Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
7 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Superb Overview of our Supreme Court and its Jurisprudence, August 17, 2004
To write a one-volume summary about the US Supreme Court and its major lines of jurisprudence over the last fifty years is no easy task. Yet, Judge Kenneth Starr is more than up to the task in "First Among Equals," recently released in paperback.
Starr is a brilliant legal mind and has had a stellar career in the law, whatever venomous nonsense you may have heard from James Carville. He brings his insight and experience into this book, writing a short introduction to some of the landmark cases during the tenure of the Great Chief Justice John Marshall, followed by short biographical sketches of the Court's current roster. Starr then provides sharp and succinct analysis of constitutional case law concerning a variety of issues, such as affirmative action, the rights of criminal defendants, the powers of the President, and federalism. The concluding chapter is devoted entirely to Bush v. Gore (2000).
Much of Starr's analysis describes the cases and views of the justices in light of the two competing judicial philosophies adhered to the respective members of the court: textualism and common-law constitutionalism. As Starr notes, Justice Antonin Scalia has been a champion of textualism, an approach to statutory and constitutional interpretation that requires a jurist to discern the meaning of the text, according to its structure, history, logic and original understanding. Textualism is often wrongly confused with "strict constructionism" or an attempt to discover what law was "intended" to mean in the minds of those who made the law, rather than the search for the meaning of the words actually adopted.
This judicial philosophy stands in contrast to that of common-law constitutionalism, in which constitutional law is created through judicial decision-making by judges in individual cases, with the constitution's text and its original understanding holding a less prominent position. This judicial philosophy is all but synonymous with the "living Constitution" concept, which holds that our "understanding" of the Constitution's meaning "evolves" over time as our society continues to "evolve." The values that underlie Constitution are to be expounded by the judges based upon the ideals of the contemporary age.
Starr spends a great deal of time in the First Amendment realm. ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.) There is obviously much room to work with here, and Starr ably describes recent developments in the areas of free speech and religious establishment jurisprudence.
One important development is the increasing role of "viewpoint neutrality" in the context of religious speech. This simply means that speech involving religious perspectives is to be treated on an equal footing with secular viewpoints. He also delves into the Court's modern Establishment Clause jurisprudence, which began with Everson v. Board of Education (1947). It was there that the Court held that the First Amendment's Establishment Clause applied to the states as well as the federal government, that the Amendment erected a "wall of separation" between church and state, and that both are to be entirely neutral towards religion and irreligion. On its face, this may seem entirely acceptable and consistent with the recent developments in "viewpoint discrimination" cases, but a number of cases decided in Everson's wake tell another story, in which those with religious viewpoints have been subjected to much discrimination, with providing an approving nod.
Starr hoped that the Court would reverse itself in this area, when as Solicitor General he argued the case of Lee v. Weisman (1992). The Court did not see things his way. Indeed, in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000), it was held unconstitutional for student-led and student initiated prayers before a high-school football tame. In a biting dissent, Chief Justice William Rehnquist opined that "the majority opinion bristles with hostility to all things religious in public life."
Starr also focuses upon the issue of campaign finance reform. He served as Chief Justice Burger's clerk when the Court decided Buckley v. Valeo (1976). In that case, the Court dealt with a campaign finance reform bill passed by Congress that regulated the amount of money that could be contributed to and spent by political campaigns. The Court upheld contribution limits, per candidate, per election cycle, as well as public financing of campaigns, but it struck down provisions limiting how much money campaigns could expend. How are limits on contributions legal while limits on expenditures illegal? As Starr poignantly asks: "Isn't an expenditure the flip side of a contribution? Shouldn't they rise and fall together?" The Court upheld a similar state statute in Nixon v. Shrink Missouri PAC (2000), with the majority asserting a policy judgment that such laws protect the integrity of the process. Starr does not hide his disdain for campaign finance laws, and happened to be involved in a recent case before the Supreme Court on the so-called McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that was decided since his book went to press.
Starr's book provides a solid and easy-to-read primer on the Supreme Court and some important decisions for the last half-century.
