Ships Quickly-Buy with confidence!
Publishers Weekly, 2001-05-21 On December 12th, 2000, in a 5-4 decision, the U. S. Supreme Court put an end to the recounting of presidential votes in Florida, thus assuring that George W. Bush would win the election. This action by the Court's majority, argues trial lawyer and bestselling author Bugliosi, was a "judicial coup d'?tat" that stole the election from U.S. citizens and simply handed the presidency over to the Court's guy, a conservative Republican like themselves. It was also treasonous, asserts Bugliosi, if not by statute it does not fit the legal definition of treason at least in spirit; the five justices are "criminals in the very truest sense of the word," he says, who have exhibited "the morals of an alley cat." The Florida recount, claimed the Court, was invalid because it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment; as different counties used different methods for determining voter intent, voters were being treated unequally. Bugliosi argues, in precise yet accessible language, on page after page, that this justification does not stand up to scrutiny; that it is an incorrect and unprecedented use of the equal protection clause, feebly applied and argued, and was simply the best excuse the Court majority could come up with. Bugliosi, perhaps best known as the author of Helter Skelter, often writes with the subtlety of a professional wrestler, but here he diverges from much of the outrage that passes for political commentary these days by backing up his bluster with careful legal analysis. The results which, Molly Ivins calls "the modern equivalent of `J'Accuse' " are troubling and fascinating. (June 1) Forecast: This originated as an article in the Nation that brought in more letters than any piece in the magazine's history. There are still a lot of disgruntled Democrats out there who will welcome this biting critique, so expect lively sales and lots of media controversy. Also, on June 18, Oxford University Press will publish Alan M. Dershowitz's take on the Supreme Court decision, Supreme Injustice. Copyright 2001 Cahners Business Information.
Alibris, the Alibris logo, and Alibris.com are registered trademarks of Alibris, Inc.
Copyright in bibliographic data and cover images is held by Nielsen Book Services Limited, Baker & Taylor, Inc., or by their respective licensors, or by the publishers, or by their respective licensors. For personal use only. All rights reserved. All rights in images of books or other publications are reserved by the original copyright holders.