DOCSLIB.ORG

Bush V. Gore--A Critique of Critiques

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Tulsa Law Review Volume 37 Issue 1 2000-2001 Supreme Court Review Fall 2001 Bush v. Gore--A Critique of Critiques Martin H. Belsky Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Martin H. Belsky, Bush v. Gore--A Critique of Critiques, 37 Tulsa L. Rev. 45 (2013). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol37/iss1/3 This Supreme Court Review Symposia Articles is brought to you for free and open access by TU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Tulsa Law Review by an authorized editor of TU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Belsky: Bush v. Gore--A Critique of Critiques BUSH V. GORE-A CRITIQUE OF CRITIQUES Martin H. Belsky* On December 12, 2000, The United States Supreme Court determined the winner of the Presidential election of 2000.1 Since that time, there have been at least nine books,2 numerous short legal commentaries, 3 many longer law review articles,4 and countless e-mail discussions s analyzing this decision and its propriety.6 This article will * Dean and Professor of Law, The University of Tulsa College of Law; J.D. Columbia University 1968. 1. Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000). 2. Bush v. Gore: The Court Cases and the Commentary (E.J. Dionne, Jr. & William Kristol eds., Brookings Instn. Press 2001); Alan M. Dershowitz, Supreme Injustice:How the High Court Hyacked Election 2000 (Oxford U. Press 2001); Howard Gillman, The Votes that Countec How the Court Decided the 2000 Presidential Election (U. Chi. Press 2001); Samuel Issacharoff, Pamala S. Karlen & Richard H. Pildes, When Elections Go Bad: The Law of Democracy and the Presidential Election of 2000 (rev. ed., Found. Press 2001); Richard A. Posner, Breaking the Deadlock. 7he 2000 Election, the Constitution and the Courts (Princeton U. Press 2001); Roger Simon, Divided We Stand. How Al Gore Beat George Bush and Lost the Presidency (Crown Publishers 2001); Deadlock The Inside Story of America's Closest Election (Wash. Post ed., PublicAffairs 2001); The Vote: Bush, Gore, and the Supreme Court (Cass Sunstein & Richard Epstein eds., U. Chi. Pres 2001); 36 Days: The Complete Chronology of the 2000 PresidentialElection (John Wright et al. eds., Times Books 2001). 3. See e.g. E.J. Dionne, Jr. & William Kristol, supra n. 2, at 165-341. There are, in addition, many short pieces or commentaries in law school alumni magazines, legal newspapers, and even in the Chronicle of Higher Education. See e.g. James Blumstein & Suzanna Sherry, The 2000 Presidential Election: What Happens When Law and Politics Collide? Vanderbilt Law. 18-27 (Spring 2001); Dan Lowenstein, Election 2000, UCLA Law 32-33 (Fall-Winter 2000-2001); Michael Doff, Was the Bush v. Gore Decision Political?, Colum. L. Sch. Report 22-25 (Spring 2001); E. Joshua Rosenkranz, High Court's Misuse of the Past, 23 Natl. L.J. A20 (Jan. 15, 2001); Jonathan Ringel, Does Ideology Count? Politics Sure Does, Leg. Times 7 (July 2, 2001); What We'll Remember in 2050: 9 Views on Bush v. Gore, Chron. Higher Educ. B15-16 (Jan. 5, 2001). 4. See e.g. Symposium, Bush v. Gore: Democracy and Disorder,68 U. Chi. L. Rev. 679 (2001); Student Author, Non Sub Homine? A Survey and Analysis of the Legal Resolution of Election 2000, 114 Harv. L. Rev. 2170 (2001); Kim Scheppele, When the Law Doesn't Count. The 2000 Election and the Failureof the Rule of Law, 149 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1361 (2001). 5. I belong to a listserv for constitutional law professors moderated by Professor Eugene Volokh. From election day 2000 to May of 2001, and even after, the number of comments, criticisms, defenses, and justifications seemed endless. At one point, in the Spring, I counted more than 250 Bush v. Gore entries. This is in addition to the numerous comments on the law prof listserv, open and available to all law professors. 6. I must confess, not wishing to lose the opportunity for educating the public and to bring visibility to The University of Tulsa College of Law, the law school and the College's Federalist Society joined in the analysis game and sponsored an evening symposium on January 11, 2001, entitled "Bush v. Gore: the Case of the Century." Speakers represented the Democratic and Republican official positions, and supposedly more neutral positions Published by TU Law Digital Commons, 2001 1 Tulsa Law Review, Vol. 37 [2001], Iss. 1, Art. 3 TULSA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 37:45 review some of these criticisms.7 My goal is to organize the factual and legal history and the issues implicated by the Presidential election of 2000, followed by my own perspective. I do not claim that my opinions are any better. Nor do