No Island of Sanity: Paula Jones v. Bill Clinton: The Supreme Court on Trial (Library of Contemporary Thought)

Although it takes 30 pages of a general rant against modern society for Bugliosi to address the case of Paula Corbin Jones v. William Jefferson Clinton, once he starts, he gets right to the crux of the matter: What on earth compelled the Supreme Court to decide that Paula Jones's private lawsuit against Bill Clinton was of a higher priority than serving the public interest by having a chief executive undistracted from his work? The problem, as he demonstrates, is that Clinton's lawyers tried to convince the Court that a lawsuit against an incumbent President was a violation of constitutional separation-of-powers doctrine, in that it would allow the judiciary branch of the government to have undue influence on the executive branch's fulfillment of its duties. The president's team never tried to argue that the public interest was better served by delaying the Jones suit until after Clinton left the White House.

There are individual points on which one might quibble with Bugliosi--for example, whether America really deserves to be taken seriously by foreigners when scandals such as Clinton's alleged sexual conduct erupts. But Bugliosi's central thesis, that Bill Clinton's request to have Jones's lawsuit delayed was not an extraordinary request, and that consideration both of legal precedent and the public interest ought to have led to the granting of that request, is convincingly argued with passionate rhetoric and vigorous factual support.

Product Description
" One would like to think that the U.S. Supreme Court, the highest Court in the land, is the one island of sanity still remaining. But if what you folks are about to read is any indication, we've all got a lot to worry about. The question that presents itself is whether the near pathological dizziness and irrationality in our society has so invaded this nation's marrow that, like a wild-infectious virus, even the Supreme Court is not immune."
--from NO ISLAND OF SANITY

Now, in the powerful premiere of the Library of Contemporary Thought, Vincent Bugliosi takes a timely swipe at the Supreme Court's decision in Paula Jones v. Bill Clinton. Famed as the prosecutor of Charles Manson and author of the classic bestseller HELTER SKELTER, Bugliosi argues that the high court has rarely been proved so wrong, so fast.

NO ISLAND OF SANITY is only the beginning of an ongoing dialogue with some of the most original writers working today. Each month, the Library of Contemporary Thought will bring you a different voice on a hot-button topic in American life, politics, and culture. From Mickey Mouse to Tiger Woods, from how we age to how we read, no subject is too controversial or too unlikely for these powerful and provocative books.

Any fair reading of the FERERALIST PAPERS leads one to conclude that the founders could not have intended for a federal district judge to have the power to compel a sitting president to answer a civil suit.Bugliosi uses Fed.69,by Hamilton,to argue that a sitting president could not even be arrested for murder without first being impeached and removed from office.
Bugliosi correctly sketches the true meaning of the case.The Supreme Court now views itself as the "first among equals" and wields the power of judicial review to assert iteslf against the other two branches,with no repect for precedent or original intent.
Bugliosi also takes on the question ignored by Mr. Clinton's lawyers:the need of Mrs. Paula Jones' interests to be balanced against the interests of all other Americans.Even a soldier undergoing basic training enjoys "temporary immunity" from lawsuits,but the President apparently does not.
On the negative side,Bugliosi's writing style is colloquialistic and unfocused.He can sometimes depart from sober analysis and launch into hyperbolic editorialism in the very same sentence.There is too much slang,and too much "tough guy language",and this does not serve to support his thesis in a meaningful way.
I believe that the Rehnquist Court has waged war against the rights of private citizens and against the traditional balance of the separation of powers.Bugliosi argues convincingly that the latter is,at least,the case.This book was written before the Clinton Impeachment.A revised edition is now in order.However,the legal reasoning would be the same.


Vincent Bugliosi Is Not Sane   March 16, 2001
 5 out of 21 found this review helpful

This book starts out giving Bugliosi's rather skewed view of the world, in which the problems of our society can evidently be traced to the fact that naughty girls where short skirts. Then he promptly proves how smart he is by telling us how right he was in his assessment of the OJ Simpson case. Given that he is obviously an unbiased source, how can one doubt? Of course, one might wonder what this has to do with the Supreme Courts decision in the Paula Jones case, and the answer is, of course, absolutely nothing. Bugliosi, truth be told, has no interest in the issue at hand, he is just excited about tooting his own horn and making himself seem important. Really, his whole argument in the Clinton matter is simply this, he is brilliant and everyone else is an idiot and we should feel blessed that he deigned to make any argument beyond this at all, given that he so much smarter than everyone else. I did not pick up this book expecting an unbiased discussion of the issues surrounding the Supreme Court's decision to let the Paula Jones case move forward, but I did expect it to be reasonable. It certainly is not. Bugliosi's argument (in as much as it exists at all beyond the `I'm so smart' posturing) despite his denials is; The President Is Above The Law, no more and no less. He never seems to acknowledge that even if the Presidency is as important as he asserts (and it certainly is not clear that it need be) it does not automatically follow that the President himself is irreplaceable. What would have happened if Clinton had handed the reigns of government to Gore (who after all, was duly elected along with Bubba) to concentrate on the Paula Jones case? Would the World have been turned on its head? It seems unlikely, considering the similarities of their outlook. Worse than the weakness of his arguments, of course, is his colossal arrogance, evidently all the justices of the Supreme Court are idiots, as is anyone else who disagrees with his assessment of the issues. Such dismissive arrogance makes the book insulting and frankly unreadable. Better he just published a book that said simply, I AM RIGHT and YOU ARE AN IDIOT, it would be more honest, and frankly more interesting.