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

13web.archive.org

1^st place

11cornell.edu

332^nd place

894^th place

10ucsb.edu

1,115^th place

1,893^rd place

6books.google.com

3^rd place

14^th place

5scholar.google.com

1,697^th place

4,398^th place

4ssrn.com

703^rd place

1,724^th place

3oyez.org

8,598^th place

low place

3nytimes.com

7^th place

19^th place

2floridasupremecourt.org

low place

1supremecourt.gov

3,811^th place

low place

1post-gazette.com

569^th place

1,203^rd place

1justia.com

696^th place

2,484^th place

1osu.edu

2,333^rd place

2,569^th place

1washingtonpost.com

34^th place

116^th place

1uchicago.edu

230^th place

353^rd place

books.google.com

Gillman, Howard. The Votes That Counted: How the Court Decided the 2000 Presidential Election, pages 81-82 (University of Chicago Press, 2003).
Political Staff of the Washington Post, Deadlock: The Inside Story of America's Closest Election, pages 230-234 (Public Affairs 2001). Via Google Books.
McConnell, Michael. “Two-And-A-Half Cheers for Bush v. Gore” in The Vote: Bush, Gore, and the Supreme Court, page 118 (University of Chicago Press, Cass Sunstein and Richard Epstein Eds. 2001). Via Google Books.
Lund, Nelson. “The Unbearable Rightness of Bush v. Gore” in The Longest Night: Polemics and Perspectives on Election 2000, page 176 (University of California Press, Arthur Jacobson and Michel Rosenfeld, eds. 2002).
Dershowitz, Alan. Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000, pages 174 and 198 (Oxford U. Press 2001).
Fried, Charles. "An Unreasonable Reaction to a Reasonable Decision" in Bush V. Gore: The Question of Legitimacy, page 12 (Yale University Press, Bruce Ackerman ed. 2002): “The outrage against the stay by 673 law professors is, to say the least, overwrought. If the decision on the merits was justified, the stay becomes irrelevant. Yes, it did shut down the counting three and a half days earlier, but by hypothesis that counting was being done in an unconstitutional way.”

cornell.edu

law.cornell.edu

Bush v. Gore (December 12, 2000).
(EN) US CODE: Title 3,5. Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors, su law.cornell.edu. The quote is the title of Section 5, Title 3.
(EN) US CODE: Title 3,5. Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors, su law.cornell.edu.
(EN) Bush v. Gore, Concurrence, Rehnquist, su law.cornell.edu.
(EN) Bush v. Gore, Dissent, Breyer, su law.cornell.edu.
(EN) Bush v. Gore, Dissent, Souter, su law.cornell.edu.
(EN) Bush v. Gore, Dissent, Stevens, su 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

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

supreme.justia.com

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

nytimes.com

Examining the Vote: the Overview", New York Times (November 12, 2001).
Fessenden, Ford. "Ballots Cast by Blacks and Older Voters Were Tossed in Far Greater Numbers", New York Times (November 12, 2001).
Fessenden, Ford. "How the Consortium of News Organizations Conducted the Ballot Review", New York Times (November 12, 2001).

osu.edu

moritzlaw.osu.edu

Rotunda, Ronald.“Yet Another Article on Bush v. Gore”, Ohio State Law Journal, Volume 64, page 283 (2003).

oyez.org

(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

Election 2000 Timeline, PG Publishing Co., Inc., 17 dicembre 2000. URL consultato il 28 ottobre 2006.

scholar.google.com

(EN) Lemons v. Bradbury, 538 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2008), su scholar.google.com.
(EN) Stewart v. Blackwell, 444 F.3d 843 (6th Cir. 2006), su scholar.google.com.
(EN) Bennett v. Mollis, 590 F. Supp. 2d 273 (D.R.I. 2008), su scholar.google.com.
(EN) State ex rel. Skaggs v. Brunner, 588 F. Supp. 2d 828 (S.D. Ohio 2008), su scholar.google.com.
(EN) ACLU v. Santillanes, 506 F. Supp. 2d 598 (D.N.M. 2007), su scholar.google.com.

ssrn.com

papers.ssrn.com

Berkowitz, Peter and Wittes, Benjamin. “The Lawfulness of the Election Decision: A Reply to Professor Tribe”, Villanova Law Review, Vol. 49, No. 3, 2004.
”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 (December 8, 2000), as evidence that the Florida Supreme Court thought all recounts had to be completed by December 12, 2008.

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

U.S. Supreme Court Docket for Bush v. Gore.

uchicago.edu

fathom.lib.uchicago.edu

(EN) Geoffrey R. Stone, Equal Protection? The Supreme Court's Decision in Bush v. Gore, su fathom.lib.uchicago.edu, 2001.

ucsb.edu

presidency.ucsb.edu

Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, 772 So.2d 1220 (November 21, 2000). Late-filing criteria are at note 5. See The American Presidency Project for other documents related to the 2000 election dispute.
(EN) Leon County Judge Rules on Certification (PDF), su presidency.ucsb.edu. URL consultato il 28 ottobre 2006.
(EN) Text: Florida Recount Results, su presidency.ucsb.edu. URL consultato il 28 ottobre 2006.
Gore v. Harris, 772 S2d 1243 (December 8, 2000)
(EN) Bush v. Gore, Brief for Petitioners (PDF), su presidency.ucsb.edu. "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. "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. “[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. "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. "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 (December 8, 2000), as evidence that the Florida Supreme Court thought all recounts had to be completed by December 12, 2008.

washingtonpost.com

Dan Keating, Florida Recounts Would Have Favored Bush, in The Washington Post, 12 novembre 2001.

web.archive.org

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) Touchston v. McDermott, su precydent.com (archiviato dall'url originale il 9 dicembre 2008).
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) 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).