I claim that they will be more thoughtful, more objective, or even more articulate. I do hope that by putting some structure to the on-going debate, I can contribute to the effort to put the case into historical jurisprudential perspective. I. THE STORY A. Election Night The entire factual and legal story concerning the contested Presidential election of 2000 has been extensively documented elsewhere, sometimes objectively and sometimes not.s My goal here is to organize it in as straightforward a fashion as possible. On Tuesday, November 7, 2000, the voting citizens of the United States9 cast their ballots for the next President of the United States, indirectly, of course, by voting for electors in each state who in turn would vote for the next President.'° Most voted for either Vice President Albert Gore, Jr., the nominee of the Democratic party, or Governor George W. Bush, the nominee of the Republican party."' The election was a close one, not only based on the popular vote, but also on the electoral vote. In fact, it soon became evident that the electoral vote, which of course determined who would be the next President,12 was so close that the winner of Florida's electors would be from academics and jurists. See David Harper, Bush vs. Gore Put Into Perspectives, Tulsa World 12 (Jan. 12, 2001). 7. Compare Posner, supra n. 2, at 3, 198-220 (criticism of the "professorial commentators"). 8. ComparePosner, supra n. 2, at 12-149; Dershowitz, supran. 2, at 15-93 with Wright supra n. 2; Wash. Post, supran. 2. 9. This is not the forum to discuss the sad reality that, using 1996 statistics, 196,511,000 of the United States citizens were eligible to vote, and only 146,211,960 were registered (74.4%). Of that 146,211,960, only 96,456,345 in fact voted in the 1996 Presidential election. This indicates a turnout rate of 49.08%. About Elections and Voting <http://www.fec.gov/pges/96T0.HTM> (accessed Sept. 12, 2001). Assuming about the same rate of participation in 2000, this means that the President was elected with about 23% of those eligible to vote. 10. See U.S. Const. art. II, § 1; U.S. Const. amend. XII. 11. A small percentage, 3,000,000 of 101,000,000 or 3% voted for other candidates. The World Almanac and Book of Facts 76 (World Almanac Educ. 2001). 12. Of course, under the United States Constitution, the voting citizens do not technically vote for the President. Instead, they vote for "electors" from each state, who in turn meet and vote for the President. Each state has electors equal to the number of Senators and Members of the House of Representatives. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1: U.S. Const. amend. XII. By specific Constitutional Amendment, the District of Columbia has three electors. U.S. Const. amend. XXIII. https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol37/iss1/3 2 Belsky: Bush v. Gore--A Critique of Critiques 20011 A CRITIQUE OF CRITIQUES the winner of the election.' 3 In the early evening of election day, the television networks and the Associated Press, based on exit poll projections, declared Vice President Gore the winner in the State of Florida. 14 Then, by the early morning of November 8, 2000, all the pundits realized that they had made a mistake.1 5 By 2:30 a.m., Eastern Standard Time, most analysts predicted Governor Bush to win Florida and thus have a majority of the electoral votes. Vice President Gore then called Bush to concede.16 Yet, one hour later, after discussions with his advisors, and a tightening of the vote count, Vice President Gore retracted his concession in a follow- up phone call to Governor Bush.17 This ignited a thirty-six day post- election Presidential race.18 B. Strategy and Litigation Through public relations and selected court cases, the Presidential Campaigns pursued two different strategies. The Gore campaign challenged the credibility of the voting tallies for certain areas of Florida.' 9 The votes, they urged, had never really been counted and it was necessary to allow recounting in certain areas to satisfy the requirement that every vote be counted.20 Vice President Gore also contended that undervotes (where a punchcard had not been totally punched through) and overvotes (where two votes were cast for President) should be reviewed manually to determine the "intent of the voter."2 The Bush Campaign relied on the official conclusion that the vote had been counted, a new President had been selected, and the opposition was merely trying to steal the election.2 Florida law and 13. Wash. Post, supran. 2, at 43. 14. Id. atvii. 15. Wright, supran.2, at xv. 16. Wash. Post, supran. 2, at vii.
Recommended publications
  • Representations and Discourse of Torture in Post 9/11 Television: an Ideological Critique of 24 and Battlestar Galactica

