Customer Reviews

Courting Justice: Gay Men And Lesbians V. The Supreme Court

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I was so gripped by this book that I stayed up through the night reading it in one sitting! A rare event for me... Murdoch and Price have gone into the belly of the beast, interviewed more than 100 former Supreme Court clerks, gone through the available papers of deceased justices with a fine-tooth comb, and come up with a compelling account of how the nation's highest court deals with lesbian and gay issues (or, perhaps more accurately, refuses to deal with them). I can't imagine anyone with an interest in gaylaw not finding this book a compulsive page-turner and a source of numerous new insights. The heros emerging from its pages -- William Brennan, William O. Douglas, Franklin Kameny, etc. -- leave indelible impressions. A must-read!

This book was pretty good, and I enjoyed reading it immensely. Most law schools and legal texts tend to just barely discuss legal issues which affect the gay community, if at all. It was actually quite interesting to see the many issues portrayed from the point of the losing side. NOTE: I use the term "losing side" only because in general, the courts have tended to come down with decisions against the gay community.

I do have some cause for concern about the book, however. The authors have attempted throughout the book to analyze why the U.S. Supreme Court has decided cases against gays, in many cases without any documentation of the Justices' rationale. The authors then used past practices and comments of the Justices, as well as commentary from friends and colleagues, to "create" the supposed biases against gays which led to the negative decisions. These conclusions may be entirely correct. But some of the arguments presented just defied any logic I could find. Perhaps I am being overly critical, which is entirely possible. As an attorney, I have a hard time accepting conclusions when I do not see the analysis or facts to back them up. I hope that other readers will be able to distinguish between fact and the opinions/conclusions of the authors.

With that reservation in mind, I do feel this book is a must read for anyone with an interest in "gay rights," whether you be for or against them. The book demonstrates how the law tends to be slow to recognize the growing changes in society's norms. It also demonstrates that many of these laws which affect smaller groups within our society often lack any kind of logical rationale, and that they are often twisted and selectively enforced to control certain segments of society depending on the public's mood at the time. The bias and hatred of the public over time has been clearly demonstrated by the authors . . . so much so that I at times had to set the book down just to rest my overworked emotions and thoughts.

A good and enlightening book; take the chance and read it.

This book is a must read for anyone interested in the role of the supreme court in the modern lesbian and gay civil rights movement. Meticulously researched, it contains invaluable details about key cases and the roles that various justices have played in the formulation of rationales that either support or undermine gay rights. The authors write in an engaging style that will appeal to nonacademics as well as academics. I literally could not put the book down!

"Courting Justice" is an authoritative account of gay men and lesbians who have petitioned the court for their civil rights.

Through interviews with clerks, excerpts from transcripts and audiotapes of oral arguments, justices' notes of meetings and rough drafts of decisions, and the journalist authors' clear explanations of legal jargon and procedure, we watch the court at work. The mysterious, incontrovertable third arm of our government is revealed to be simply nine men and women, as subject to prejudice as the rest of us. But we also see a few justices wrestle with their prejudices and write forceful dissents and eventually a majority opinion (Romer v. Evans) that wrapped queer Americans in the constitutional guarantee of Equal Protection.

Because Murdoch and Price's book covers such a broad timespan, they're able to dissect the court's (often achingly) slow evolution from viewing gays as perverted criminals to citizens.

If you want to understand the key legal questions facing gay, lesbian, transgender, and bi-affectional Americans, and their search for equal justice in a country that promises so much, I would highly recommend this book. But don't read it before bedtime; Scalia's a pretty scary boogyman.

I picked up this book, and as an attorney I expected a dry legal analysis, instead I was happy to discover a more lively look at the history of gay rights. The authors have taken the time to track down many of the individuals who were involved in these cases going all the way back to the 1950s. It is fascinating to read about gay men and lesbians who stood up for themselves when there was really no hope, yet persisted at the cost of their jobs, personal freedom, and relationships. I was taken aback by some of the heroism and am inspired by the courage and unwillingness to compromise.

The book covers all the major cases that those familiar with gay rights law are familiar with and many others you have probably never heard of. The chapter on the Bowers v. Hardwick case is terrific. The authors tracked down a semi-closeted (at the time) gay clerk from Justice Powell's chambers. Justice Powell cornered this young man and asked him a series of questions about gays that make it clear the man had not the simplest idea of what he was dealing with. Ultimately Powell provided the deciding vote with the majority (in favor of upholding sodomy laws) and late in life stated that it was his major regret.

This is a fascinating read and I recommend it to anyone interested in gay rights, gay history, and the Supreme Court.

It took me almost two months to finish this tome but it was worth it. Not only do I now have a clearer understanding of the way the glbt community is treated in the courts, I better understand the legal system in general.

I received this book and once I got it, I sat down and read it all at one sitting. The authors have done an incredible job of researching and writing about the Supreme Court and its influence on Gay and Lesbian Americans. The double standards and the isolation of the Justices from the outside world is amazing to someone like me who lives in Australia and where judges are accountable for their decisions.

The fight for GLBT Americans to gain their rights has a long way to go but after reading this book, there may be some hope for the future. I found it very ironic that Michael Bowers could go to court regarding the infamous Hardwick decision whilst he was committing adultery at the same time. You gotta love the hyprocisy! I was very pleased to see that the Georgian powers that be have overturned that state's laws, yet it still impacts on everyday GLBT Americans.

Thanks Deb and Joyce for a great book, I look forward to your next one.

I must admit that the amazon review above by Timothy Murphy is so on point that I won't attempt to write a general description, except to say that I agree in the main with the reviews below. A few points do bear making.

I find this book much superior to "The Brethren" That book was almost entirely unsourced gossip. While Murdoch and Price do engage in a certain amount of speculation, "Courting Justice" is grounded in the facts and law of its cases, making it a much more reliable book.

In fact, this is one of the best books I have read about the evolution of case law in a particular area, and as such I recommend even to people who have little interest in the law and homosexuals. It is also written in a style so readable as to make the pages practically turn themselves. Most legal writing is not so compelling. Do not be discouraged by its length.

There are two things missing in this book: 1, regretted I am sure by Murdoch and Price, is the absence of "Lawrence et al. v. Texas", which would have made the perfect capstone for this book. I hope they prepare a new edition with that added material.
2. In a few cases, notably "Dale v. Boy Scouts" they reported the factual background extensively, but were deficient in analysing the law. "Dale" was a departure for the Court, but you wouldn't know that reading this book. As a result, I think they were, if anything, too kind to the majority. They also did not spend enough time, in my opinion, on the legal doctrine of the "gay exception" where normal analysis goes by the boards when homosexuality steps in (Drohnenberg, Dale, and the recent law school recruiting cases).
All this means is that they act at times like reporters rather than law review editors, probably a sensible choice.

So please give this book a try if you are interested in queer rights, civil rights, or the operation of the Supreme Court.

Courting Justice immediately strikes one as a gay version of the Brethren, Bob Woodward's classic book probing the inner workings of the U.S. Supreme Court. In some respect it is. Murdoch and Price, who also have ties to the Washington Post, have gained access to private papers and interviewed a network of usually close-mouthed law clerks to attempt to piece together the Court's hidden deliberations in gay rights cases over the past three decades. Given the Court's staunch commitment to preserving a thick shroud of secrecy around those deliberations - for reasons not unlike those of the Wizard of Oz - this investigative journalism has always been extraordinarily difficult. Nevertheless, through obvious persevering determination, Murdock and Price have managed in Courting Justice to cast some fascinatingly revealing light on the Court's decisionmaking in each gay rights case it has considered (or refused to consider). The book is valuable for these insights alone.

But Murdock and Price and have done far more than Woodward, perhaps because their focus was more precise. They offer a compelling thesis about the Court's evolving disposition toward lesbians and gay men, one that, in some respects, mirrors the disposition of mainstream American society toward the same community. The book shows the Court as what it undoubtedly really is: a collection of individual men and women who come to work in the morning with predefined notions and biases about lesbians and gay men. The book credibly describes an evolving Court that, through persistent confrontation and education, has grown in its understanding of the gay community and objectivity toward gay people.

Beyond that, the book ends up simultaneously offering a grand historical narrative of the modern gay rights movement. Just about every gay rights controversy has ended up knocking on the doors of the Supreme Court at one time or another, and telling the stories of those cases and the people involved in them necessarily educates readers about the history of the gay rights movement - and in langauge that is always wonderfully written and at times deeply moving. This book demonstrates exactly why journalists are often so much better at writing accessible and fulfilling social-legal history than legal academics are.

I can't put this book down. Murdoch and Price have done an unebelievable amount of research into the inner workings of the Supreme Court. By interviewing former clerks for Court justices, scrutinizing transcripts of oral arguments, and dissecting the Court's notoriously difficult opinions, they have presented a refreshing picture of the people behind such (in)famous cases as Bowers v. Hardwick and less well-known cases which preceded and followed it. As a soon-to-be-second-year law student, the human face on the litigants and decision-makers is striking.

However, as someone whose main literary diet consists of academic literature and judicial opinions, I have noticed some flaws. First, there are more than a few typographical errors, which I assume will be corrected when the book comes out in paperback. More importantly, since the authors aren't lawyers, they miss the implications of the legal language the Court uses. The authors enclose terms of art like strict scrutiny and Court language like "dismissed as improvidently granted" in quotation marks as if to emphasize the peculiarity of the Court's language. Also, the authors' (understandable) bias is sometimes distracting, taking away from an otherwise even-handed assessment of the Court's motives.

All in all, this book is a worthwhile read (as my fellow reviewers have noticed).