Product Description

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #564464 in Books
• Published on: 2001-05-03
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 192 pages

Features

• ISBN13: 9781560253556
• Condition: NEW
• Notes: Brand New from Publisher. No Remainder Mark.
• Click here to view our Condition Guide and Shipping Prices

From Publishers Weekly
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, Inc.

From Library Journal
Bugliosi (Outrage: 5 Reasons Why O.J. Simpson Got Away with Murder), a former Los Angeles County prosecutor whose most famous trial was the Charles Manson case, uses passion and argument to establish that the U.S. Supreme Court unlawfully chose George W. Bush as president of the United States on December 12, 2000. This brief book affords the author many opportunities to express outrage about the 5-4 Bush v. Gore decision, which he believes was a tragedy for both the U.S. Constitution and democracy. He criticizes the judicial standards and constitutional logic of the Court's five conservative justices, seeing them as morally culpable and claiming that their behavior endangers essential constitutional freedoms. Further, he argues that their interpretation of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment was not founded in solid legal principles. His polemical arguments often move between a wide variety of disparate ideas and topics. Bugliosi's claims about the outrageous nature of the Court decision are quite different from diverse journalistic and scholarly analyses found in other current works, such as editors E.J. Dionne Jr. and William Kristol's Bush v. Gore: The Court Case and Commentaries (LJ 4/1/01). Selected public libraries may choose Bugliosi's trade paperback book for this alternative perspective. Steven Puro, St. Louis Univ.
Copyright 2001 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Booklist
This book makes a strong case that the December 12 ruling of the Supreme Court turned that revered institution into a surrogate for the Republican Party. Could anyone conceive, Bugliosi wonders, of Justice Scalia et al. issuing an order to stop counting votes because it might do Gore "irreparable harm"? Bugliosi's writing style can best be described as clunky, with many a tortured phrase. Yet as a prosecutor trained to lead juries step by step to the conclusion he wants, Bugliosi does an interesting job of building his case, starting with "the untenable argument that there was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause." There is also a thought-provoking discussion of how the five states rights judges got entangled in the Florida case, the delegitimation of hand counts, and how the press managed to miss the story even as they relentlessly covered it. No doubt many people will feel Bugliosi goes over the line when he says the majority's actions can be construed as treason. But those who give this a fair reading will be fascinated. Ilene Cooper
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved

Customer Reviews

An essay that will not go away
During the nation's plodding attempt to resolve the election, I paid attention day and night to the news. I downloaded and read many of the legal papers. Nothing fazed me, and I lost much sleep in my eagerness to hear and read more. But when the Supreme Court's opinion was released, I downloaded it, searched for the parts to which NBC news reporters had pointed as key, read them, and went into shock.

Realizing that, if the candidates had been reversed, the opinion would not have been the same, I attributed the contrived arguments to the ravages of unconscious bias. Unwittingly, I had assumed without evidence that, as justices of the Supreme Court, the Five would not abuse their positions knowingly to appoint a U.S. prime executive.

Then "The Nation" published Bugliosi's "None Dare Call It Treason" and distributed it over the Internet. I read this essay on-line and realized my error. Throwing off my unwarranted assumption that the bias had to have been unconscious, and retaining what else I already knew from my studies, I came to the same conclusion as Bugliosi: that the Five had committed a deliberate act of perfidy.

"None Dare Call It Treason" has been spreading among Americans for but a short while. Now in book form, as "The Betrayal of America", the essay's distribution will increase many times over, and perhaps many other readers will be able to cast aside the one assumption that blocks their most rational conclusion. This document will outlast the terms of the Five and become historic as one of the most useful things said publicly, at the time, about the Five's unfathomable imposition. This essay will not go away.

A Registered Republican Blasts the Felonious Five
That's right, folks: Vincent Bugliosi is a Republican. Or was, last time I looked.

But he is one of the few Republicans in the nation with the guts to say, out loud, what we all know: The GOP, with the help of the GOP members of the Supreme Court, STOLE THE 2000 ELECTION.

In proof after proof after proof, Bugliosi takes a sledgehammer to the SCOTUS' ruling in Bush v. Gore, and also to the myth of the "unbiased, apolitical" Supreme Court. (In one of the book's more chilling passages, Bugliosi demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that William Rehnquist, out of sheer naked partisanship, committed perjury in order to get onto the SC, and again in order to become Chief "Justice". As Bugliosi says, Rehnquist should be making license plates, not running the nation's highest court.)

How long will the quisling Republicans be allowed to run roughshod?

The Truth is Revealed
Mr. Bugliosi has written a book that should be read by every American.

If you are of the opinion that the election of 2000 was a testament to the ultimate power of the individual voter, then you are misguided. This book outlines with irrefutable evidence that the Supreme Court silenced the American Voter when 5 justices handed down their decision and decided our future president. Mr. Bugliosi is never more accurate than when he states the election of George Bush was a "judicial coup d'etat," perpetrated by self-serving justices who held their own beliefs over the laws they were sworn to uphold.

It would also be easy to dismiss this book as having a liberal agenda. However, Mr. Bugliosi is a Conservative and shares this opinion with many other legal scholars who are Republicans as well as Conservatives. This book is about uncovering the truth as to what happened when the Court made their decision.

I cannot recommend this book enough. If you care about your country, then you need to understand the events of this period. Though we are powerless to change that miscarriage of justice, hopefully, because of books such as this, it will never be permitted to happen again.