    Representations and Discourse of Torture in Post 9/11 Television: an Ideological Critique of 24 and Battlestar Galactica

    REPRESENTATIONS AND DISCOURSE OF TORTURE IN POST 9/11 TELEVISION: AN IDEOLOGICAL CRITIQUE OF 24 AND BATTLSTAR GALACTICA Michael J. Lewis A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS May 2008 Committee: Jeffrey Brown, Advisor Becca Cragin ii ABSTRACT Jeffrey Brown Advisor Through their representations of torture, 24 and Battlestar Galactica build on a wider political discourse. Although 24 began production on its first season several months before the terrorist attacks, the show has become a contested space where opinions about the war on terror and related political and military adventures are played out. The producers of Battlestar Galactica similarly use the space of television to raise questions and problematize issues of war. Together, these two television shows reference a long history of discussion of what role torture should play not just in times of war but also in a liberal democracy. This project seeks to understand the multiple ways that ideological discourses have played themselves out through representations of torture in these television programs. This project begins with a critique of the popular discourse of torture as it portrayed in the popular news media. Using an ideological critique and theories of televisual realism, I argue that complex representations of torture work to both challenge and reify dominant and hegemonic ideas about what torture is and what it does. This project also leverages post-structural analysis and critical gender theory as a way of understanding exactly what ideological messages the programs’ producers are trying to articulate.
  • When Inter-Branch Norms Break Down: of Arms-For-Hostages, "Orderly Shutdowns," Presidential Impeachments, and Judicial "Coups"

    When Inter-Branch Norms Break Down: of Arms-For-Hostages, "Orderly Shutdowns," Presidential Impeachments, and Judicial "Coups"

    WHEN INTER-BRANCH NORMS BREAK DOWN: OF ARMS-FOR-HOSTAGES, "ORDERLY SHUTDOWNS," PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENTS, AND JUDICIAL "COUPS" Peter M. Shanet INTRODUCTION . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 503 I. CHECKS AND BALANCES, DEMOCRATIC LEGITIMACY, AND INTER-BRANCH COOPERATION .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 505 II. ATTACKING CHECKS AND BALANCES: FOUR EPISODES ............................................ 514 A. ELIMATING CONGRESS'S FOREIGN POLICY ROLE: THE IRAN-CONTRA SCANDAL . .. .. .. .. .. 514 B. SHUTTING DOWN THE EXECUTIVE ESTABLISHMENT: THE 1995 BUDGET SHOWDOWN ..................... 516 C. SUBJUGATING THE PRESIDENT TO CONGRESSIONAL CONTROL: THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT. .. .. .. 521 D. USURPING THE APPOINTMENTS POWER: THE STONEWALLING OF CLINTON JUDGES................. 526 III. THE CAMPAIGN AGAINST DELIBERATIVE LEGITIMACY AND ITS CAUSES ... .. ... .. .. .. .. ... 533 IV. WHAT NEXT? . .... .. .... .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 540 INTRODUCTION Future historians of American government surely will take note of a remarkable series of domestic political events around the turn of the Twenty-First Century. Congress impeached a President for lying about a t Joseph S. Platt-Porter, Wright, Morris and Arthur Professor of Law, Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State University and Distinguished Service Professor Adjunct of Law and Public Policy, H. J. Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University. I am grateful to Cynthia Farina and Saikrishna Prakash fortheir comments on an earlier draft, and for reactions from Reed
  • Understanding the 2000 Election: a Guide to the Legal Battles That Decided the Presidency

    Understanding the 2000 Election: a Guide to the Legal Battles That Decided the Presidency

