In fact I read both Deshowitz's and Bugliosi's book. If you read the various links on the subject, the words unanomous and overwhelming are used. The question is essentially one of science, the science of law. Interpreting the various precedents and ethics of judges the response was overwhelmingly against the Supreme Court. If you think otherwise you should look long and hard to find a substantial group of legal experts that defend them.

To be fair though, I didn't read Posner's book. The reviews I read were so bad it seemed pointless. The issue though is an acid test for the whole 2000 recount argument. The decision is very well documented and debated. Both sides put their best analysis forward and because it is a straight legal argument there is little spin to be made.

If the right can't own up to what their side did in this there is little chance to have any kind of rational debate about the rest of the recount. I would suggest you get the books (even from a library) and see what they are saying.

The real issues involved are almost impossible to understand from the media reports, and only vaguely from the book reviews. One point for example is that judges are normally supposed to follow precedent and not ignore it. All the precedents involved including quotes from Scalia and others point to the Supreme Court had not right to be involved. The equal protection argument was a complete sham that no one seems to believe in.

These charges are extremely serious. In a century from now historians will look back on this Court as possibly the worst and most corrupt in history to that date. No one will seriously defend what they did, it is indefensible except by trying to spin it.

Probably the reason why some delayed retirement was to try and get some better decisions in the books to ease their humiliating place in history.

As I have said many times no one does service to their politicial party by ignoring its flaws. If they do then sooner or later they will grow and drag the whole party down to be rebuilt. I still find it almost unbelievable that people can agree with the virtual destruction of the reputation of the Supreme Court's reputation in history because it helped their guy to win.

It's really like Alfred E Neuman got elected and everything he brushed against on the way up (and down) turned to crap.