Customer Reviews

Constitutional Choices

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

yes, in my opinion, tribe is probably the master of constitutional law. he probably has a sounder mind, keener vision, and judicial philosophy than anyone the US Supreme Court today. as an admirer of the man with one of the finest legal minds in US history, i acknowledge that this review is biased.

that said, this book consists of writings on 16 topics from case issues to overarching philosophy and the issues of court roles today. written 2 decades ago, at that time, it was the finest analysis of its day. as i've written elsewhere about professor tribe, i've gotta read his work two or three times before i have that "aha" - which is probably much slower than other readers of his works but it magnitude of that "aha" is tremendous. i give this an "A+" for ideas and a "B+" for ease of understanding.

Laurence Tribe understands the constitution as well as any man alive. His work and reputation will live long after he's gone. This is worth reading.

Laurence Tribe sacrificed an almost sure nomination to the Supreme Court by lending his academic credentials to the attack on Robert Bork's nomination to the Court. He succeeded in keeping Bork off the Court, but in doing so, was removed from consideration for a seat himself. Ironically, it is not the hapless Republicans who have kept him from a nomination: it is common knowledge in Washington that the Democrats themselves have dropped him for the simple reason that one does not appoint a hitman to high court.

This is tragic, because reading Laurence Tribe side by side with Bork makes it clear what America lost when they both were denied a position on the Court. Both men are brilliant. Both are flawed. Together, each of them supplies the ingredients the other one lacks. Tribe, with his aggressive role for the Court, tends to disregard the fact that we live in a democracy, while Bork gives excessive deference to tradition and popular will. Together, they would have balanced each other out, providing thesis and antithesis at an extremely sophisticated level. The country would have benefitted. Instead, we have to suffer Justices Souter and Breyer, living examples of the Peter Principle in action. What hath Tribe wrought?

Tribe's work, like that of Bork, really deserves three stars, but I have demoted him because of the McCarthyite tactics of Tribe and his allies in defeating Bork, tactics which included breaking into the video store Judge Bork used in order to find dirt against him (unfortunately for them, Bork's tastes ran to opera, symphonies and classic Hollywood fare of the 30s and 40s). Perhaps the Tribes and Borks of the future will face a less rabid political process and the Supreme Court will have a place for them both. In the meanwhile, read Bork and Tribe together and try to imagine what a splendid place the Supreme Court could have been.