    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Constitutional Commentary 2002 Voter's Intent and Its Discontents. Book Review Of: Understanding the 2000 Election: A Guide to the Legal Battles that Decided the Presidency. by Abner Greene John Copeland Nagle Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Nagle, John Copeland, "Voter's Intent and Its Discontents. Book Review Of: Understanding the 2000 Election: A Guide to the Legal Battles that Decided the Presidency. by Abner Greene" (2002). Constitutional Commentary. 535. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm/535 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Constitutional Commentary collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. VOTER'S INTENT AND ITS DISCONTENTS UNDERSTANDING THE 2000 ELECTION: A GUIDE TO THE LEGAL BATTLES THAT DECIDED THE PRESIDENCY. By Abner Greene.1 2001. Pp. 202. $19.95 John Copeland Nagle 2 It seems like everyone has written a book about the 2000 presidential election. I will content myself with reviewing one of them. The choice is easy. Abner Greene's Understanding the 2000 Election: A Guide to the Legal Battles That Decided the Presidency presents the definitive description of the legal battles that followed the closing of the polls on Tuesday, November 7. 3 Those battles culminated in the Supreme Court's ruling in Bush v. Gore,4 a decision that has already become one of the most vili­ fied in American history.
  • What's Wrong with Bush V. Gore and Why We Need to Amend the Constitution to Ensure It Never Happens Again Jamin B

    What's Wrong with Bush V. Gore and Why We Need to Amend the Constitution to Ensure It Never Happens Again Jamin B

    Maryland Law Review Volume 61 | Issue 3 Article 7 What's Wrong with Bush v. Gore and Why We Need to Amend the Constitution to Ensure it Never Happens Again Jamin B. Rasking Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr Part of the Politics Commons Recommended Citation Jamin B. Rasking, What's Wrong with Bush v. Gore and Why We Need to Amend the Constitution to Ensure it Never Happens Again, 61 Md. L. Rev. 652 (2002) Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr/vol61/iss3/7 This Conference is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Journals at DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maryland Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WHAT'S WRONG WITH BUSH V. GORE AND WHY WE NEED TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION TO ENSURE IT NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN JAMIN B. RASKIN* I. Disenfranchisement as Remedy, Vote-Counting as H arm ................................................... 652 A. A Political Question Raised By a Candidate Without Standing ............................................ 653 B. And If It Had Been Gore v. Bush? ................... 660 C. Bush v. Gore: Hypocrisy and Reaction; Moral Expressivism and Legal Realism .................... 668 1. Moral Realism and Moral Expressivism ......... 670 2. Moral Realism and Legal Realism at Odds ...... 673 3. Hypocrites or Reactionaries ..................... 676 II. The People's Missing Right to Vote ..................... 679 A. The Missing Right to Vote in House and Senate Elections: Disenfranchisement in the District ....... 682 B. Territorial Subjects: The People of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Virgin Islands, Guam ............
  • Inspiring Americans to Greatness Attendees of the 2019 Freedom Conference Raise Their Hands in Solidarity with Hong Kong Pro-Democracy Protesters

    Inspiring Americans to Greatness Attendees of the 2019 Freedom Conference Raise Their Hands in Solidarity with Hong Kong Pro-Democracy Protesters

    Annual Report 2019-20 Inspiring Americans to Greatness Attendees of the 2019 Freedom Conference raise their hands in solidarity with Hong Kong pro-democracy protesters The principles espoused by The Steamboat Institute are: Limited taxation and fiscal responsibility • Limited government • Free market capitalism Individual rights and responsibilities • Strong national defense Contents INTRODUCTION EMERGING LEADERS COUNCIL About the Steamboat Institute 2 Meet Our Emerging Leaders 18 Letter from the Chairman 3 MEDIA COVERAGE AND OUTREACH AND EVENTS PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT Campus Liberty Tour 4 Media Coverage 20 Freedom Conferences and Film Festival 8 Social Media Analytics 21 Additional Outreach 10 FINANCIALS TONY BLANKLEY FELLOWSHIP 2019-20 Revenue & Expenses 22 FOR PUBLIC POLICY & AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM FUNDING About the Tony Blankley Fellowship 11 2019 and 2020 Fellows 12 Funding Sources 23 Past Fellows 14 MEET OUR PEOPLE COURAGE IN EDUCATION AWARD Board of Directors 24 Recipients 16 National Advisory Board 24 Our Team 24 The Steamboat Institute 2019-20 Annual Report – 1 – About The Steamboat Institute Here at the Steamboat Institute, we are Defenders of Freedom When we started The Steamboat Institute in 2008, it was and Advocates of Liberty. We are admirers of the bravery out of genuine concern for the future of our country. We take and rugged individualism that has made this country great. seriously the concept that freedom is never more than one We are admirers of the greatness and wisdom that resides generation away from extinction. in every individual. We understand that this is a great nation because of its people, not because of its government. The Steamboat Institute has succeeded beyond anything Like Thomas Jefferson, we would rather be, “exposed to we could have imagined when we started in 2008.
  • Alan Dershowitz

    Alan Dershowitz

    Debunking the Newest – and Oldest – Jewish Conspiracy: A Reply to the Mearsheimer-Walt “Working Paper” Alan Dershowitz Harvard Law School April 2006 The author of this paper is solely responsible for the views expressed in it. As an academic institution, Harvard University does not take a position on the scholarship of individual faculty members, and this paper should not be interpreted or portrayed as reflecting the official position of the University or any of its Schools. L:\Research\Sponsored Research\WP RR RAO\WP response paper\Dershowitz.response.paper.doc Words count: 9733 Last printed 4/5/2006 1:13:00 PM Created on 4/5/2006 1:08:00 PM Page 1 of 45 Debunking the Newest – and Oldest – Jewish Conspiracy1: A Reply to the Mearsheimer-Walt “Working Paper” by Alan Dershowitz2 Introduction The publication, on the Harvard Kennedy School web site, of a “working paper,” written by a professor and academic dean at the Kennedy School and a prominent professor at the University of Chicago, has ignited a hailstorm of controversy and raised troubling questions. The paper was written by two self-described foreign-policy “realists,” Professor Stephen Walt and Professor John Mearsheimer.3 It asserts that the Israel “Lobby” – a cabal whose “core” is “American Jews” – has a “stranglehold” on mainstream American media, think tanks, academia, and the government.4 The Lobby is led by the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (“AIPAC”), which the authors characterize as a “de facto agent of a foreign government” that places the interests of that government ahead of the interests of the United States.5 Jewish political contributors use Jewish “money” to blackmail government officials, while “Jewish philanthropists” influence and “police” academic programs and shape public opinion.6 Jewish “congressional staffers” exploit their roles and betray the trust of their bosses by 1 Article citations reference John J.
  • The Exceptional Absence of Human Rights As a Principle in American Law

    The Exceptional Absence of Human Rights As a Principle in American Law

    Pace Law Review Volume 34 Issue 2 Spring 2014 Article 5 April 2014 The Exceptional Absence of Human Rights as a Principle in American Law Mugambi Jouet Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/plr Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Human Rights Law Commons, Jurisprudence Commons, and the Law and Society Commons Recommended Citation Mugambi Jouet, The Exceptional Absence of Human Rights as a Principle in American Law, 34 Pace L. Rev. 688 (2014) Available at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/plr/vol34/iss2/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at DigitalCommons@Pace. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pace Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Pace. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Exceptional Absence of Human Rights as a Principle in American Law Mugambi Jouet* I. Introduction References to “human rights” are rare in American civil or criminal cases, including those addressing fundamental questions of justice. In the United States, human rights often evoke abuses faced by people in Third World dictatorships. In other words, human rights commonly refer to foreign problems, not domestic ones. The relative absence of human rights as a concept in American law is peculiar by international standards, as human rights play a far greater role in the domestic systems of other Western democracies. This Article begins with a survey of references to “human rights” in landmark Supreme Court cases concerning racial segregation, the death penalty, prisoners’ rights, women’s rights, children’s rights, gay rights, and the indefinite detention of alleged terrorists during the “War on Terror.” The survey reveals that even liberal Justices seldom or never invoked “human rights” in these cases.
  • Yet Another Article on Bush V. Gore

    Yet Another Article on Bush V. Gore

    Yet Another Article on Bush v. Gore RONALD D. ROTUNDA* Many legal and lay commentators have hurled unusually harsh criticism at the US. Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore. Typical detractorsclaim that a bare majority of five Justices decided the case based on their political preference, not precedent. This article examines this opinion to see if these charges arejustified, and demonstrates that seven Justices (notfive), concluded that the Florida Supreme Court acted unconstitutionally. Moreover, their conclusion was hardly surprising, given a long line of precedent applying the equal protection and due process guarantees to prevent statesfrom manipulating voting results, diluting ballots based on geography, or counting them with no articulatedstandard or an ever-changing one. In addition, this article analyzes the additionalground for decision that three Justices embraced, and confirms that there is ample precedent empowering federal courts to reject state court rulings interpreting state law when those decisions are not reasonably anticipatedfrom priorlaw and do not rest on an adequate and independent state ground I. INTRODUCTION What is the connection, if any, between Bush v. Gorel-the case that held that the Florida Supreme Court's rules for recounting presidential election ballots violated the Constitution-and the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001? If you said "none," that would have been my choice as well. But that is not the way that Deborah Dosh of Flagstaff, Arizona sees things. In response to an article mourning the death of Barbara Olson, who was a passenger on the hijacked plane that the terrorists crashed into the Pentagon,2 Ms. Dosh sent to the author, Ann Coulter, an email that said in part: I usually consider myself a good person, one who would never be happy at the demise of another human being, but, I have to say, that the first thing that came to mind when I heard about BarbaraOlson being on that [hiacked] plane [that crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001], was, I hope Ted was with her.
  • Winter 2002 Volume 21 INSIDE: New York to Mutts: “You’Re Worthless” See Page 3

    Winter 2002 Volume 21 INSIDE: New York to Mutts: “You’Re Worthless” See Page 3

    Winter 2002 Volume 21 INSIDE: New York to Mutts: “You’re Worthless” See Page 3 THE QUARTERLY NEWSLETTER OF THE ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND Darwin, Meet Dershowitz Courting legal evolution at Harvard Law ights,” declared Alan Dershowitz, pacing the floor of a lecture hall at Harvard Law School, “grow out of wrongs.” “ It seemed the type of pronounce- Rment Dershowitz, who teaches law at Harvard, might deliver during a typical lecture to one of his classes. But this was no typical lecture, and the Ames Courtroom in Austin Hall bore only a passing resemblance to The Paper Chase. The scene was a first-of-its-kind symposium, “The Evolving Legal Status of Chimpanzees.” And Dershowitz’s featured role signaled how far the idea of legal rights for animals has come since the PHOTO BY NANCY O’BRIEN 1970s, when the fictional Professor Kingsfield did his blustery best to stem the tide of change at Harvard and beyond. Harvard Law School today boasts one of the most active chapters of the Student Animal Legal Defense Fund in the nation. The chapter co-spon- sored the daylong symposium with the Chim- panzee Collaboratory, a consortium of attorneys, scientists and public-policy experts of which sionate to those on whom we impose our rules. Still a “legal thing”— ALDF is a charter member. The symposium was Hence the argument for animal rights.” but for how long? moderated by ALDF President Steve Ann Cham- With his fellow legal scholars Laurence Tribe bers, chair of the Collaboratory’s legal committee (who was scheduled to speak at the symposium, and the primary organizer of the event.
  • Council of Conservative Citizens

    Council of Conservative Citizens

    Council of Conservative Citizens Name: Council of Conservative Citizens Type of Organization: Not-for-profit political Ideologies and Affiliations: Far-right homophobic racist white supremacist white nationalist Place of Origin: Atlanta, Georgia Year of Origin: 1985 Founder(s): Gordon Baum (deceased) Places of Operation: St. Louis, Missouri (headquarters); United States Overview Executive Summary: The Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC) is a U.S. not-for-profit organization with a white supremacist and anti-homosexual agenda. The group bills itself as the “only serious nationwide activist group that sticks up for white rights!”1 The CCC grew out of the anti-integration White Citizens’ Councils, also known as the Citizens Councils of America (CCA), which steadily declined in popularity during the 1970s and 1980s.2 In 1985, workers’ compensation attorney and former CCA Midwest field director Gordon Baum and a group of 30 white men created the CCC in Atlanta, Georgia as a successor organization to the CCA.3 At its height in the 1990s, the CCC included some 15,000 members nationwide. 4 The CCC holds protests, rallies, and other events to advocate a white, Christian, and European America. The CCC believes the U.S. government “must reflect Christian beliefs and values” and mass immigration of “non-European and non-Western people” is endangering the United States’ European character.5 The CCC’s website highlights news and claims to educate about so-called “black-on-white violent crime, and in particular, the seemingly endless incidents involving
  • Constructing Campus Conflict, Appendices

