|
This book takes you inside the US Supreme Court, introduces you to the members, makes them human, and give a great insight as to its operation--all the while making you turn page after page. It gives you a feel for the great importance of the US President's opportunity to appoint members to promote their adjenda, frequently with much surprising results. It should be required reading for anyone the least interested in the working of the Court and other aspects of recent politics.It's a book you can't put down.
I read this book awhile back while it was in hardcover. I was interested in reading the book, because I had seen Jeffrey Toobin on TV - and I liked hearing what he had to say and how he said it.After reading the book and I can tell you it is a great book unmasking the Supreme Court. While the book is valuable by showing all of it's individuals and their particular indiosyncrasy's - for instance after taking off his robe, Justice Thomas is a serious RV camper - it is also illustrates the Supreme court's increasing political role and the election of George W. Bush in 2000.The books is rare in that it is not only an interesting read, but the author writes in a profound but easy to read style.This was the exact premise I bought the book for - Toobin - has great insights and he is easy to understand.
Reading this book is seeing the Supreme Court from the inside out. A must-read for anyone who wants to stay tuned in to US politics and current history.
Favorably painted are those "liberal" justices who are guided by wisdom and adhere to stare decisis. When he is closest, Toobin is at his best. Throughout Toobin can't seem to reconcile his views. Bush v. At one point early in the book Toobin states, "There were two kinds of cases before the Supreme Court.
For me, such a narrow focus on social issues, which is a very small percentage of what the Court does day to day, undermines Toobin's claim and makes his book little more than a popular history of the Rehnquist Court followed by an introduction to the now emerging Roberts' Court. With the exceptions of Souter's and Ginsburg's, one who is no longer a justice and one who Toobin says too little about, these portraits remain relevant. He frames his picture, though, using the Court's fractious opinions on various social issues, primarily abortion. Not so favorably painted are those "conservative" justices who are held captive by a debilitating and destructive philosophy.
For example, he praises those justices that bend the law in accordance with public opinion, but never addresses how this comports with his belief that the Court is to be praised for its political independence. When divorced from the larger political narrative, each portrait is educating, none more so than Kennedy's who, as Toobin rightly points out, is now the swing vote on the Court. Gore also plays a significant role in Toobin's tome, and in presenting this case and those above, Toobin is prone to bias and double speak. Applying these labels to the justices in a consistent manner is nearly impossible since, for one or reason or another, the justices vote in ways you otherwise might not expect (although using the social issue litmus test that Toobin does, he makes this task a lot easier for himself). Gore from within the Marble Palace, despite the tone and incessant political jabs, is absorbing.
Providing insights into the nine justices that served together from 1994-2005--including who they are, where they came from, and what they believe--Toobin claims to provide an inside look at what happens behind those engraved, bronzed doors and marble columns in downtown Washington. After warning of an ominous "conservative" revolution that is occurring in the Court, Toobin repeatedly revels in their continuous rout. This double speak can be annoying, if not disingenuous, and while subtle at times, Toobin can also be blatant.Such a vacillating tone gives the impression that Toobin is trying to be even handed and just can't force himself to be. Throughout he has sprinkled vignettes of each justice, their confirmations, and highlights of some of their major (social) decisions. Maybe as one reviewer has posted it is impossible to write a politically neutral book on the Supreme Court. Equally absorbing can be the insights into the Court's inner wrangling. There were abortion cases--and there were all the others." If you agree with this sentiment, then it will largely influence how you react to the rest of this book.
But all are haunted by Toobin's shallow and biased approach to the law, which casts a cloud over even his brightest moments. The justices are more nuanced and the law more complex than Toobin gives either credit for, and in this treatment Toobin has done the Court a disservice. If so, it should not be impossible to propagate a consistent message. The story of Bush v. Read for an introduction to the Supreme Court and most of its current justices, but read it with skepticism.
Certainly, in a work of this type, a claim like that of the "Originalists" ought to be scrutinized.Take Chief Justice Rehnquist, who contended that all that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment hoped to achieve with the Equal Protection Clause was to prevent the states from treating black and white citizens differently. Many intriguing anecdotes and behind-the-scenes stories. Boren, 1976; Michael M. He has a way of making all of them likeable, whatever we might think about their politics.
Meanwhile, Rehnquist was quite consistent in his support of corporate rights. .However, like many writers, Toobin uncritically accepts the assertion that the self-proclaimed "Originalists" interpret the Constitution the way our Founding Fathers intended. A look at the record reveals that they adhere to the Constitution only when it serves their agenda, but they legislate from the bench with a vengence to twist the law and the Constitution to the benefit of the corporations and elites. Mostly, well written. The case of Bush v. Irvis, 1972); nor should the Equal Protection Clause be construed to prohibit disparate treatment based on gender (Craig v.
v. Superior Court of Sonoma County, 1981).
Gore, of course, says it all about Rehnquist and the other "originalists." Even though they normally take such a narrow view of the 14th Amendment, they were quite willing to expand their view when it served their agenda to ensure that Bush became President--even to the point of stopping the counting of votes. I particularly like the way that we got to know who these judges are, beyond the stereotypes we might have of them.
Geoffrey Stone, law professor at the University of Chicago, observed in an article on the First Amendment, "not only was he [Rehnquist] the justice least likely to protect these freedoms, but his general passivity toward these freedoms cannot be defended as principled, coherent or neutral. Consequently, according to Rehnquist, that clause should not apply when the state has not intentionally discriminated (Columbus v.
Penick, 1979) nor when the state has not participated in discrimination (Moose Lodge v. When all was said and done, Rehnquist's 1st Amendment belonged to corporations, wealthy political candidates, and churches.
They had no interest in what the people actually wanted.
|
