Bush contro Gore (Italian Wikipedia)

Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Bush contro Gore" in Italian language version.

refsWebsite
Global rank Italian rank
1st place
1st place
332nd place
894th place
3rd place
14th place
1,697th place
4,398th place
703rd place
1,724th place
8,598th place
low place
1,115th place
1,893rd place
7th place
19th place
low place
low place
3,811th place
low place
569th place
1,203rd place
696th place
2,484th place
2,333rd place
2,569th place
34th place
116th place
230th place
353rd place

books.google.com (Global: 3rd place; Italian: 14th place)

cornell.edu (Global: 332nd place; Italian: 894th place)

law.cornell.edu

straylight.law.cornell.edu

  • Bush v. Gore, US Supreme Court Opinion.
    «The petition presents the following questions: ... and whether the use of standardless manual recounts violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. With respect to the equal protection question, we find a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.»
    Last paragraph in Part I
  • Bush v. Gore, US Supreme Court Opinion.
    «The petition presents the following questions: whether the Florida Supreme Court established new standards for resolving Presidential election contests, thereby violating Art. II, §1, cl. 2, of the United States Constitution and failing to comply with 3 U.S.C. § 5 ...»
    Last paragraph in Part I.
  • (EN) Bush v. Gore, US Supreme Court Opinion, su straylight.law.cornell.edu. Id. 5th paragraph in Part I
  • (EN) Bush v. Gore, US Supreme Court Opinion, su straylight.law.cornell.edu. (6th paragraph from end of Part II-B)

floridasupremecourt.org (Global: low place; Italian: low place)

  • Palm Beach County Canvassing Board v. Harris, 772 S2d 1273 (Fla December 11, 2000).
  • Gore v. Harris, 773 So. 2d 524 (December 22, 2000). Only Florida Supreme Court Justice Leander Shaw, in a concurring opinion, disputed that December 12 was the deadline for recounts under state law. Justice Shaw had joined the dissenting opinion in Gore v. Harris before the ruling in Bush v. Gore.

justia.com (Global: 696th place; Italian: 2,484th place)

supreme.justia.com

  • Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing, 531 U.S. 70 (December 4, 2000)

nytimes.com (Global: 7th place; Italian: 19th place)

osu.edu (Global: 2,333rd place; Italian: 2,569th place)

moritzlaw.osu.edu

oyez.org (Global: 8,598th place; Italian: low place)

  • (EN) Bush v. Gore, su oyez.org, Oyez Project. URL consultato il 22 gennaio 2011. "Noting that the Equal Protection clause guarantees individuals that their ballots cannot be devalued by 'later arbitrary and disparate treatment,' the per curiam opinion held 7-2 that the Florida Supreme Court's scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional."
  • Transcript and audio of oral arguments in Bush v. Gore, via Oyez.org. Retrieved 2008-06-05
  • (EN) Bush v. Gore, su oyez.org, Oyez Project. URL consultato il 22 gennaio 2011. "Noting that the Equal Protection clause guarantees individuals that their ballots cannot be devalued by 'later arbitrary and disparate treatment,' the per curiam opinion held 7-2 that the Florida Supreme Court's scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional."

post-gazette.com (Global: 569th place; Italian: 1,203rd place)

scholar.google.com (Global: 1,697th place; Italian: 4,398th place)

ssrn.com (Global: 703rd place; Italian: 1,724th place)

papers.ssrn.com

ssrn.com

  • Tribe, Laurence H., "The Unbearable Wrongness of Bush v. Gore". George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 03-33; Harvard Law School, Public Law Working Paper No. 72. Available at SSRN:https://ssrn.com/abstract=431080
  • Nelson Lund, The Unbearable Rightness of Bush v. Gore, SSRN 267874.

supremecourt.gov (Global: 3,811th place; Italian: low place)

uchicago.edu (Global: 230th place; Italian: 353rd place)

fathom.lib.uchicago.edu

ucsb.edu (Global: 1,115th place; Italian: 1,893rd place)

presidency.ucsb.edu

washingtonpost.com (Global: 34th place; Italian: 116th place)

web.archive.org (Global: 1st place; Italian: 1st place)

  • Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, 772 So.2d 1220 Archiviato il 18 aprile 2005 in Internet Archive. (November 21, 2000). Late-filing criteria are at note 5. See The American Presidency Project for other documents related to the 2000 election dispute.
  • See Fla. Stat. § 102.141(4). (EN) The 2000 Florida Statutes, Title IX, Chapter 102, Section 141, su leg.state.fl.us (archiviato dall'url originale il 2 luglio 2001).
  • See Fla. Stat. § 102.166. (EN) The 2000 Florida Statutes, Title IX, Chapter 102, Section 166, su leg.state.fl.us (archiviato dall'url originale il 2 luglio 2001).
  • See Fla. Stat. § 102.112. (EN) The 2000 Florida Statutes, Title IX, Chapter 102, Section 112, su leg.state.fl.us (archiviato dall'url originale il 21 aprile 2001).
  • (EN) Leon County Judge Rules on Certification (PDF), su presidency.ucsb.edu. URL consultato il 28 ottobre 2006 (archiviato dall'url originale il 18 marzo 2009).
  • (EN) Text: Florida Recount Results, su presidency.ucsb.edu. URL consultato il 28 ottobre 2006 (archiviato dall'url originale il 19 gennaio 2008).
  • (EN) Touchston v. McDermott, su precydent.com (archiviato dall'url originale il 9 dicembre 2008).
  • Gore v. Harris, 772 S2d 1243 Archiviato il 16 giugno 2012 in Internet Archive. (December 8, 2000)
  • Scalia and Stevens clash over recount stay in Bush v. Gore, CNN, 11 dicembre 2000. URL consultato il 27 aprile 2010 (archiviato dall'url originale l'8 maggio 2009).
  • (EN) Bush v. Gore, Brief for Petitioners (PDF), su presidency.ucsb.edu. URL consultato l'11 gennaio 2018 (archiviato dall'url originale il 2 novembre 2006). "The Equal Protection Clause prohibits government officials from implementing an electoral system that gives the votes of similarly situated voters different effect based on the happenstance of the county or district in which those voters live." Paragraph 2 in Argument, Part III-A.
  • (EN) Bush v. Gore, Brief of Respondent (PDF), su presidency.ucsb.edu. URL consultato l'11 gennaio 2018 (archiviato dall'url originale il 2 novembre 2006). "The court below was quite insistent that the counting of ballots must be governed by a single uniform standard: the intent of the voter must control." Paragraph 3 in Argument, Part III-A
  • (EN) Bush v. Gore, Brief of Respondent (PDF), su presidency.ucsb.edu. URL consultato l'11 gennaio 2018 (archiviato dall'url originale il 2 novembre 2006). “[T]he appropriate remedy for either an Equal Protection Clause or Due Process Clause violation would not be to cancel all recounts, but rather to order that the recounts be undertaken under a uniform standard.” Footnote 28.
  • (EN) Bush v. Gore, Brief for Petitioners (PDF), su presidency.ucsb.edu. URL consultato l'11 gennaio 2018 (archiviato dall'url originale il 2 novembre 2006). "By rewriting that statutory scheme—thus arrogating to itself the power to decide the manner in which Florida’s electors are chosen—the Florida Supreme Court substituted its judgment for that of the legislature in violation of Article II. Such a usurpation of constitutionally delegated power defies the Framers’ plan." Paragraph 2 in Argument, Part I
  • (EN) Bush v. Gore, Brief of Respondent (PDF), su presidency.ucsb.edu. URL consultato l'11 gennaio 2018 (archiviato dall'url originale il 2 novembre 2006). "Even apart from the absurd theory that McPherson requires everything relevant to a state’s process for choosing electors to be packed into a specialized presidential electoral code, the very premise of petitioner’s argument is fatally flawed because the Florida Legislature re-enacted the contest statute in 1999 against the settled background rule that decisions of circuit courts in contest actions are subject to appellate review." Paragraph 5 in Argument, Part I
  • ”Greene, Abner.“Is There a First Amendment Defense for Bush v. Gore?”, 80 Notre Dame L. Rev.1643 (2005). Greene points to footnotes 21 and 22 in Gore v. Harris, 772 S2d 1243 Archiviato il 16 giugno 2012 in Internet Archive. (December 8, 2000), as evidence that the Florida Supreme Court thought all recounts had to be completed by December 12, 2008.
  • (EN) John Fliter, Review of The Rehnquist Court: Judicial Activism on the Right, su bsos.umd.edu (archiviato dall'url originale il 16 maggio 2006).
  • Nelson Lund, The Unbearable Rightness ofBush v. Gore (PDF) (archiviato dall'url originale il 17 ottobre 2005).
    «... it’s important to remember that overly broad holdings can be worse than those that are too narrow. Broad holdings may effectively decide future cases that are factually dissimilar in ways that should be legally distinguished.»
  • Clyde Spillenger, Supreme court fails to argue recount ruling, UCLA Today. URL consultato il 28 ottobre 2006 (archiviato dall'url originale il 1º dicembre 2008).
    «This observation is the very antithesis of the rule of law.»
  • Richard K., Jr. Neumann, Conflicts of interest in Bush v. Gore: Did some justices vote illegally?, The Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, 2003 (archiviato dall'url originale il 15 giugno 2006).
  • Brooks Jackson, Ethics experts say Scalia, Thomas connections not conflicts of interest, CNN, 12 dicembre 2000. URL consultato l'11 gennaio 2018 (archiviato dall'url originale il 1º dicembre 2007).
  • (EN) Bush v. Gore, On Application for Stay, Majority Opinion (PDF), su presidency.ucsb.edu. URL consultato l'11 gennaio 2018 (archiviato dall'url originale il 14 novembre 2017). Second last paragraph of Scalia's concurrence.
  • Jamin Raskin, Bandits in Black Robes, Washington Monthly, marzo 2001. URL consultato il 28 ottobre 2006 (archiviato dall'url originale il 19 ottobre 2006).
    «But in Bush v. Gore, the Rehnquist majority did not even ask, much less explain, how Bush was personally injured by the hypothetical possibility that anonymous third-party citizens might have their ballots counted differently in Florida's presidential election.»
  • Dahleen Glanton, O'Connor questions court's decision to take Bush v. Gore, in Chicago Tribune, 27 aprile 2013. URL consultato l'11 gennaio 2018 (archiviato dall'url originale il 4 maggio 2013).