Cyberspaces.org has this interesting post (which I picked up via the Daily Whirl) describing how Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas did not answer as he might have in explaining how it is that the Constitution does not guarantee citizens the right to vote in a presidential election.
The last book I read about the Bush v. Gore case was a collection of entertaining and mostly accessible essays by Judge Posner, Professor Tribe, and others called "A Badly Flawed Election: Debating Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court, and American Democracy." I followed the Bush v. Gore case rather closely, read the appellate opinions (and some others), watched the hearings, read the transcripts (or some of them), but sometimes I come across "academic" treatments of the case that are just unreadable, either because they are so absurd or they are so obscure - perhaps my understanding is no greater than that of Justice Thomas' interlocutor, who appears to have been more on the ball than he was.
No comments:
Post a Comment