Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court

Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court
Average customer rating:

A terrible disappointment...

In A Class By Itself

Decent book for non-lawyers

Fascinating

Valuable Insights but Lacking on the So-Called "Liberals"

Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court
Jan Crawford Greenburg
Manufacturer: Penguin Press HC, The
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover

Legal History | Perspectives on Law | Law | Subjects | Books
General | Politics | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books
Government | Political Science | Social Sciences | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books
Judicial Branch | United States | Political Science | Social Sciences | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books
Legal History | Perspectives on Law | Law | Professional & Technical | Subjects | Books
Look Inside Nonfiction Books | Trip | Specialty Stores | Books
Similar Items:

The Supreme Court: The Personalities and Rivalries That Defined America

The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court

The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court

Supreme Discomfort: The Divided Soul of Clarence Thomas

Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East: 1776 to the Present

ASIN: 1594201013
Release Date: 2007-01-23

Amazon.com

With its closed chambers and formal language, the Supreme Court tends to deflect drama away from its vastly powerful proceedings. But its mysteries hold plenty of intrigue for anyone with the access to uncover them. In Supreme Conflict, Jan Crawford Greenburg has that access, and then some. With high-placed sourcing that would make Bob Woodward proud, she tells the story of the Court's recent decades and of the often-thwarted attempts by three conservative presidents to remake the Court in their image. Among the revelations are the surprising influence of the most-maligned justice, Clarence Thomas, and the political impact of personal relations among these nine very human colleagues-for-life. Written for everyday readers rather than legal scholars, her account sidesteps theoretical subtleties for a compelling story of the personalities who breathe life into our laws. --Tom Nissley

Crawford graduated from the University of Chicago Law School, and was a legal affairs reporter for the Chicago Tribune and Supreme Court correspondent for PBS's NewsHour before becoming the legal correspondent for ABC News. We had the chance to ask her a few questions about Supreme Conflict:

Questions for Jan Crawford Greenburg

Jan Crawford Greenburg Amazon.com: How hard was it to get the access to justices and clerks that you had for this book? Does the culture of the Court promote that kind of openness about their deliberations?

Jan Crawford Greenburg: Hard! And let me tell you it took some time--they weren't flinging open the doors of their chambers for the first few years I was covering the Court. It takes awhile to build relationships and trust, and I was fortunate enough to do that during the dozen years I've been covering the Supreme Court. As for openness, I think the culture of the Court instead promotes anonymity and privacy. The justices aren't like the people across the street in Congress, or down Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House. They don't hold press conferences or solicit media coverage of their views. They speak through their opinions. I was fortunate that they also chose to speak with me for this important book about the direction of the Supreme Court and its role in our lives.

Amazon.com: Harry Blackmun's notes must be a treasure chest for Court historians. Could you describe what you found there?

Greenburg: A treasure chest is an understatement. Harry Blackmun took extraordinarily detailed notes--almost breathtaking in their scope and level of detail. (He would even write down what lawyers were wearing when they'd appear in Court to argue a case.) He recorded the justices' comments during their private conferences--when they discuss cases--and he took down their votes. And he kept all the key memos and letters that the justices would send back and forth when they were discussing a case. It was a tremendous window into the Court's inner sanctum, during some of the most pivotal years for the institution.

Amazon.com: One of the biggest revelations of your book is your characterization of Clarence Thomas as far more influential, even in his first year on the Court, than he's usually given credit for. Could you describe what his role on the Court has been?

Greenburg: Clarence Thomas has been the most maligned justice in modern history--and also the most misunderstood and mischaracterized. I found conclusive evidence that far from being Antonin Scalia's intellectual understudy, Thomas has had a substantial role in shaping the direction of the Court--from his very first week on the bench. The early storyline on Thomas was that he was just following Scalia's direction, or as one columnist at the time wrote, "Thomas Walks in Scalia's Shoes." That is patently false, as the documents and notes in the Blackmun papers unquestionably show. If any justice was changing his vote to join the other that first year, it was Scalia joining Thomas, not the other way around. But his clear and forceful views affected the Court in unexpected ways. Although he shored up conservative positions, his opinions also caused moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor to back away and join the justices on the Left.

Amazon.com: Not every Supreme Court confirmation is a battle, even when the Senate and the President are from different parties. What separates the candidates who sail through from the ones who get put through the wringer?

Greenburg: The recent appointment of Samuel Alito shows a justice with a clearly conservative record can get confirmed--and even pick up some votes from Democrats. Maybe the secret is developing a reputation as a fair and nonpartisan judge on a federal appeals court. At his hearings, liberal and conservative judges who had worked with him on the appeals court testified in his behalf, as did his law clerks--some of whom were self-identified liberals. Alito was the conservative counterpart to Clinton nominee Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She had been an outspoken advocate for liberal causes (including the ACLU), but she'd developed a reputation as a fair and thoughtful judge on the federal appeals court, garnering respect from both sides.

Amazon.com: How much do Americans know about how their federal courts work? What should they know?

Greenburg: Most Americans, understandably, think about trials and drama when the issue of the courts is raised. But the appeals courts--and the Supreme Court--remain mysterious, even though those courts have an enormous impact on American life. The judiciary is one of the three branches of government, but its decisions take on outsized importance at times. It can provide a vital check against abuse of individual rights by government--but it also can usurp the role of the people when it reaches out and takes on issues that more appropriately belong in the purview of the other branches.

Amazon.com: Even though you show how our expectations for where new members will take the Court are so often wrong, I'll ask you anyway: What do you expect in the next few years from the Roberts Court?

Greenburg: To be more conservative than the one led by Chief Justice William Rehnquist. John Roberts himself is a solid judicial conservative who believes the Court has too often taken on issues that belong in the realm of elected legislatures. He is advocating a more restrained approach, with greater consensus among the justices. In addition, Justice Alito replaced key swing-voter Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court's first female justice. O'Connor's vote often carried the day on the closely divided Court--and she typically sided with liberals on social issues like abortion, affirmative action, and religion. Alito is more conservative, and I expect to see the Court turn to the right on those and other issues.

Book Description

Drawing on unprecedented access to the Supreme Court justices and their inner circles, acclaimed ABC News legal correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg offers an explosive, newsbreaking account of one of the most momentous political watersheds in recent American history.

Over the past decade, the central front of America's bitter culture wars has been the titanic battle over the composition and direction of the United States Supreme Court. During that period, no journalist has been closer to the action on the ground-the ideas, the politics, the personalities, the gamesmanship-than ABC News correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg. Now, in Supreme Conflict, Greenburg draws on all of her formidable reportorial resources to give a brilliant, vivid, astonishingly unvarnished account of the struggle for the soul of the highest court in the land.

Greenburg picks up the plot with the Rehnquist Court, which, despite having seven Republican nominees, proved deeply disappointing to conservatives hoping to reverse decades of progressive rulings on key social issues. She reveals for the first time the real story behind a series of failed Republican nominations that enraged the American conservative movement and left it seething with frustration and resolve not to squander future opportunities. Enter: George W. Bush and the setting of the stage for a full-blown conservative counterrevolution. Supreme Conflict contains entirely fresh perspectives across the entire sweep of its story, from the conservative movement's early fumbles with the nominations of justices Anthony Kennedy and David Souter to its crowning successes with the appointments of justices Roberts and Alito. The book breaks news in its revelations about the effect of Chief Justice Rehnquist's illness on the process; on the truth behind Harriet Miers's disastrous nomination and how it was really scuttled; and on how decades of bruising battles led to the triumph of the conservative agenda with the appointment of two of its leading judicial exponents. Through the entire dramatic story, rich in character and conflict, Greenburg never loses sight of the gargantuan stakes in this struggle, the opposing ideological agendas at play.

The story Jan Crawford Greenburg tells is that of the fulcrum event of our time, the massive coordinated campaign to move the Supreme Court in a very different direction, to a more limited and restrictive role in American government. A masterpiece of old-fashioned gumshoe reportage, rich storytelling, and penetrating analysis, Supreme Conflict will be the definitive account of the most consequential shift in the use of American judicial power in almost one hundred years.

Customer Reviews:

A terrible disappointment..........2007-10-08

I thought, considering the book's title and that this reporter touted her access to nine justices, that this would detail the inner dynamics and interpersonal relationships of the justices and their clerks, like The Brethren. Instead, it was a laborious and too-detailed factual account of process the Executive and Legislative Branches used to select this court.

I see strong bias on the part of the author, who as a reporter, hopes to keep "inside access." She veritably fawns over Alito, in an effort to ingratiate herself with him and his family while, in contrast, she trashes the reclusive Souter, and the presumably uncooperative Kennedy.

Only 20% of this book was worthwhile reading.

