Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Supreme InjusticeHow the High Court Hijacked Election 2000$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Alan M. Dershowitz

Print publication date: 2003

Print ISBN-13: 9780195158076

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: November 2003

DOI: 10.1093/0195158075.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2019. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy).date: 17 June 2019

The Inconsistency of the Majority Justices With Their Previously Expressed Views

The Inconsistency of the Majority Justices With Their Previously Expressed Views

Chapter:
(p.121) 4: The Inconsistency of the Majority Justices With Their Previously Expressed Views
Source:
Supreme Injustice
Author(s):

Alan M. Dershowitz (Contributor Webpage)

Publisher:
Oxford University Press
DOI:10.1093/0195158075.003.0005

Aims to demonstrate that, during the (Bush vs Gore) US presidential election of 2000, by any reasonable standard of evaluation, the majority justices of the US Supreme Court failed to test the US constitutional system in ways that it had never been tested before, and did so not because of incompetence, but because of malice aforethought. Contrasts the prior decisions and writings of the particular majority justices with the opinions that they joined in this case; the dramatic discrepancies found raise troubling questions. Moves from this concrete evidence to a more speculative consideration of what may have motivated these inconsistencies. The different sections of the chapter look first at the decisions of Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, Justice Anthony Kennedy, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, and Justice Clarence Thomas. The following speculative sections first ask generally why each justice behaved as they did, and then go on to devote separate sections on the motives of each of the five justices.

Keywords:   George W. Bush, Bush vs Gore, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Al Gore, Justice Anthony Kennedy, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, justices’ decisions, justices’ opinions, justices’ writings, speculative motives, US constitution, US justices’ motives, US presidential election 2000, US Supreme Court, USA

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .