What do you think?
Rate this book
No Island of Sanity: Paula Jones v. Bill Clinton: The Supreme Court on Trial
" 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.
--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.
160 pages, Paperback
First published February 17, 1998
About the author
Vincent Bugliosi
42 books1,167 followersAmerican attorney and author, best known for prosecuting Charles Manson and his followers for the murder of Sharon Tate and others.
In his books he claimed that O.J Simpson and Lee Harvey Oswald were guilty of the crimes they were accused of.
In his latest book he states that George W. Bush should be prosecuted for murder.
Bugliosi lived in Pasadena, CA.
In his books he claimed that O.J Simpson and Lee Harvey Oswald were guilty of the crimes they were accused of.
In his latest book he states that George W. Bush should be prosecuted for murder.
Bugliosi lived in Pasadena, CA.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
June 21, 2014
"The White House was unprepared for this crisis [the 'struggle with Serbia over Kosovo'] because the Monica Lewinsky scandal was taking up a huge amount of time and resources," former CIA-analyst Melvin A. Goodman was later to point out in 2013's National Security: The Cost of American Militarism, later adding -- on another issue -- "[i]t was obvious that the Republican leadership was more interested in embarrassing the Clinton presidency than in a genuine compromise with the White House."
And Bugliosi called it — years ago.
His thesis — not just that the Supreme Court erred, or even that it failed, but that it became "infected" by the same sort of self-serving convenience think pundits from think tanks to venerable journalists to folks actually serving in Congress and/or the Government have been using to "get by" in lieu of rigorous, triple-checked reason — is more than a little alarming. (Check out his even-handed dissection of every single party's inability to cite — Clinton's lawyers included — the legal provisions for deferment of civil suits when the defendant is, erhm, "otherwise occupied" in performing U.S. Government service.)
Even the "Shucks, I'm just an old geezer, I guess, but ... what's with all the young folks wearing nose rings, nowadays?" passage — which would normally just be embarrassing — has value as an articulation of "a set of assumptions and distinctions, [previously] unvoiced and unquestioned" (as Thomas Pynchon says the Archie Bunker character did, in his Slow Learner "Introduction").
Great reading for anyone who thinks there's any wonder whether O.J. actually did it (also covered, effortlessly)!
And Bugliosi called it — years ago.
His thesis — not just that the Supreme Court erred, or even that it failed, but that it became "infected" by the same sort of self-serving convenience think pundits from think tanks to venerable journalists to folks actually serving in Congress and/or the Government have been using to "get by" in lieu of rigorous, triple-checked reason — is more than a little alarming. (Check out his even-handed dissection of every single party's inability to cite — Clinton's lawyers included — the legal provisions for deferment of civil suits when the defendant is, erhm, "otherwise occupied" in performing U.S. Government service.)
Even the "Shucks, I'm just an old geezer, I guess, but ... what's with all the young folks wearing nose rings, nowadays?" passage — which would normally just be embarrassing — has value as an articulation of "a set of assumptions and distinctions, [previously] unvoiced and unquestioned" (as Thomas Pynchon says the Archie Bunker character did, in his Slow Learner "Introduction").
Great reading for anyone who thinks there's any wonder whether O.J. actually did it (also covered, effortlessly)!
July 26, 2021
I picked up this short book figuring I’d finish it in a day and gain some valuable insight into the Jones v. Clinton trial from one of the most talented attorney authors in America.
What I got was a 132 page information dump that jumped from idea for idea while only occasionally coming aback to the central theme: the Supreme Court failed to consider the balancing interests argument of postponing the Jones v Clinton trial. It felt like the Democrat Vincent Bugliosi sat before the TV and hate watched Fox News for 96 straight hours, jumped up on the couch and yelled “this is an outrage”, and then started to write down every offense he could recall over the previous four days over a pot of coffee and a bottle of truck stop energy pills. If you took every period out of this book it would in no way impact the overall flow. But with that being said, I think his underlying premise is solid and well researched (he has no shortage of relevant citations) even if it is somewhat unfocused. But interestingly enough, his argument that this single decision showed how the Supreme Court was severely partisan and ideological, and would make poorly reasoned decisions that favored their ideological views that were contrary to the Constitution, was one that didn’t age well either. In the years since the Paula Jones Scandal there have been numerous, and more pronounced, examples that would better make this argument. In many ways, this was a book probably would have been better served if it were half the length and added to a longer and more focused review of several Supreme Court cases such as Bush v. Gore and Citizens United.
What I got was a 132 page information dump that jumped from idea for idea while only occasionally coming aback to the central theme: the Supreme Court failed to consider the balancing interests argument of postponing the Jones v Clinton trial. It felt like the Democrat Vincent Bugliosi sat before the TV and hate watched Fox News for 96 straight hours, jumped up on the couch and yelled “this is an outrage”, and then started to write down every offense he could recall over the previous four days over a pot of coffee and a bottle of truck stop energy pills. If you took every period out of this book it would in no way impact the overall flow. But with that being said, I think his underlying premise is solid and well researched (he has no shortage of relevant citations) even if it is somewhat unfocused. But interestingly enough, his argument that this single decision showed how the Supreme Court was severely partisan and ideological, and would make poorly reasoned decisions that favored their ideological views that were contrary to the Constitution, was one that didn’t age well either. In the years since the Paula Jones Scandal there have been numerous, and more pronounced, examples that would better make this argument. In many ways, this was a book probably would have been better served if it were half the length and added to a longer and more focused review of several Supreme Court cases such as Bush v. Gore and Citizens United.
May 13, 2020
I'm a republican, and agree with Bugliosi
What the supreme court did in this ruling was egregious. It does not matter what your political views are, the court was wrong. Mr. Bugliosi arguments are correct. Any sitting President neither has the time not the ability to defend themselves against lawsuits of this kind, but that does not mean the suits cannot be out in hold until after they leave office.
What the supreme court did in this ruling was egregious. It does not matter what your political views are, the court was wrong. Mr. Bugliosi arguments are correct. Any sitting President neither has the time not the ability to defend themselves against lawsuits of this kind, but that does not mean the suits cannot be out in hold until after they leave office.
March 14, 2013
I had to read this, because I could NOT understand why the Supremes said Bill Clinton had to answer charges in the Paula Jones case, when the constitution itself says the President is specifically excused from this exact thing. Well researched and written.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews