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 ended in a collision of history, law, and the courts. It produced a deadlock that dragged out the result for over a month, and consequences--real and imagined--that promise to drag on for years. In the first in-depth study of the election and its litigious aftermath, Judge Posner surveys the history and theory of American electoral law and practice, analyzes which Presidential candidate ''really'' won the popular vote in Florida, surveys the litigation that ensued, evaluates the courts, the lawyers, and the commentators, and ends with a blueprint for reforming our Presidential electoral practices. The book starts with an overview of the electoral process, including its history and guiding theories. It looks next at the Florida election itself, exploring which candidate ''really'' won and whether this is even a meaningful question. The focus then shifts to the complex litigation, both state and federal, provoked by the photo finish. On the basis of the pragmatic jurisprudence that Judge Posner has articulated and defended in his previous writings, this book offers an alternative justification for the Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore while praising the Court for averting the chaotic consequences of an unresolved deadlock. Posner also evaluates the performance of the lawyers who conducted the post-election litigation and of the academics who commented on the unfolding drama. He argues that neither Gore's nor Bush's lawyers blundered seriously, but that the reaction of the legal professoriat to the litigation exposed serious flaws in the academic practice of constitutional law. While rejecting such radical moves as abolishing the Electoral College or creating a national ballot, Posner concludes with a detailed plan of feasible reforms designed to avoid a repetition of the 2000 election fiasco. Lawyers, political scientists, pundits, and politicians are waiting to hear what Judge Posner has to say. But this book is written for and will be welcomed by all who were riveted by the recent crisis of presidential succession.

Even as the evidence of global warming mounts, the international response to this serious threat is coming unraveled. The United States has formally withdrawn from the 1997 Kyoto Protocol; other key nations are facing difficulty in meeting their Kyoto commitments; and developing countries face no limit on their emissions of the gases that cause global warming. In this clear and cogent book-reissued in paperback with an afterword that comments on recent events--David Victor explains why the Kyoto Protocol was never likely to become an effective legal instrument. He explores how its collapse offers opportunities to establish a more realistic alternative. Global warming continues to dominate environmental news as legislatures worldwide grapple with the process of ratification of the December 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The collapse of the November 2000 conference at the Hague showed clearly how difficult it will be to bring the Kyoto treaty into force. Yet most politicians, policymakers, and analysts hailed it as a vital first step in slowing greenhouse warming. David Victor was not among them. Kyoto's fatal flaw, Victor argues, is that it can work only if emissions trading works. The Protocol requires industrialized nations to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases to specific targets. Crucially, the Protocol also provides for so-called \"emissions trading,\" whereby nations could offset the need for rapid cuts in their own emissions by buying emissions credits from other countries. But starting this trading system would require creating emission permits worth two trillion dollars--the largest single invention of assets by voluntary international treaty in world history. Even if it were politically possible to distribute such astronomical sums, the Protocol does not provide for adequate monitoring and enforcement of these new property rights. Nor does it offer an achievable plan for allocating new permits, which would be essential if the system were expanded to include developing countries. The collapse of the Kyoto Protocol--which Victor views as inevitable--will provide the political space to rethink strategy. Better alternatives would focus on policies that control emissions, such as emission taxes. Though economically sensible, however, a pure tax approach is impossible to monitor in practice. Thus, the author proposes a hybrid in which governments set targets for both emission quantities and tax levels. This offers the important advantages of both emission trading and taxes without the debilitating drawbacks of each. Individuals at all levels of environmental science, economics, public policy, and politics-from students to professionals--and anyone else hoping to participate in the debate over how to slow global warming will want to read this book.

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.