The Inconsistency of the Majority Justices With Their Previously Expressed Views

Alan M. Dershowitz

in Supreme Injustice

Published in print January 2003 | ISBN: 9780195158076
Published online November 2003 | e-ISBN: 9780199869848 | DOI:
 The Inconsistency of the Majority Justices With Their Previously Expressed Views

Show Summary Details


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

Chapter.  16076 words. 

Subjects: US Politics

Full text: subscription required

How to subscribe Recommend to my Librarian

Buy this work at Oxford University Press »

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content. Please, subscribe or login to access all content.