If you re frustrated with the choices for president this year, you re not alone. 81 percent of voters say they d feel afraid if either Trump or Clinton takes office but what recourse do we have? The American electorate is plagued by a widespread feeling of impotence. But this may be the most important election in generations: governments and radicals around the world are moving toward extremes of hard left and hard right, and the same frustrations are fissuring American civil society. Never has a search for stability been more necessary. It s imperative that voters understand the stakes, how we got here, and how to move forward. In this book, Alan Dershowitz takes the techniques he s used in five decades of teaching to sort out how each candidate relates to basic domestic and foreign policy values. You re left to form your own conclusions, based on your own values this is a choice you can t afford to let someone else make for you. "

The celebrity lawyer and #1 New York Times bestselling author of The Case Against Impeaching Trump offers his analysis of the 2016 presidential election. In the months before the 2016 election, 81 percent of voters said they’d “feel afraid” if either Donald Trump or Hilary Clinton took office—and yet, those were the choices. The American electorate was plagued by a widespread feeling of impotence. And yet, it was one of the most important elections in generations. In Electile Dysfunction, Harvard Law professor and frequent Fox News commentator Alan Dershowitz looks at what was at stake—with political extremism on the rise abroad and civil discourse on the decline in the US. He then assesses how each candidate related to basic domestic and foreign policy values

In Confirming Justice—Or Injustice?, Alan Dershowitz—New York Times bestselling author and one of America’s most respected legal scholars—contemplates the past, present, and future of the Supreme Court, from the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the confirmation battle looming over President Trump’s nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett. Alan Dershowitz has been called “one of the most prominent and consistent defenders of civil liberties in America” by Politico and “the nation’s most peripatetic civil liberties lawyer and one of its most distinguished defenders of individual rights” by Newsweek. He is also a fair-minded and even-handed expert on the Constitution and American government, and in this book offers his knowledge and insight to help readers understand the current circumstances surrounding the Supreme Court and the looming partisan battle for its future. Confirming Justice—Or Injustice? is an analysis of every aspect of the possible confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the vacant seat left by the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. It includes timely commentary on the history and process of confirming justices to the Supreme Court, notes about what might happen if the process is changed—such as by court packing or instituting age or term limits for justices—and discussion of the roles of the various people and groups who might have input on the confirmation, from the president to the senate to the judiciary committee to the Constitution itself. In the end, Confirming Justice—Or Injustice? represents an icon in American law and politics reckoning with an increasingly politicized and polarized nomination-and-confirmation process for judges and what those shifts might mean for the country, both now and in days to come. It is essential reading for anyone interested in or concerned about Trump's nomination of Amy Coney Barrett and the process of her possible confirmation, the legacy of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and the future and fate of the Supreme Court—and American democracy itself.

In Dershowitz on Killing: How the Law Decides Who Shall Live and Who Shall Die, Alan Dershowitz—New York Times bestselling author and one of America’s most respected legal scholars—examines the subjects of death, life, and the law. Alan Dershowitz has been called “one of the most prominent and consistent defenders of civil liberties in America” by Politico and “the nation’s most peripatetic civil liberties lawyer and one of its most distinguished defenders of individual rights” by Newsweek. His legal career as a criminal defense lawyer has been deeply involved with death and life decisions. Dershowitz on Killing is a timely examination of issues and questions that are front and center in today’s society. Employing a philosophical, moral, religious, and cultural lens to the legal aspects surrounding death and life, Dershowitz elucidates the role of government to determine who shall live and who shall die in declaring wars, ordering executions, authorizing deadly force, permitting or denying abortions, providing or mandating vaccines, controlling climate change, allowing or refusing asylum for endangered migrants, and other life and death rulings. He notes that when the government decides these choices, it is asked to do so by first determining whether a “right” is involved, because rights trump mere interest, just as constitutional restrictions trump legislative and executive actions. Dershowitz on Killing asserts that the rules governing death and life decisions should reflect the irreversibility of death. It is essential reading for anyone interested in or concerned about how these decisions are allocated among state and federal; executive, legislative, and judicial; private and governmental; religious and secular institutions—and how people in a democracy, through the power of the ballot, have the ultimate say in these critical decisions.

In The Case for Vaccine Mandates, Alan Dershowitz—New York Times bestselling author and one of America’s most respected legal scholars—makes an argument, against the backdrop of ideologically driven and politicized objections, for mandating (with medical exceptions) vaccinations as a last resort, if proved necessary to prevent the spread of COVID. Alan Dershowitz has been called “one of the most prominent and consistent defenders of civil liberties in America” by Politico and “the nation’s most peripatetic civil liberties lawyer and one of its most distinguished defenders of individual rights” by Newsweek. He is also a fair-minded and even-handed expert on civil liberties and constitutional rights, and in this book offers his knowledge and insight to help readers understand how mandated vaccination and compulsion to wearing masks should and would be upheld in the courts. The Case for Vaccine Mandates offers a straightforward analytical perspective: If a vaccine significantly reduces the threat of spreading a serious and potentially deadly disease without significant risks to those taking the vaccine, the case for governmental compulsion grows stronger. If a vaccine only reduces the risk and seriousness of COVID to the vaccinated person but does little to prevent the spread or seriousness to others, the case is weaker. Dershowitz addresses these and the issue of masking through a libertarian approach derived from John Stuart Mill, the English philosopher and political economist whose doctrine he summarizes as, “your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.” Dershowitz further explores the subject of mandates by looking to what he describes as the only Supreme Court decision that is directly on point to this issue; decided in 1905, Jacobson v. Massachusetts involved a Cambridge ordinance mandating vaccination against smallpox and a fine for anyone who refused. In the end, The Case for Vaccine Mandates represents an icon in American law and due process reckoning with what unfortunately has become a reflection of our dangerously divisive age, where even a pandemic and the responses to it, divide us along partisan and ideological lines. It is essential reading for anyone interested in a non-partisan, civil liberties, and constitutional analysis.

In The Case Against the New Censorship: Protecting Free Speech from Big Tech, Progressives, and Universities​, Alan Dershowitz—New York Times bestselling author and one of America’s most respected legal scholars—analyzes the current regressive war against freedom of speech being waged by well-meaning but dangerous censors and proposes steps that can be taken to defend, reclaim, and strengthen freedom of speech and other basic liberties that are under attack. Alan Dershowitz has been called “one of the most prominent and consistent defenders of civil liberties in America” by Politico and “the nation’s most peripatetic civil liberties lawyer and one of its most distinguished defenders of individual rights” by Newsweek. He is also a fair-minded and even-handed expert on the Constitution and our civil liberties, and in this book offers his knowledge and insight to help readers understand the war being waged against free speech by the ostensibly well-meaning forces seeking to constrain this basic right. The Case Against the New Censorship is an analysis of every aspect of the current fight against freedom of speech, from the cancellations and deplatformings practiced by so-called progressives, to the powerful, seemingly arbitrary control exerted by Big Tech and social media companies, to the stifling of debate and controversial thinking at public and private universities. It assesses the role of the Trump presidency in energizing this backlash against basic liberties and puts it into a broader historical context as it examines how anti-Trump zealots weaponized, distorted, and weakened constitutional protections in an effort to “get” Trump by any means. In the end, The Case Against the New Censorship represents an icon in American law and politics exploring the current rapidly changing attitudes toward the value of free speech and assessing potential ways to preserve our civil liberties. It is essential reading for anyone interested in or concerned about freedom of speech and the efforts to constrain it, the possible effects this could have on our society, and the significance of both freedom of speech and the battle against it in a greater historical and political context.

In The Case for Color-Blind Equality in an Age of Identity Politics​, Alan Dershowitz—New York Times bestselling author and one of America’s most respected legal scholars—analyzes the current battles over issues of diversity and our rapidly changing ideas about what true diversity is. Alan Dershowitz has been called “one of the most prominent and consistent defenders of civil liberties in America” by Politico and “the nation’s most peripatetic civil liberties lawyer and one of its most distinguished defenders of individual rights” by Newsweek. He is also a fair-minded and even-handed expert on civil liberties and constitutional rights, and in this book offers his knowledge and insight to help readers understand the war being waged against meritocracy and equal protection of the law by so-called progressive advocates. The Case for Color-Blind Equality in an Age of Identity Politics is an analysis of every aspect of the current fight against true diversity—diversity of philosophy, background, and opinion, rather than the more surface-level diversity of race, religion, and location. It examines the United States’s history of systemic racism, debates about affirmative action, and ongoing reckoning with issues of bigotry against groups such as Asians, Blacks, and Jews, with an eye toward fairly balancing the concerns of a diverse populace. In the end, The Case for Color-Blind Equality in an Age of Identity Politics represents an icon in American law and politics exploring the current rapidly changing attitudes toward meritocracy, personal identity, and the preservation of civil liberties for all citizens, regardless of background, race, class, or creed. It is essential reading for anyone interested in or concerned about identity politics, racial issues, and true diversity and fairness in America.