In A Class By Itself.......2007-09-30

In all respects -- writing, research, organization, balance -- this is the best book on the Supreme Court. To be sure, there'll be other (and perhaps better) books written on this always fascinating institution. For now, however, it positively towers over its competition. I've read (and enjoyed) them all -- Woodward/Armstrong's, Toobin's, Rosen's -- but Jan Crawford Greenburg's "Supreme Conflict" is, to reiterate my title, in a class by itself.

Highly recommended.

Decent book for non-lawyers.......2007-09-27

Most legal reporting in the mainstream media stinks. Either non-lawyers miss the point of cases, or lawyers fail to translate that point to a level where the average person can understand. "Supreme Conflict" is an exception. This book focuses more on the personalities and dynamics of the justices, and on the nomination and selection process, than on particular cases. The tales of how certain people are selected for the Court, and how they mesh with the other justices once they have arrived, are interesting glimpses into a world rarely seen by outsiders. Some reviewers point out, rightly, that "Supreme Conflict" does not hash out particular cases in detail. But that's not the kind of book this is.

Other reviewers contend "Supreme Conflict" is too sympathetic to the right. That leaves me scratching my head, given the account of how Bush Jr. picked Harriet Miers as a nominee. True to form, Bush Jr. got some kind of gut feeling and couldn't be talked out of it by reason, and you see what that got him. We also see the mechanism of how the great right-wing spin machine is deployed for, or against, particular nominees. None of this is particularly flattering for Republicans.

This is a good companion to "The Brethren," by Bob Woodward, a similarly-good popular level book about the Supreme Court of an earlier era. Most libraries will have this book, and it is worth checking out if you're interested in the Supreme Court but not so interested as to add "Supreme Conflict" to your permanent collection.

Fascinating.......2007-09-06

Do not start reading this book if you have to go to work or to school the next day. I read it in two evenings because it was so interesting.

Greenburg is to be congratulated for getting interviews with so many of the judges and for doing so much research and confirmation. The interest builds, and the final chapters on the Roberts, Miers, and Alito nominations are riveting, even though we know the final outcome. But what we didn't know is all the behind the scenes work.

I think Greenburg was fair to the justices and to those in the White House involved in the nomination process. She tells what they did well and what they did poorly. And some of the mistakes were monumental (Bush believing Sununu when he said that Souter was a conservative, for instance). Just from reading the book, it would be difficult to guess Greenburg's own political leanings.

Many things are surprising in this book. Justice O'Connor did not really know much about constitutional law when nominated. Clarence Thomas influenced Scalia's vote more than vice-versa during the first term. And liberal Democrats, more than anyone else, are responsible for Roberts and especially Alito, two conservative white males, being on the court.

Valuable Insights but Lacking on the So-Called "Liberals".......2007-08-09

I don't know who Greenburg's sources are, but this is a highly readable "behind the scenes" account of the political maneuvers that have influenced the selection of U.S. Supreme Court Justices from Reagan's appointees through the present. Her insights on Kennedy's jurisprudence and on O'Connor's, Roberts's, and Alito's confirmation hearings are particularly illuminating.

Greenburg is on less stable ground when it comes to the so-called "liberals." Only one chapter is devoted to Clinton's appointees, Ginsburg and Breyer, even though their selection can be seen as relative triumphs for the liberal to moderate vote that rejects the kind of judicial activism that radical conservatives like Scalia and Thomas uphold (and which Roberts and Alito tacitly support, unfortunately).

Greenburg also constantly reminds us that George H.W. Bush's appointment of David Souter is seen by many conservatives as one of the "biggest political blunders" by a Republican president in the twentieth century. While that may be true, among conservatives, I would have liked Greenburg to analyze Souter's appointment and subsequent rulings more even-handedly. Souter, in fact, is a traditional New England Republican who doesn't believe in legislating religious and moral issues from the bench. In my estimation, it's not that Souter is or became "liberal" but rather that the Court has become, under Rehnquist and now under Roberts, especially conservative, even radically so.

Still, Greenburg's book is a great survey of recent Supreme Court history and necessary reading for anyone who continues to deny the influence of politics on the shaping of law in this country.

The Supreme Court: The Personalities and Rivalries That Defined America

Average customer rating:

A Concise History of Politics vs Law
How the Court Works
Good History - Not Enough Catch
The real Justice League of America
Supreme Court

The Supreme Court: The Personalities and Rivalries That Defined America
Jeffrey Rosen , and Thirteen/WNET
Manufacturer: Times Books
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover

General | Law | Subjects | Books

Legal History | Perspectives on Law | Law | Subjects | Books

General | Law | Professional & Technical | Subjects | Books

Look Inside History Books | Trip | Specialty Stores | Books

Look Inside Nonfiction Books | Trip | Specialty Stores | Books

All Deals | Blowout Books | Stores | Books

Nonfiction | Blowout Books | Stores | Books
Similar Items:

Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court
The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court
The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court
Supreme Discomfort: The Divided Soul of Clarence Thomas

ASIN: 0805081828
Release Date: 2007-01-09

Book Description

A leading Supreme Court expert recounts the personal and philosophical rivalries that forged our nation’s highest court and continue to shape our daily lives

The Supreme Court is the most mysterious branch of government, and yet the Court is at root a human institution, made up of very bright people with very strong egos, for whom political and judicial conflicts often become personal.

In this compelling work of character-driven history, Jeffrey Rosen recounts the history of the Court through the personal and philosophical rivalries on the bench that transformed the law—and by extension, our lives. The story begins with the great Chief Justice John Marshall and President Thomas Jefferson, cousins from the Virginia elite whose differing visions of America set the tone for the Court’s first hundred years. The tale continues after the Civil War with Justices John Marshall Harlan and Oliver Wendell Holmes, who clashed over the limits of majority rule. Rosen then examines the Warren Court era through the lens of the liberal icons Hugo Black and William O. Douglas, for whom personality loomed larger than ideology. He concludes with a pairing from our own era, the conservatives William H. Rehnquist and Antonin Scalia, only one of whom was able to build majorities in support of his views.

Through these four rivalries, Rosen brings to life the perennial conflict that has animated the Court—between those justices guided by strong ideology and those who forge coalitions and adjust to new realities. He illuminates the relationship between judicial temperament and judicial success or failure. The stakes are nothing less than the future of American jurisprudence.

Customer Reviews:

A Concise History of Politics vs Law.......2007-10-06

Recently there have been many good books available about the Supreme Court. For a quick, no-nonsense straight to the heart of the matter history of Supreme Court, this is the book. A history of the Supreme Court derived from its major decisions and its major dissenters. The author shows that often justices that may be on the dissenting side of Supreme Court decisions are sometimes justices that are ahead of their time. Their lonely decisions often become basics to the American way of life in a later era. The Author, Jeff Rosen also relays a life's lesson to Supreme Court Justices, that in the interplay between majority vs. dissenters decisions, no matter how dedicated, wise, or oracle-like a justice appears, history bears out that the justices that "play ball", fraternizes, cajoles, and displays a good nature seem to win out. In other words the Law is not just the Law, the decisions cannot be divorced from the political impetus that brought them to the court and the most successful Justices are the most political Justices. Nothing underscores this more than the chapter on Justice Holmes and Justice Harlan. Justice Holmes was an ivory tower type justice and his reputation is somewhat revered today. Justice Harlan is lesser known, but the track record shows that modern American life revolves around decisions he made and that Holmes has been surpassed in almost all his major decisions.
A very rewarding book, that will make the reader feel that in one book you can gain an understanding of what make the supreme court tick, and some of the twists ands turns it has taken in its history

How the Court Works.......2007-06-18

Jeffrey Rosen's accessible and engaging companion book to the PBS series offers not only a fine introduction to the U.S. Supreme Court (and many of the most important cases it's decided in its history) but also a perspective from which to understand the Court as an institution. This perspective is tantamount to Rosen's thesis: that "judicial temperament" is a quality possessed by the Court's most distinguished justices, those who subordinate their ideological leanings to the deliberative and practical process of establishing legal consensus.

Rosen illustrates his thesis with four case studies: Marshall and Jefferson (not a justice); Harlan and Holmes; Black and Douglas; Rehnquist and Scalia. In each case one justice is seen as embracing judicial temperament while the other (or Jefferson, in the first chapter) is cast as something of an ideological maverick, a flamboyant but ultimately less influential constitutional thinker. Like one reviewer here, I found the questions raised by such pairings to be productive rather than reductive: Rosen is making a legal-historical argument here, and so reading his history of the Supreme Court is necessarily an exercise in critical interpretation.

The chapters on the twentieth-century Court are excellent, with Rosen showing how the liberal-leaning Hugo Black and the conservative-leaning William Rehnquist had more in common with each other (in terms of judicial temperament) than with their respective colleagues: William O. Douglas and Antonin Scalia. Here Rosen parses the legacies of Black and Rehnquist by showing how their restrained judicial character helped them produce well-crafted decisions that advanced the Court's legitimacy in the public eye.

Douglas and Scalia, on the other hand, were/are so committed to the purity of their ideological beliefs that, whatever one thinks of their individual decisions (and I am decidedly aligned with Douglas over Scalia in this regard), one has to come to terms with the fact that their jurisprudence will not have a lasting influence on the law of the land. Douglas and Scalia are seen as larger-than-life personalities, self-aggrandizing justices who rarely spoke for the Court as such.

Again, you might agree or disagree with the specifics of Rosen's argument and framing of his historical examples. But the survey presented here is a solid, general introduction to Supreme Court history. And with judicial temperament Rosen gives us a lens through which we might view that history, and understand better exactly how the Court works.

Good History - Not Enough Catch.......2007-05-24

For a look into some of the most well known figures in the Supreme Court, this book does a fantastic job. From in-depth analysis of their personalities to little anecdotes on each Justice, the Author clearly knows his history.

It's a tad short, and I think the specific cases could have been covered in greater detail. While it was informative, it didn't have that something special that had me anxious to keep reading. At times, I felt like I was reading a history book.

If you're someone looking to get some background into the Supreme Court and some of the characters that shaped it, this is a good book to start with. You may not feel completely entertained, but you will feel smarter after reading this book.

The real Justice League of America.......2007-05-14

It's one of the fundamental principles of the U.S. Constitution that the three branches of government are more-or-less equal, with checks and balances assuring that no branch takes over. The reality, of course, is different: at times - particularly in the 1800s - the Congress was the more powerful branch, while at other times -especially recently - the Presidency has taken the reins. The judicial branch, however, has always been in third place; although it makes a difference at times, it rarely is more visible than its "coequals". Nonetheless, there are times that the judicial branch - and in particular, the Supreme Court - has assumed a critical role in history.

Jeffrey Rosen's The Supreme Court is not so much a history of the institution as a study as to how certain personalities affected the Court. He focuses on four such rivalries that dictated not only the direction of the Court but also the direction of the country. The first rivalry (and the only one featuring a non-Court figure) is Thomas Jefferson and John Marshall. These two embodies the two principal political philosophies of the early United States: Republicanism and Federalism. Unlike previous Chief Justices, Marshall really defined the Court and made it an important part of the government, most notably with the Marbury v. Madison decision. Since Marshall differed with Jefferson on many issues, this set the two branches at odds with one another.

The next rivalry is John Marshall Harlan and Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., a pairing that is probably the most obscure to the modern reader. Holmes, with his nickname "The Great Dissenter" earned a reputation based on his dissents in some free speech cases, but often had much less sympathetic rulings, such as his opposition to civil rights and his support of eugenics. Harlan, on the other hand, was more forward-thinking, and notably dissented on Plessy v. Ferguson, the Court decision that - after Dred Scott - is probably the darkest mark on the institution's history.

The third section deals with Hugo Black and William Douglas. Unlike the previous pairings, these two were politically of a similar bent, but they still had different judicial philosophies, with Black being the sounder reasoner and Douglas being somewhat more free-wheeling. Douglas's presidential ambitions, which never really amounted to much, also affected his decision-making. Similarly, the fourth section deals with two Justices with similar politics yet different philosophies: William Rehnquist and Antonin Scalia. While Rehnquist would often try for consensus, Scalia is more absolute in his beliefs and doesn't really seem to care who he rankles.

In each pairing, Rosen casts one person as hero (Marshall, Harlan, Black and Rehnquist) and one as villain (Jefferson, Holmes, Douglas and Scalia). Of course, things are not really that simple and Rosen recognizes flaws in the heroes and virtues in the villains; perhaps it is better not to use the heroes-and-villains analogy at all, but it is clear Rosen favors one in each rivalry. This has less to do with politics than with technique: Rosen favors Justices who can promote harmony within the Court and can create rulings with real potency to them. Rulings that go 5-4 are not nearly as strong as those decided unanimously, and are more likely to be eventually reversed.

In the final section, Rosen offers an early analysis of new Chief Justice John Roberts, one that is generally positive. Roberts, Rosen believes, seems to have learned from the better Chief Justices (a group in which Rosen would include Marshall, Warren and Rehnquist) as to how to run the Supreme Court. Rosen's writing is insightful, clear and reasonably objective (in the sense that he doesn't seem to favor either the political right or left). This book is a good, alternative way at looking at the history and structure of the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court.......2007-05-07

An excellent book. If I were still teaching Constitutional Law at the college level, I would use some or all of it in class to show that law is interpreted by "real people." I think anybody would find it interesting, but lawyers and law students should find it fascinating.

Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America

Average customer rating:

Are we simply sheep being led astray?
Judicial Activism From Far Left Judges = Harm to America
Finally the TRUE story of what has been going on in the Supreme Court
This made the best sellers list?
Supreme Court is SUPREME POWER....scary....

Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America
Mark R. Levin
Manufacturer: Regnery Publishing, Inc.
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover

Legal System | Government | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Federal Government | Government | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

General | Politics | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Civil Procedure | Procedures & Litigation | Law | Subjects | Books

Look Inside Nonfiction Books | Trip | Specialty Stores | Books
Similar Items:

Winning the Future: A 21st Century Contract with America
How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must): The World According to Ann Coulter
100 People Who Are Screwing Up America (And Al Franken Is #37)
Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild
The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to American History (Politically Incorrect Guides)

ASIN: 0895260506

Amazon.com

Conservative talk radio host, lawyer, and frequent National Review contributor Mark R. Levin comes out firing against the United States Supreme Court in Men in Black, accusing the institution of corrupting the ideals of America's founding fathers. The court, in Levin's estimation, pursues an ideology-based activist agenda that oversteps its authority within the government. Levin examines several decisions in the court's history to illustrate his point, beginning with the landmark Marbury v. Madison case, wherein the court granted itself the power to declare acts of the other branches of government unconstitutional. He devotes later chapters to other key cases culminating in modern issues such as same-sex marriage and the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. Like effective attorneys do, Levin packs in copious research material and delivers his points with tremendous vigor, excoriating the justices for instances where he feels strict constit utional constructivism gave way to biased interpretation. But Levin's definition of "activism" seems inconsistent. In the case of McCain-Feingold, the court declined to rule on a bill already passed by congress and signed by the president, but Levin, who thinks the bill violates the First Amendment, still accuses them of activism even when they were actually passive. To his talk-radio listeners, Levin's hard-charging style and dire warnings of the court's direction will strike a resonant tone of alarm, though the hyperbole may be a bit off-putting to the uninitiated. As an attack on the vagaries of decisions rendered by the Supreme Court and on some current justices, Men in Black scores points and will likely lead sympathetic juries to conviction. --John Moe

Book Description

Mark Levin throws the book at our own judicial system--in particular, American judges who ignore the Constitution and dismantle the rights of American citizens in everyday court proceedings. He shares jaw-dropping examples of judicial power grabs and liberal power plays by judges.

Customer Reviews:

Are we simply sheep being led astray?.......2007-09-19

The first thing I would suggest doing before reading this book or any other political book is to actually read the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights. It can be found for free on the internet.

When discussing one of my favorite issues of our time, the interaction of government and religion, invariably the phrase of "Separation of Church and State" is put forth. My simple retort is to then challenge the individual to find that phrase in the U.S. Constitution. It's my belief that if you asked the entire population of the United States, 80 - 90% of the people would say that phrase could be found in the Constitution. But alas, those words can be found nowhere in the Constitution or the first amendment specifically. It isn't all that surprising that people hold that belief based on the fact that the phrase is uttered ad nauseam through the media, politicians and judges. This simple fact alone leads me to suggest actually reading the entire document before moving on to books regarding the Constitution.

The above being said, whether you are a middle of the roader, left wing loony or a right wing nut job like me I think Mr. Levin's Men in Black is a valuable read. It gives accounts on how the judiciary has usurped power that isn't specifically given it in the Constitution.

For people that applaud judicial activism such as Roe v. Wade, rulings against religious activities, etc. they should take pause and consider that someday the result may be widespread judicial activism from the right. Neither being a good thing. Legislating belongs in Congress where politicians are accountable to the people by election. To me Mr. Levin shows the danger of when judges take power not given them in the Constitution and use it to get their personally desired results enacted.

The book is specifically broken out in chapters that discuss specific topics, such as role of religion, rights to privacy, social policy enacted from the bench as well as several others. While I felt the arguments could have at times been better developed, I do believe this is a valuable book to read to gain a better understanding of our current judiciary climate and how we got to this stage.

Judicial Activism From Far Left Judges = Harm to America.......2007-09-13

The constitution, federal law, and American culture dictate in the most extreme manner that the power of the government belongs to the people through their elected ombudsmen in Congress.

The US Supreme Court took it upon themselves to state what the law says, and where the power is to be held, which is not what the founders or the constitution clearly states. In fact it is up to the court to police themselves and define where their power is and where it is not, just look at Marbury vs. Madison.

The power of government belongs to the citizens of the United States through the honestly elected congressionals, not to a bunch of elitist left wing thugs who have the OVER privilege to sit on the bench and decide how we the people should live.

Court decisions like Roe vs. Wade were completely unconstitutional where the court erroneously cited the right to privacy where the Constitution itself says nothing about abortion and thus the document left the issue and other social issues to be independently decided by state governments and state voters, not some liberal elitist thugs in Washington.

American power belongs to the people themselves through direct voter participation, elected congressional figures, and the honorably elected executive in the White House when it comes to issues of Terrorism and national emergency in the 21st century.

Issues such as Miranda rights, Map Verses Ohio, Roe vs. Wade, and other unjust rulings should be decided by state voters, state legislatures, and sovereign state governments not a bunch of elites in the Federal government.

The states have a large amount of power, and should have that power over numerous social and legal issues; Federal power is granted through the consent of the states, not the other way around.

The jaws of the American Supreme Court must be defanged, their power must be checked, and judges on all levels of the law should be held accountable to the people.

The law serves the people; the people do not serve the left wing elitist snobs who took it upon themselves to declare that they are the law.

America must remain democratic, constitutionally republican, and free for all time.

God bless the USA.

Finally the TRUE story of what has been going on in the Supreme Court.......2007-08-28

I was shocked to read the real story of what has been going on in the Supreme Court all these years. Thanks to Mark Levin to bring it out in the open.

This made the best sellers list?.......2007-08-19

Wow. I guess the way to the best sellers list is to: 1. ignore logical consistency; 2. ignore competing arguments; 3. distort history; 4. bash your opponents with heat, but no light. What a formula. For those interested in a serious work about the same themes, take a look at Kermit Roosevelt's book on Judicial Activism.

Supreme Court is SUPREME POWER....scary...........2007-05-31

The antics of the Supreme Court (Supreme God ?) were quite eye opening, and who better to tell the story.....

Our population needs to start marching in front of the court building and making our opinions known.

This book points out the problems when people are appointed for life and then have NO ACCOUNTABILITY.

The detail about the cases cited and researched is amazing....the facts are scary, but important for everyone in America to understand that the Court can and does regularly take away in some way every liberty we think we posess.

A must reading......I highly recommend it.

The Supremes' Greatest Hits: The 34 Supreme Court Cases That Most Directly Affect Your Life

Average customer rating:

A good overview
Good book, easily accessible, but...
Just what I ordered
A fantastic overview of landmark cases
Quick and easy to read

The Supremes' Greatest Hits: The 34 Supreme Court Cases That Most Directly Affect Your Life
Michael G. Trachtman
Manufacturer: Sterling
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

Legal History | Perspectives on Law | Law | Subjects | Books

Look Inside History Books | Trip | Specialty Stores | Books

Look Inside Fiction Books | Trip | Specialty Stores | Books

Look Inside Nonfiction Books | Trip | Specialty Stores | Books

Perspectives on Law | Law | 4-for-3 Books Store | Stores | Books

All 4-for-3 Deals | 4-for-3 Books Store | Stores | Books
Similar Items:

Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar: Understanding Philosophy Through Jokes
The 101 Most Influential People Who Never Lived: How Characters of Fiction, Myth, Legends, Television, and Movies Have Shaped Our Society, Changed Our Behavior, and Set the Course of History
Landmark Supreme Court Cases: The Most Influential Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States
101 Best Scenes Ever Written
Ladies And Gentlemen Of The Jury: Greatest Closing Arguments In Modern Law

ASIN: 1402741073

Book Description

Can the government seize your house in order to build a shopping mall? Can it determine what you can do to your own body? Why are you allowed to copy songs on a CD, but not music files from the Internet? The answers to those questions come from the Supreme Court—and its rulings have shaped American life and justice. Here are 34 of the most significant issues it has grappled with—from equal rights to privacy rights, from the limits of speech to the boundaries between church and state. Many of these cases read like thrillers…right down to their cliff-hanging endings. Among the most intriguing: the Dred Scott decision, Miranda v. Arizona, Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, and Bush v. Gore.

Customer Reviews:

A good overview.......2007-08-06

I enjoyed this book a lot. It is by no means a definitive legal dissertation on the landmark cases of the Supreme Court. Nor it is especially informative about the law.

What this book does is give a general audience something to think about. Thirty-four somethings to be exact.

The author goes over the cases with broad brushstrokes. The prose is easy to understand and consciously avoids the legalese that would turn off most readers. Instead, the purpose is to get the reader thinking about the ramifications of each case and how it affects our lives (for better or for worse) today.

Good book, easily accessible, but..........2007-06-05

I bought this book and in general I really like it. Very light on jargon and written in relatively simple prose, it was very easy to understand. The selection of cases seemed very thoughtful and historical context of the cases was very interesting. But I just can't give it five stars.

The simple writing makes the book easy-to-read but I felt like I was reading something written for a high-school-level audience and while the level of detail was adequate, it is just barely so--I finished the entire book on a two-hour plane flight and had nothing to read by the time I got to the hotel.

Just what I ordered.......2007-05-12

This was just what I ordered. Shipping was a bit slow (DHL couldn't find us, not your fault) Worth the wait! Will order again...

A fantastic overview of landmark cases.......2007-03-21

Written for the lay reader, _The Supremes' Greatest Hits_ clearly outlines the issues, decisions and relevance of Supreme Court decisions that have an immeadiate impact on daily life. The cases you'd expect to find are here (Marbury v. Madison, Roe v. Wade, Miranda v. Arizona, Brown v. Board) but there are also several cases that I'd never heard of but are no less important (Griswold v. Connecticut, Texas v. Johnson). The facts of each case are broadly discussed, how they relate to the Constitutiuon is outlined, and a brief (1 - 2 page) explaination of why the Court made its decision is explained. A great introduction to landmark cases.

Quick and easy to read.......2007-02-24

Easy to read. No lawyer-ease to try to decifer. Good point of view that looks at how these cases have broader impact then just the case itself. If it doesn't wake you up to be more involved in your family, community, country...maybe you took too many sleeping pills.

Average customer rating:

Woodward's Best
Prepare now for the next nomination battle
Interesting, but lacking
The best book on the Supreme Court out there.
A Classic History of the Burger Court

The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court
Bob Woodward , and Scott Armstrong
Manufacturer: Simon & Schuster
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

General | World | History | Subjects | Books

Legal System | Government | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Courts | Procedures & Litigation | Law | Subjects | Books

General | Law | Subjects | Books

Look Inside History Books | Trip | Specialty Stores | Books

Look Inside Nonfiction Books | Trip | Specialty Stores | Books
Similar Items:

Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court
The Supreme Court
Gideon's Trumpet
Becoming Justice Blackmun: Harry Blackmun's Supreme Court Journey
Closed Chambers: The Rise, Fall, and Future of the Modern Supreme Court

ASIN: 0743274024

Book Description

The Brethren is the first detailed behind-the-scenes account of the Supreme Court in action. Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong have pierced its secrecy to give us an unprecedented view of the Chief and Associate Justices -- maneuvering, arguing, politicking, compromising and making decisions that affect every major area of American life.

Customer Reviews:

Woodward's Best.......2007-06-29

I read this book about 15 years ago while in college and recently decided to read it again. This is probably the best book on the inner working of the US Supreme Court that anyone could read. Woodward does a fantastic job of examining the daily ins and outs of the Court, as well as describing the personalities that made up the bench at that time.

Many of us have our own views of what how the Supreme Court comes to their decisions on such a wide variety of cases. This book dispels many of the myths of appellate review.

This book is highly recommended to anyone who wants to really know how the Supreme Court decides the cases before it.

Prepare now for the next nomination battle.......2006-12-09

Though a bit dated, The Brethren is still required reading for any who would speak intelligently about U.S. public policy. Undergrads considering a PoliSci major or a pre-law track should get this read before fall classes start. Justice John Paul Stevens is 86 as of this writing so we can expect another nomination circus soon. Opinions will be loud and furious but few of those opinions will be informed or articulate. The reason is that the courts are the least understood of the three branches of the U.S. govt. Americans love court TV but their eyes glaze over at the merest hint at what legal professionals actually do.
Bob Woodward shows his considerable strengths in this collaborative work with Scott Armstrong. We see his uncanny ability to use the "background" style of interview to tease out a vivid picture of a generally inaccessible organization. We also see his ready willingness to place his own views alongside statements of alleged fact without the slightest pause for ethical implications. On p.378 of my hardbound copy, the authors describe an effort by one of the Court clerks to rally dissent against a Warren Burger opinion thusly: "The debate turned not on what the Chief had said or intended, but on what Klein and some other clerks said it might mean." How Woodward read, maybe even wrote that line with a straight face is beyond my comprehension. Woodward is notorious for quoting a person or conversation or describing events at length and ending the otherwise factual paragraph with a summary of his own that sometimes stretches or distorts the obvious meaning hilariously.
Such passages read about like this: The man walked into the courtroom. His body language seemed to say "I have contempt for this hallowed organization and shall devote my energies to its downfall in accordance with my extremist views mwahaha!" (do you see how I said the passages were LIKE this? Clever eh?) In the closing paragraphs of "The Brethren" the authors offer this from p. 444: Five separate Fourth Amendment cases were announced on July 6, the last day of the term. All five ruled against citizens' rights and in favor of the government." That is a pretty terse description of cases which have spilled barrels of ink and a false dichotomy besides (are citizen rights truly protected by a government which fails to protect them from crime?)
The storytelling is clearly slanted against the Burger court but the overall quality of the work makes the bias forgivable. We learn how the members of the Court see their mandate. We see the enormous role the clerks play in shaping the rulings of the Court. Hopefully, we see the imbecility of street demonstrations in front of the Court Building but probably not.

There have been decent books on the SCOTUS since The Brethren but Woodward and Armstrong's work captures a period of transition and evolution. We see the bitter and grudging resignation of William Douglas, one of the longest serving Justices in the history of the Court. We see the machinations behind Roe, busing and capital punishment.

The Brethren is a dense and fairly challenging read but well worth it.

Interesting, but lacking.......2006-10-21

I was very much looking forward to reading this book. But I must say that from the first chapter I was disappointted with the writing. The book reads like a string of unrelated newspaper articles or diary entries. There is no underling arc that ties all of the little stories together.

However, despite this shortcoming, "The Brethen" is very interesting. Woodward and Armstrong provide a unique take on the inner-workings of the first few years of the Burger court.

I would suggest that anyone considering reading "The Brethen" instead consider "Closed Chambers: The Rise, Fall, and Future of the Modern Supreme Court" by Edward Lazarus.

The best book on the Supreme Court out there........2006-08-03

This may possibly be the best book ever written in regards to the US Supreme Court. Opening with the end of the Warren Court, Woodward and Armstrong go on to describe the Burger Court from 1969-1975. Talking at length about Abortion, the Nixon case, and the Death Penalty, as well as giving great insight into the minds of the 9 men who interpret the nation's constitution. An amazing book, everyone should read it.

A Classic History of the Burger Court.......2006-03-19

I have just re-read this book, which I first enjoyed while I was taking Con Law in law school in the late 1970s. It is a little dated, but still a fun and well-written insider's story of the workings of the U.S. Supreme Court. Woodward and Armstrong write with an "inside the beltway" politically-correct perspective which may seem a little dated today. That's one feature that stands out. When it was originally released, Jimmy Carter was just being elected President, and the Congress was 2/3 Democratic. The political battlegrounds have changed in a generation. However, judicially, not as much as you might expect. Many key issues - abortion, free expression, and the role and limits of government, e.g., - continued through Rehnquist's term as Chief and still face the Roberts court. While today's Court line-up is more conservative, the process of internal court politics is certainly similar, so this book remains useful in attempting to understand both the history of the Court when it issued so many of those decisions that still drive politicians mad today, and how the often convoluted opinions on divisive issues are formed.
It also provides a little nostalgia in remembering Justices such as Potter Stewart and Thurgood Marshall. The authors capture a famous incident involving these two. When the Court of the 1970's considered an obscenity case, the Justices would retire, often en masse, to a basement screening room to take in the offending film. This was a world without home videos. Justice Stewart was infamous for his statement in an earlier case that, while he couldn't define obscenity, "I know it when I see it." Apparently, at the crucial moment (you know the word I'm avoiding) of the film, Justice Marshall would turn to Justice Stewart and proclaim: "That's it - I know it, I see it!"
Anyone interested in Constitutional Law and the Supreme Court should read this book.

Supreme Court Practice: For Practice in the Supreme Court of the United States

Average customer rating:

The definitive Supreme Court practice guide

Supreme Court Practice: For Practice in the Supreme Court of the United States

Manufacturer: BNA Books (Bureau of National Affairs)
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover

Civil Procedure | Procedures & Litigation | Law | Subjects | Books

Courts | Procedures & Litigation | Law | Subjects | Books

General | Law | Subjects | Books

All Titles | Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007 | Stores | Books
Similar Items:

Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy (Practition Treatise Series)
Courtiers of the Marble Palace: The Rise and Influence of the Supreme Court Law Clerk
Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court
The Winning Brief: 100 Tips for Persuasive Briefing in Trial and Appellate Courts
Legal Writing in Plain English: A Text With Exercises

ASIN: 1570182248

Book Description

For over 50 years, attorneys and judges around the country have turned to this singular resource for explanation and guidance in understanding the Court's jurisdiction and practice.

Written from the authors' first-hand knowledge and experience, this book provides the most comprehensive and in-depth analysis of the Supreme Court available.

You can rely on this treatise for guidance on every aspect of practicing before the Court — from literally how to pass through the guarded entrance to get to the Clerk's Office; how to get a "library pass" to use the Court's library on the third floor; how properly to invoke the Court's certiorari and appeal jurisdiction; how the Court's original jurisdiction can be invoked; how other extraordinary writs can be sought; and how to comply with the Court's precise rules as to the basic contents of petitions and briefs, including the location of "Questions Presented," page limits, type fonts and cover colors.

Take a look at everything Supreme Court Practice, Eighth Edition provides:

--Discussion of the jurisdictional and prudential scope of Supreme Court review. --Insights and guidance on preparing petitions for certiorari, jurisdictional statements, briefs in opposition, motions to dismiss or affirm. --Checklists for docketing and processing appeals and certiorari cases — and for pursuing a case after review has been granted. --Expert analysis of the current 48 Rules of the Supreme Court. --Full text of the Clerk's revised (10/01) Guide for Counsel in Cases to Be Argued Before the Supreme Court of the United States. --Updated guidelines for those intending to prepare a petition for certiorari including in forma pamperis Rules. --Updated guidelines for preparing a petition for certiorari pursuant to the Court's in forma pauperis Rules. --Persuasive techniques for oral argument — from the experience of judges and advocates. --Descriptions of the day-to-day operations of the Court and its officers, including the Clerk's Office, the Marshal, the Reporter of Decisions, the Library, the Public Information Office, the Curator, the Legal Office, the Administrative Assistant to the Chief Justice, and the Court's law clerks. The Court's regulations concerning the public use of the building and grounds are also included. --Alternative methods of admission to the Court's Bar by written and oral motion. --Sample forms and examples of petitions, briefs, and all other motions and documents that are pertinent to practice before the Court, plus all the Court's Rules and relevant statutes and regulations.

Customer Reviews:

The definitive Supreme Court practice guide .......2007-08-28

This is the definitive guide for practice before the United States Supreme Court, to which I turn whenever I have a case pending there. No lawyer who handles matters in our nation's highest court can afford to be without it.

Note, though, that a new edition - - the ninth - - is slated for release in late October 2007. So, if you're not filing anything in the Supreme Court before then, you may want to wait for the new edition: Supreme Court Practice

Eric Alan Isaacson

Justice for All: Earl Warren and the Nation He Made

Average customer rating:

A masterpiece
A Great Biography, History and Cultural Review
Superlative work
Well-written overall, but one big omission - Japanese detentions
Still drafting in his wake

Justice for All: Earl Warren and the Nation He Made
Jim Newton
Manufacturer: Riverhead Hardcover
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover

General | Biographies & Memoirs | Subjects | Books

Political | Leaders & Notable People | Biographies & Memoirs | Subjects | Books

Lawyers & Judges | Professionals & Academics | Biographies & Memoirs | Subjects | Books

Legal History | Perspectives on Law | Law | Subjects | Books

Look Inside Biographies | Trip | Specialty Stores | Books

Look Inside History Books | Trip | Specialty Stores | Books

Look Inside Nonfiction Books | Trip | Specialty Stores | Books

All Titles | Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007 | Stores | Books
Similar Items:

Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney: Slavery, Secession, and the President's War Powers
The Supreme Court: The Personalities and Rivalries That Defined America
Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court
Dean Acheson: A Life in the Cold War
Mellon: An American Life

ASIN: 1594489289
Release Date: 2006-10-05

Book Description

A masterful biography of the legendary chief justice of the United States and chairman of the Warren Commission by an award-winning journalist, using previously unavailable government documents and scores of new interviews that cast new light on this crucial figure in U.S. history.

