Supreme Injustice

Abstract

Abstract Millions of Americans were mystified by, and outraged, by the US Supreme Court's role in deciding the presidential election of 2000. The Court had held a unique place in the system of checks and balances, seen as the embodiment of fairness and principle, precisely because it was perceived to be above the political fray. How could it now issue a decision that reeked of partisan politics, and send to the White House a candidate who may have actually lost the election? Addresses these questions head‐on, and demystifies Bush vs Gore for those who are still angered by the court's decision but unclear about its meaning. Digs deeply into the Court's earlier writings and rulings, and proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the justices who gave George W. Bush the presidency contradicted their previous positions to do so. Shows how the use by the five majority justices of the equal‐protection clause to halt the Florida recount was utterly irreconcilable with their previous jurisprudence, and how each violated his or her own judicial philosophy in crafting a monstrous opinion that cannot be squared with their prior opinions.