Explore the vast range of titles available.

This volume questions the motives of Supreme Court justices in a landmark case: The Supreme Court's intervention in the presidential election of 2000, and its subsequent decision in favor of George W. Bush, elicited immediate, heated, and widespread debate. Critics argued that the justices used weak legal arguments to overturn the Florida Supreme Court's ruling, ending a ballot recount and awarding the presidency to Bush. More fundamentally, they questioned the motives of conservative judges who arrived at a decision in favor of the candidate who reflected their political leanings.Judging the Supreme Courtexamines this controversial case and the extensive attention it has received. To fully understand the case, Clarke Rountree argues, we must understand \"judicial motives.\" These are comprised of more than each judge's personal opinions. Judges' motives, which Rountree calls \"rhetorical performances,\" are as influential and publicly discussed as their decisions themselves. Before they are dissected in the media, judges' motives are carefully crafted by the decision- makers themselves, their critics, and their defenders. Justices consider not only the motives of the government, of military officials, of criminals, of public speakers, and of others, they also consider, construct, construe, spin, and deconstruct the motives of dissenters (whom they want to show are \"misguided\"), earlier courts, lower courts, and, especially, themselves.Every judicial opinion is essentially a portrait of motives that says, \"Here's what we did and here's why we did it.\" Well-constructed judicial motives reinforce the idea that we live under \"the rule of law,\" while motives articulated less successfully raise questions about the legitimacy not just of individual judicial decisions but also of our political system and its foundation on an impartial judiciary. InBush v. Gore, Rountree concludes, the judges of the majority opinion were not motivated by judicial concerns about law and justice, but rather by their own political and personal motives.

Combining the theories and concepts of Norbert Elias with the empirical example of climate change, this article aims to extend and develop the concept of moral panic. The focus of the analysis is on the documentary An Inconvenient Truth -an exemplar of a more general trend in popular culture regarding the moral¡zation and individual regulation of climate change. In the final sections of the article, Al Gore's short-term campaign is related to more long-term social processes.

The Supreme Court's intervention in the 2000 election will shape American law and democracy long after George W. Bush has left the White House. This vitally important book brings together a broad range of preeminent legal scholars who address the larger questions raised by the Supreme Court's actions. Did the Court's decision violate the rule of law? Did it inaugurate an era of super-politicized jurisprudence? How should Bush v. Gore change the terms of debate over the next round of Supreme Court appointments?The contributors-Bruce Ackerman, Jack Balkin, Guido Calabresi, Steven Calabresi, Owen Fiss, Charles Fried, Robert Post, Margaret Jane Radin, Jeffrey Rosen, Jed Rubenfeld, Cass Sunstein, Laurence Tribe, and Mark Tushnet-represent a broad political spectrum. Their reactions to the case are varied and surprising, filled with sparkling argument and spirited debate. This is a must-read book for thoughtful Americans everywhere.

With a reporter's keen eye for detail, award-winning journalist Zelnick conveys every emotion of the key players in this battle, presenting a rich, colorful tale that reads more like a fictional political thriller than the bizarre real-life drama it was--from election night through the U.S. Supreme Court's historic decision.

The 2000 presidential election became notorious for its Florida recount, exposing inconsistencies in vote counting methods and leading to a Supreme Court decision that determined the outcome.

The resolution of the 2000 presidential election by the U.S. Supreme Court’s Bush v. Gore decision generated an extraordinary outpouring of literature in a very short period of time. Now that the initial furor over the decision has subsided, The Final Arbiter presents a sober consideration of the consequences of the decision for the law, the presidency, and the legitimacy of the American political system. The contributors include well-established names in law and political science, as well as up-and-coming scholars, offering a broad understanding of Bush v. Gore’s long-term impact. This book will be useful as a classroom text in both survey courses on elections and the courts and for advanced courses that consider the impact of judicial rulings on the government and political process.

The movie An Inconvenient Truth is a powerful portrayal of global warming and its impacts. The main scientific argument presented in the movie is for the most part consistent with the weight of scientific evidence, but with some of the main points needing updating, correction, or qualification. The detailed argument relies almost entirely on past and current evidence and neglects almost all information that can be gained from computer models, perhaps because such information would be difficult for a lay audience to grasp, believe, or connect with emotionally. This places an undue weight on current events as signs of ongoing climate change: some such events are apparently not related at all to climate change, while for other specific events the role of global warming is difficult or impossible to establish.

The role of the American Vice Presidency has changed dramatically over the almost 250 years the United States has been in existence. This article, using the general semantics dating device (attaching dates with subscripts to show change occurs over time), will provide some context for that change and discuss the direction it has been taking.

An Inconvenient Truth (AIT) has earned AI Gore an Oscar and a share of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize and has been widely acclaimed by the mass media. However, significant errors exist in the film, owing to alarmism and exaggeration. As this forum does not provide for a detailed examination of these errors, this paper will focus only on the portrayal of the hydrologie cycle by AIT-precipitation and floods, soil moisture and droughts, and storminess. AIT argues that precipitation and intense rainfalls, floods, droughts, and the total number, intensity, and duration of tropical cyclones have all increased due exclusively to anthropogenically-driven climate change; indeed, AIT paints a picture of near scientific certainty with an overwhelming bias toward catastrophe scenarios. A closer look at the science, however, reveals that the data do not support these claims and that the scientific community is divided as to what the impact of anthropogenic climate change on the hydrologie cycle will be. Thus, the film gives a false impression of both the current state of climate change and that 'the science is settled'.