Earl Warren played a key role in nearly every defining political moment in American history in the latter half of the twentieth century. He began as an aggressive county prosecutor offended by graft and vice, then rose through California politics. As attorney general and governor, he led the country's fastest-growing state during a time of enormous change, his support for the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II one of the few blemishes on an otherwise progressive record. From his historic governorship to his pivotal years as chief justice to his role as chairman of the commission that investigated the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Warren traversed the Depression and the Cold War, the struggles to defend America against foreign enemies, and the emergence of a muscular commitment to individual liberty.

As chief justice from 1953 to 1969, Warren refashioned the place of the Supreme Court in American life, overseeing cases that desegregated schools (Brown v. Board of Education), established a constitutional right of privacy (Griswold v. Connecticut), outlawed prayer in public schools (Engel v. Vitale), created a right to counsel in state trials (Gideon v. Wainwright), codified voting rights (Baker v. Carr), and revolutionized police procedure (Miranda v. Arizona). Through those cases, Warren became a target for conservative ideologues, but he also carved a place for himself as one of the Court's most respected justices and reconstructed American society into the institutions and values it upholds today.

James S. Newton brings readers the first truly complete consideration of Earl Warren, taking advantage of unprecedented access to governmental, academic, and private documents pertaining to Warren's life, as well as the extensive cooperation of Warren's living children and associates. Newton illuminates both the public and the private Warren, the father of six whose own father was murdered, the stoic leader of the Masons who was touched by the difficulties of children, the sturdy yet prickly man. The result is a monumental biography of a complicated and principled figure that will become a seminal work of twentieth-century American history.

Customer Reviews:

A masterpiece.......2007-04-11

Jim Newton's biography of Earl Warren, "Justice for All", is a comprehensive and richly written book about one of the great Chief Justices in our nation's history. Warren, a moderately conservative man in temperament, style and often idea, led the Court through one of the most tumultuous times in recent memory. Revered and reviled as he might have been, his legacy is certainly one of notable accomplishments and Newton captures it well.

The author presents Earl Warren in a generally favorable light, reminding us of some of his catastrophic decisions, too....especially his support for the internment of Japanese-Americans during the Second World War. For a moderate, almost non-partisan Republican, Warren had terrific success as governor of California propelling him into the national limelight with only one real political miscalculation of consequence...his agreeing to be Thomas Dewey's Vice Presidential running mate in 1948. Here begins the real fascinating part of Newton's book...politics. Whether it was Earl Warren's tenure as governor, or later dealing with the many presidents he knew or the intricacies of the personalities on the Court, Newton is terrific at describing political process. As Warren was a Republican it was interesting to read that the three Republicans he knew who were or would become president...Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford....were ones with whom Warren had the most troubles. (The descriptions of Richard Nixon add some good humor to the book!) The Chief Justice thought the most highly of President Kennedy, we learn, and he at least got along reasonably well with Lyndon Johnson.

There are many court cases, of course, cited in this book. They are fascinating to read about, especially how often slim majorities hung in the balance, finally decided by Earl Warren's persuasive powers. Newton speaks a great deal about Warren's family and this is much to his credit...so often in these biographies families are put on the back shelf. Here, they are front and center. If I had one small negative thing to say it would be that as the book progresses the author's fondness for his subject becomes much more apparent. "Justice for All" never approaches a hagiography, but occasionally it appears headed in that direction. Other than that, Jim Newton has written a superlative book and I highly recommend it for two reasons....to remind those of us who remember Earl Warren of his towering presence as Chief Justice and for those too young to remember him but who want to learn more.

A Great Biography, History and Cultural Review.......2007-03-29

This is a great story about a pivotal figure in 20th century American history. Before reading this, I knew Warren primarily as the Chief Justice and chair of the Warren Commission. However, I didn't realize that Warren was a fellow Cal grad, California 3-term governor, and DA for the county I've lived in for 10 years.

As such, this book is a fascinating history of California in addition to it's other topics.

Another note; one reviewer claims that this book glosses over Warren's role in the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII. My impression, was that Warren's role was described in fascinating detail, including his behind-the-scenes politicking which contributed to the Japanese being interned. Also, the author revisits this decision during the remainder of the book, commenting about how this controversial move colored Warren's outlook for the rest of this life.

Superlative work.......2007-03-16

Since there is so much I want to read I usually don't read more than one biography of anybody and I had already read two of Earl Warren:
1827 Super Chief: Earl Warren and his Supreme Court A Judicial Biography, by Bernard Schwartz (read 19 Feb 1984)
3114 Chief Justice: A Biography of Earl Warren, by Ed Cray (read 26 Sep 1998)
So I was surprised that I decided to read this book. But not reading it would have been a big mistake This is an extraordinarily well-done work, telling the story of a man whose contributions to our country as we now know it are huge. The author has a sure grasp for the momentous events in which Warren was involved, and I have not read a more interest-holding biography in years. So even if you think you know all there is to know about the man who turned out to be the greatest Chief Justice in our nation's history, you should read this excellent account of a vitally important man.

Well-written overall, but one big omission - Japanese detentions.......2007-03-05

Newton does well in looking at some of Warren's more controversial prosecutions as Alameda County (Oakland) district attorney, and as California attorney general.

But, he basically skips over Oovernor Earl Warren's part in the Japanese deportations in World War II.

The rest of the book is great, from the different difficult cases, to the background interviews with family and friends, through the Warren Commission and more. (I never realized how Jerry Ford was pipelining stuff to J. Edgar Hoover when he wasn't being an obstructionist.)

But, because Newton doesn't tackle this issue, or Warren's later thoughts on it, at all, to be honest, a potentially great book slips to four stars.

Still drafting in his wake.......2007-02-19

Earl Warren's is a biography that pays revisiting, especially now that the political center he represented is so thin and the political virtues he practiced so derided. He was an uncomplicated, direct, and plain-spoken man who nevertheless, as Chief Justice, produced astonishing results. Brown vs. the Board of Education provided the essential legal fulcrum of the Civil Rights movement that transformed America in the last half of the 20th century. Perhaps this simplicity and clear vision was the key to his effectiveness.

How to explain the contradictions in Warren's life? Eisenhower was famously unhappy with his appointee. Warren, as Chief Justice, took positions that contradicted what Warren himself, as a District Attorney and Governor, had in fact practiced. No wonder Ike was pole-axed by the Chief Justice he got. The answer seems to be that Warren focused on using the tools each office provided to advance a consistent philosophy, equal justice for all.

Also interesting is the counterpoint and interplay of the careers of Warren and Richard Nixon. Nixon plainly drafted in Warren's wake and converted to the uses of his ambition political capital Warren had accumulated, especially when he crawled over Warren's presidential ambitions to secure the nomination as Vice-President. Yet two politicians were never more dissimilar than Warren and Nixon, the one open, natural, sociable, and comfortable in his skin, the other so contrived and fabricated as to stand for the least likely politician in recent history. But Nixon feigned the virtues Warren possessed in abundance: another way he drafted in Warren's wake. When Nixon hid lies and inconsistencies behind prefaces that he was about to make things "perfectly clear," he aped only Warren's political prose, not Warren's philosophy.

Jim Newton is a writer Warren would have enjoyed talking to and might have hired as a speechwriter. His prose is direct and his explanations of otherwise thorny and obscure legal issues easily penetrable. Warren deserves a better and grander reputation than he has merited at the hands of the neo-conservatives who have taken over the Court and Court punditry. Newton is an able advocate for a reappraisal. Warren did much more good for the county than serve as the exemplar of evil judicial activism. Absent Warren would Clarence Thomas today be on the Supreme Court? Perhaps the only irony of Warren's career is that so few followed in his footsteps, but so many neo-Nixons are still drafting in his wake.

The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States

Average customer rating:

The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States
An excellent reference
Massive tome on the Supreme Court.
A worthy companion
A companion readers can't do without

The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States

Manufacturer: Oxford University Press, USA
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover

General | Constitutional Law | Law | Subjects | Books

Courts | Procedures & Litigation | Law | Subjects | Books

Federal Jurisdiction | Administrative Law | Law | Subjects | Books

General | Law | Subjects | Books

Non-US Legal Systems | Perspectives on Law | Law | Subjects | Books

Reference | Law Practice | Law | Subjects | Books

Legal | Encyclopedias | Reference | Subjects | Books

Look Inside Nonfiction Books | Trip | Specialty Stores | Books

Look Inside Reference Books | Trip | Specialty Stores | Books

All Titles | Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007 | Stores | Books

Professional | Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007 | Stores | Books

Reference | Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007 | Stores | Books
Similar Items:

The Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions
A History of the Supreme Court
A People's History of the Supreme Court: The Men and Women Whose Cases and Decisions Have Shaped Our ConstitutionRevised Edition
The Supreme Court
America's Constitution: A Biography

ASIN: 0195176618

Book Description

The Supreme Court has continued to write constitutional history over the thirteen years since publication of the highly acclaimed first edition of The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court. Two new justices have joined the high court, more than 800 cases have been decided, and a good deal of new scholarship has appeared on many of the topics treated in the Companion. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist presided over the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton, and the Court as a whole played a decisive and controversial role in the outcome of the 2000 presidential election. Under Rehnquists's leadership, a bare majority of the justices have rewritten significant areas of the law dealing with federalism, sovereign immunity, and the commerce power. This new edition includes new entries on key cases and fully updated treatment of crucial areas of constitutional law, such as abortion, freedom of religion, school desegregation, freedom of speech, voting rights, military tribunals, and the rights of the accused. These developments make the second edition of this accessible and authoritative guide essential for judges, lawyers, academics, journalists, and anyone interested in the impact of the Court's decisions on American society.

Customer Reviews:

The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States.......2007-08-01

I bought this as a reference work, but I have found that it is a good read, also. Discussions of cases go into the details of what the issues of each case were, what the decision of the majority and minority of the court was, and the reasoning behind the decision. It also gives a clear understanding of the place of the Supreme Court in American government and life. This is a must for those who wish to understand the Supreme Court and how it came to be what it is now.

An excellent reference.......2006-06-03

It is difficult to say whether the contentious atmosphere that currently exists regarding the legal opinions of the Supreme Court is greater than any other time in the history of the United States. There have been times, especially during the Civil War and World War I when the Supreme Court raised the ire of many a citizen. Some of the "activist" justices, as some of them are now called, could perhaps be designated as "activist light" if compared with some of the justices of the past. This book gives ample evidence for this comparison, but also gives information on a wide variety of legal issues that the Supreme Court has had to deal with throughout its history. It would probably not be read from cover to cover, but instead serves as a general reference for those readers who are not and do not intend to become legal scholars, but are curious as to the reasoning patterns deployed by the justices who sat on the Court. Readers who are approaching this subject for the first time will find many surprises about the Court, both in the opinions expressed by the judges and in their personal histories and backgrounds. It is fair to say that legal opinions are guided predominantly by the historical context in which they are put forth, and this claim seems to gain more substantiation as more articles in this book are read and studied.

One of the more surprising things to learn from this book is that the Supreme Court never really considered free speech issues with the First Amendment until as late as 1919, in Schenck v. United States. This case is also discussed in this book, and revolves around Charles Schenck, who was general secretary of the Socialist party of the time. Schenck and a few other defendants were convicted with a violation of the 1917 Espionage Act by conspiring to obstruct military recruiting and enlistment via the circulation of pamphlet. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the unanimous opinion for the court ruling against Schenck and defendants and thus upholding their conviction. This case was the first time the famous statement of "crying fire in a public theatre" was used to restrict an "absolutist" interpretation of the First Amendment. It could also be viewed as an example of how even legal authorities, who are supposed to be calm and rational during emergencies or times of war, can succumb to the pressures of the times (in this case the pre- and post-war hysteria of World War I) and not be able to divorce themselves from their past personal histories (Holmes himself was wounded three times while serving in the Union Army during the Civil War). The Holmes Court effectively said that the First Amendment is not to be taken literally, and if speech presents a "clear and present danger" then governmental agencies have the right to punish the purveyors of this speech. Free speech issues dominant legal discussions at the present time, and the legal standing of "hate speech" is discussed in an article in this book. One can find solace in knowing that the Supreme Court has not found "hate speech" to be prohibited by the Constitution, despite attempts of many groups to justify its prohibition by appeals to constitutional law. The article on "hate speech" discusses some of these cases and gives a few references.

Without doubt the most despicable legal decision ever put forth by the Supreme Court was the case Scott v. Sandford in 1857. Known famously as the `Dred Scott Case', it is characterized in this book as one of the most important cases in American constitutional law. The decision essentially said that blacks are not citizens of the United States and therefore could not sue in federal courts. In addition, slaves were "property" that was "protected" by the Constitution. Naturally, and justifiably from a moral standpoint, the decision provoked hostile reaction against the Court, and the justices who ruled against Scott clearly were "activist heavy". In reference to the Dred Scott decision, the abolitionist William Garrison was justified in his statement that the Constitution was a "a covenant with death, and an agreement with hell."

The case Roe v. Wade is also discussed at length in this book, as expected. It will be interesting to see whether this case is overturned in the near future. If it is it might be because of a kind of `legal fatigue' that seems to be setting in dialog about the case. The arguments both for and against Roe v. Wade are repeated over and over again and have become almost platitudes. Rather than being a complicated Constitutional issue, is seems that the legal reasoning surrounding Roe v. Wade has become desiccated and has exhausted itself, offering no further insights or justifications for privacy.

Massive tome on the Supreme Court........2005-10-07

_The Oxford Companion to the United States Supreme Court of the United States_ (Kermit Hall, ed.) is a massive tome containing a vast swath of information: cases, traditions, theories of constitutional interpretations, historical events, and biographies of all of the Supreme Court Justices. It has the same material (word for word) as Kermit Hall's _The Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions_ but this is much more worthwhile reference work because it contains more contextual material than the cases themselves. This book is by no means exhaustive, but it provides a very informative overview of what the Supreme Court has been up to for the past two hundred years and the very different personalities serving on the body.

A worthy companion.......2005-09-29

As the nation prepares to welcome the seventeenth Chief Justice, this book is a wonderful guide to the processes of the least 'media-exposed' branch of the federal government and its highest institution, the Supreme Court.

This book has many handy features for researchers and general enthusiasts. There are brief biographies - personal, professional and judicial - of each of the Chief Justices and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court (there have been 108 in all, with 113 appointments, as 5 Associate Justices have later been appointed as Chief Justice) together with pictures of each. There are synopses of over 400 of the most pivotal cases in the history of the Supreme Court (Marbury v. Madison, Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, even Bush v. Gore from the year 2000) - each of these cases is presented with voting record (who wrote the opinion, who concurred, who dissented, and who wrote additional opinions) as well as the pertinent issues in the cases and the implications of the decisions.

This is a very comprehensive guide. There are essays on key issues that are very thorough - for example, the essay on 'Federalism' is an eleven page entry that includes general political principles as well as court work. There are essays on each Article of the Constitution as well as each of the Amendments. One of the longest entries is the essay on 'History of the Court', subdivided into major chronological sections - this is one of the best, brief encapsulations of the history of the high court and how it is has made an impacted (and in turn been influenced by) society that I have read. There are also entries on the physical structures of the court - the essay on the building gives an historical overview of where and in what setting the court has met, and minor entries include features of the current building (for example, there is a short entry entitled 'Barber Shop', which talks about the facility for Justices and male employees of the court to get a haircut - it mentions nothing of where O'Connor, Ginsburg or the female court employees might get their hair done). One also learns that there is a basketball court in the gymnasium of the Supreme Court, but that basketball is prohibited while the court is in session, as the dribbling balls can be heard in the court chamber.

There are also entries on key judicial concepts. The concept of Constitutional Interpretation is something that many people take for granted, but is in fact an continually changing methodology. There are Common Law concepts such as the Writ of Mandamus and Writ of Certiorari (each have an entry) as well as the more structured Writ of Habeas Corpus. One also discovers here that 'Mootness' is a word.

There are several appendices that are also handy features. The first appendix, appropriately, is the full text of the Constitution. The second appendix lays out the nominations, terms and succession of the Justices in several ways, including an interesting graphical representation organised alongside presidential terms, as well another chronology that shows number of days without a full court appointed (when we imagine that a few months is a long time to go in the nomination and approval process, we can see that from 1843 to 1846, there were 965 days without a full court).

For trivia buffs, appendix three is a fun piece - there is a listing of the trivia and traditions of the court, divided into 'Firsts' and more general 'Trivia'. Too bad it doesn't list why Chief Justice Rehnquist wore stripes on his sleeves as Chief Justice! Perhaps that is an update for the third edition.

This is a book with great information, as well as a good deal of spirit and wit. It is a valuable addition to any library.

A companion readers can't do without.......2005-08-16

Since its initial publication in 1992, The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States has served as a valuable resource on the history of the Court. With articles on the justices, their key decisions, legal philosophies, and even aspects of Court life, the Companion has been an indispensable addition for anyone interested in American law or the history of the Court.

With the passage of time, though, the need for an update taking into account subsequent cases and topics has only grown. This need has now been met with the second edition, which includes new articles on a variety of topics, and revision of many of the earlier ones. While a few mistakes were missed (the entry on Supreme Court clerks, for example, was not updated to include Stephen Breyer among the names of the justices who previously served as clerks) and while the bibliographies at the end of each article have only been indifferently updated (while the entry on William O. Douglas includes Bruce Allen Murphy's recent biography, the one on Benjamin Cardozo includes neither of the important books written about him over the past decade), the overall result is a work of continuing utility for readers and scholars alike.

The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President

Average customer rating:

Educational
A case Excellently Presented
Right Result, Wrong Reasoning
Doesn't mince any words
Supreme Court Betrayal

The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President
Vincent Bugliosi , and Gerry Spence
Manufacturer: Nation Books
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

General | Current Events | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Legal System | Government | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

General | Politics | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

All 4-for-3 Deals | 4-for-3 Books Store | Stores | Books
Similar Items:

Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000
Till Death Us Do Part: A True Murder Mystery
And the Sea Will Tell
Too Close to Call: The Thirty-Six-Day Battle to Decide the 2000 Election
Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O.J. Simpson Got Away With Murder

ASIN: 156025355X

Book Description

During the course of American history, wrongful events have occurred and certain Americans have stood up and spoken out against these wrongs: Tom Paine, Edward R. Murrow, Daniel Ellsberg. Vincent Bugliosi takes his place in this special pantheon of patriots with his powerful, brilliant, and courageous expose of crime by the highest court in the land. When an article he wrote on this topic appeared in The Nation magazine in February 2001, it drew the largest outpouring of letters and e-mail in the magazine's 136-year history, tapping a deep reservoir of outrage. The original article is now expanded, amended, and backed by amplifications, endnotes, and the relevant Supreme Court documents.

Customer Reviews:

Educational.......2007-08-30

This book packs a lot of information into very few pages. Bugliosi does a good job of supporting his suppositions with law. There are so many points made, most everyone will be unaware of some of them. The biggest drawback for me was that sometimes Bugliosi strays into name-calling which leads one to begin to doubt if some of the scholarship isn't slanted more than is obvious at first blush.

A case Excellently Presented.......2007-08-05

Bugliosi is one of a kind! He makes his points clearly and effectively. I wish he could take all these so called "justices" to court where he would run circles around them with his startlingly clear reasoning and thinking, ending with them all being dragged off to the nearest prison for treason. A great book to get the juices of freedom flowing again from a great man who truly cares about justice.

Right Result, Wrong Reasoning.......2007-06-01

I voted for Al Gore in 2000 and wish that he were finishing his second term as President at this time. However, if you put partisan emotions aside and look at the full legal context of that election, it is clear that Bush was the legally elected President.

Article II of the Constitution gives state legislatures the authority to appoint electors to the electoral college, using whatever criteria each legislature establishes. In the early days of the Republic, most legislatures chose all electors themselves, by majority vote. Over time, other criteria were used, until now all 50 states award electors based on the results of the popular vote. With only one or two exceptions (I forget which states), the candidate with the highest popular vote in a given state gets ALL of that state's electoral votes.

For many decades, Florida has followed this procedure to award its electoral votes. But Florida election laws clearly state that the state legislature has the right to set aside the results of the popular vote totals; the legislature may then directly award, by majority vote of all legislators, the electoral votes to whichever candidate it chooses. In 2000, both Houses of the Florida legislature had solid Republican majorities. The Republican leaders of both bodies (and the Republican governor, Jeb Bush), clearly stated that, if necessary, they would call a special legislative session to award ALL Florida electors to George W. Bush.

Had that scenario occurred, here is what would likely have played out. On the day that Congress was scheduled to count the electoral votes, the Gore operatives would have challenged the Florida electoral count. Existing FEDERAL election laws would then have become operative. The Republican U.S. House majority would have awarded the electoral votes to Bush. The U.S. Senate would have voted 51-50 to award the electoral votes to Gore, with then Vice President Gore casting the tiebreaking vote in his favor. Federal law states that if the Senate and House award electors to different candidates, the governor of the state in question has the right to break the tie and award the electors to the candidate he so chooses. The Florida governor in 2000...Jeb Bush, George W.'s brother. In a last ditch effort to salvage the election for Gore, the Florida Supreme Court would probably have tried to use their powers of judicial review to thwart this scenario, by claiming that a state Supreme Court has authority to review all acts of its own legislature. However, the U.S. Supreme Court would certainly have ruled that the U.S. Constitution unequivocally gives the power to select electors (by whichever method it chooses) to state legislatures, outside the scope of state court judicial review - and by more than a 5-4 vote.

So there you have it, folks. Lament all you want over what federal election laws should be, bash the electoral college, lambaste the confusing "butterfly" ballots in south Florida, criticize the flimsy equal protection arguments of the 5 or 7 justices, etc. But all partisan feelings aside, George W. Bush was the legitimately, constitutionally elected winner of the 2000 Presidential election. All other legal reasonings in this book make for nice academic discussions, but are beside the point in any practical sense.

Doesn't mince any words.......2007-05-30

Bugliosi turns a prosecutor's eye to Bush v. Gore and finds the decision not just lacking substance, but a criminal act.

First he deals with motive. All of the 5 justices who chose Bush as president came up through partisan Republican politics. While that's expected (since they come to their positions through the political process), integrity in upholding their oath to support the Consitition has been expected to take precedence. Beyond their partisan pasts and connections, 3 of the 5 had immediate and direct interest in a Bush presidency. Justice O'Connor publically said that if Gore won she'd have to postpone her retirement at least 4 years (so as not to have a Democratic President apppoint her successor.) Justice Thomas's wife, through her Heritage Foundation position was poised to serve on the Bush transition team and Justice Scalia's two sons work for a law firm that handles Bush's legal business.

Bugliosi doesn't say what would happen if we, the non-elite, helped out friends or worked things to our interest through service on a jury, but I'm sure something would.

Next Bugliosi deals with the legal issues. How could the court accept Bush's argument that Bush needed "equal protection" from Gore? That is... the court assumed that Bush won the election and that by counting the votes Gore could take it away from him. Votes, 60,000 in this case, the sacred element of our democracy... the very core of what people fight and die for... were negated as the Court ignored its own entrenched states right biases and regarded time frames as inflexible when complete past practice and case law showed recounts and seating delegates, (with disputes always decided by states and state courts), to be viewed as target dates and not rigid dealines.

On p. 155 Bugliosi has a hypothetical script. He suggests the dialog of the justices and how they came to "reason out" their unsigned opinion that allowed them to pick the president over 50 million voting Americans.

In the early part of the book (written in 2001) he likens this decision to the "preposterous" idea that Republican prosecutors would prosecute only Democrats and vice versa. It was strange that he would mention it, because it was this exact thing that piqued my current interest in this 2001 book.

Supreme Court Betrayal.......2007-05-12

Mr. Bugliosi's excellent book brings into question the entire operation and philosophy of the supreme court. Perhaps the supreme court should be simply the highest appellate court and leave questions of constitutionality to the judicial committees of Congress. As Mr. Bugliosi points out, there is nothing in the Consitution that gives the Supreme Court the right to strike down federal and state laws as unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited

Average customer rating:

The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited
Jeffrey A. Segal , and Harold J. Spaeth
Manufacturer: Cambridge University Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

Courts | Procedures & Litigation | Law | Subjects | Books

General | Law | Subjects | Books

General | Politics | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Look Inside Nonfiction Books | Trip | Specialty Stores | Books

All Titles | Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007 | Stores | Books

Nonfiction | Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007 | Stores | Books
Similar Items:

The Choices Justices Make
The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change? (American Politics and Political Economy Series)
Crafting Law on the Supreme Court: The Collegial Game
Advice and Consent: The Politics of Judicial Appointments
Congress: The Electoral Connection, Second Edition

ASIN: 0521789710

Book Description

Authored by two leading scholars of the Supreme Court and its policy making, this study systematically presents and validates the use of the attitudinal model to explain and predict Supreme Court decision making. In the process, it critiques the two major alternative models of Supreme Court decision making and their major variants--the legal and rational choice. Using the U.S. Supreme Court Data Base, the justices' private papers, and other sources of information, the book analyzes the appointment process, certiorari, the decision on the merits, opinion assignments, and the formation of opinion coalitions.

Books:

Books Index

Books Home

Recommended Books