    Constructing Campus Conflict, Appendices

    Challenging the Right, Advancing Social Justice CONSTRUCTING CAMPUS CONFLICT Antisemitism and Islamophobia on U.S. College Campuses, 2007-2011 2007-2011: Appendices Senior Editor Chip Berlet Managing Editor Debra Cash Associate Editor Maria Planansky Political Research Associates (PRA) is a social justice think tank devoted to supporting movements that are building a more just and inclusive democratic society. We expose movements, institutions, and ideologies that undermine human rights. Copyright ©2014, Political Research Associates Political Research Associates 1310 Broadway, Suite 201 Somerville, MA 02144-1837 www.politicalresearch.org design by rachelle galloway-popotas, owl in a tree CONTENTS SURVEY OF MSA STUDENTS ................................................................................................................. 4 ISLAMO-FACISM AWARENESS WEEK (IFAW) 2007 ......................................................................... 7 TRAUMA AND PREJUDICE ................................................................................................................... 10 ADL AND THE PARK51 CONTROVERSY ......................................................................................... 12 RENE GIRARD AND MIMETIC SCAPEGOATING ............................................................................. 13 BIBLIOGRAPHIES ......................................................................................................................................15 Selected LIST OF INCIDENTS DESCRIBED AS ANTISEMITIC ...........................................
  • Guest Date Program Label Lance Bass 10/4/2010 Larry King

    Guest Date Program Label Lance Bass 10/4/2010 Larry King

    Guest Date Program Label Lance Bass 10/4/2010 Larry King Democrat/Liberal Wanda Sykes 10/4/2010 Larry King Democrat/Liberal Kathy Griffin 10/4/2010 Larry King Democrat/Liberal Andrew Breitbart 10/4/2010 Parker Spitzer Republican/Conservative Will Cain 10/4/2010 Parker Spitzer Republican/Conservative Aaron Sorkin 10/4/2010 Parker Spitzer Democrat/Liberal Ari Melber 10/4/2010 Parker Spitzer Democrat/Liberal Elizabeth Warren 10/4/2010 Parker Spitzer Democrat/Liberal Tom Frank 10/4/2010 Parker Spitzer Democrat/Liberal Tom Prichard 10/5/2010 AC 360 Republican/Conservative Alan Grayson 10/5/2010 AC 360 Democrat/Liberal Dick Armey 10/5/2010 Parker Spitzer Republican/Conservative Reihan Salam 10/5/2010 Parker Spitzer Republican/Conservative Dave Zirin 10/5/2010 Parker Spitzer Democrat/Liberal Katrina Vanden Heuvel 10/5/2010 Parker Spitzer Democrat/Liberal Oliver Stone 10/5/2010 Parker Spitzer Democrat/Liberal Doris Kearns Goodwin 10/5/2010 Parker Spitzer Democrat/Liberal Errol Louis 10/5/2010 Parker Spitzer Democrat/Liberal Dana Loesch 10/6/2010 AC 360 Republican/Conservative Marc Lamont Hill 10/6/2010 AC 360 Democrat/Liberal Dinesh D'Souza 10/6/2010 Parker Spitzer Republican/Conservative Michael Gerson 10/6/2010 Parker Spitzer Republican/Conservative Fareed Zakaria 10/6/2010 Parker Spitzer Democrat/Liberal Sam Seder 10/6/2010 Parker Spitzer Democrat/Liberal Steve Kornacki 10/6/2010 Parker Spitzer Democrat/Liberal Simon Schama 10/6/2010 Parker Spitzer Democrat/Liberal Ed Rollins 10/7/2010 AC 360 Republican/Conservative Billy Nungesser 10/7/2010