|
|
|
18 of 23 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
First Amoung Equals: The Supreme Court in American Life, October 15, 2002
First Amoung Equals: The Supreme Court in American Life written by Kenneth W. Starr is a book that looks into the Rehnquist Court as he offers the reader an incisive and unpreedented view at paradoxes, power and the people who serve on the highest court in the land.When reading anything about the law, lawyers tend to loss readers because they are lawyers and can't speak in simpler terms and understandable English... they used too much lawyerese. This book was refeshing in that it is highly readable and understandable making for a enjoyable read. This book is divided into three parts and each part has chapters, all organized to get the reader up to speed. Starr begins this book with a thirty year evolutionary history of the Supreme Court with the Supreme Court then and now and then a chaapter on the Justices. We see that the Court decisions are fairly consistant... which I found to be surprising since the Warren Court and Burger Court were quite different in make-up. The Rehnquist Court is different still... all stemming from the human side of the court as it shaped our laws. Part two of the book looks at freedom of speach, the first amendment and politics, religion in the public square, parochial v. private schools, abortion, affirmaive action, gerrymandering, the exclusion of evidence from criminal trials, and Miranda. Granted there is a lot to cover here, but Starr makes the reading cogent and lucid so you can understand the complecxity and why things happen the way they do. Ever aware that his audience here are not lawyers, he gives us a compelling and supremely readable book. Part three is about the powers and structure of American Government. Here we find out about the statutory conversation between Court and Congress, the Rehnquist Court and the Federal Republic, Presidents: the Court and the Executive Branch and of course, Bush v. Gore. Here again, Starr makes this enjoyable to read as he explains in a very readable terms as he sheds light on one of the most frequently misunderstood legal pillar of American life... as the Supreme Court goes, so goes much of our nation's culture, society and politics. I found this book, first to be highly readable and understandable, next perseptive and brimming with insight. If you are looking for a book on recent history, (thirty years), about the Supreme Court this is your book.
|
|
|
9 of 11 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
High Court Analysis With Out Equal, January 4, 2003
How and why the Supreme Court impacts our lives is exposed. The negative impacts are great. Unfortunately, the book details numerous instances where even the Rehnquist court leaps above the constitution (a contract between the people and the government) and becomes the constitution in ways that a majority of citizens would be in opposition-if informed. This book may start the monumental task of informing. Hence, the title of the book. At the same time a significant minority favors the liberties and physical safety lost through the court. On page 184 is the following sentence. "The world of appellate judging is light years away from the realities of law enforcement on the street." In so many words, the observation is made about the high court in many other areas.The people speak most powerfully to the government through the amendment process. Since the first ten amendments, the bill of rights, amendments have averaged one every 15 years. Amendment requires three quarters of the state legislatures to approve-- this is to limiting. This constraint could be modified by amendment or more unnerving-eliminated. Considering the subject this book is shockingly easy to read and bursting at the seams with meaningful insights and authority. Decades of experience (in, around and before the high courts) entitles Starr respect on the subject. On Amazon.com the professional reviewer Ben Fein says: "Kenneth W. Starr's credentials for examining the U.S. Supreme Court are matchless." Clerk to Chief Justice Burger, solicitor general, five years on court of Appeals, practicing before the Supreme Court are the highlights of his authority. Reviewers that leap at the opportunity to brand the author of political right wing bias are not serving you well. No one is obliged to read only one book on the subject; this book should be on everybody's short list of worthy books on recent history. This book is not about Ken Starr. The book is about what the supreme court has been doing to you and other citizens and why you should care. The individuals on the Rehnquist court are discussed in considerable detail. On average one or two justices are appointed each four-year presidential term. Once on the court their views frequently change defying presidential ability to influence the long-term. The changed Senate view toward rejecting nominees for political reasons may suffer the same fate. He observes that in the short run, objective review of the nominees has suffered. Ken Starr shows us how the Supreme Court carved out its power over the law of the land. In chapter 5 (Religion in the Public Square.), Starr helps one understand how the supreme court, has taken its tortured journey in trying to define the First Amendment segment on religion. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The supreme court's micro management of religion issues at the lowest local level takes some explaining as the book does. The effort may not be satisfactory to you. It appears to be the way it happened. Polls show that most people are religious in some form though frequently not participating in and organized religion. Religion studies are about seeking the unanswerable questions that are on every persons mind with usually searing interest. We have seen that the unprepared tend to leap at literal interpretations of ancient texts for easy answers. There ought to be a way to allow for the study of the seven great religions generally at an early level in our schools. This reviewer suspects the reckless ban now in place will not last. The first amendment rights of the press are well articulated and deeply established in law and in USA culture. While the major media feigns accuracy in reporting, it goes no further than the immediate facts and leaves its premises and biases intact. One can dream of the day when the average citizen understands this protected and exalted position set forth in the constitution for the most lowly of media outlets and the most exalted. When most understand the rule of reader beware, much cultural progress could be made. As this book observes there is little room to see it otherwise under the constitution as it has been interpreted. The tyranny of the press will remain unchecked except by the consumer turning away from each entity one by one. While the press seems to have as a primary goal to tear down individuals in and out of the government and sell conspiracy and intrigue for the sake of readership, its potential for good were it more deeply informed remains considerable. It has had its periodic great moments in history. Moments that could come more frequently with a more meaningful education then journalism by most reporters. The Supreme Court is trying to find that line of distinction between what the media does in its everyday treatment of "news" and information disseminated during a political campaign. The Court seems to be grabbing onto the slogan "money is not speech". The trouble with that slogan is that the media dissemination of speech also has to be paid for by the media owners or indirectly the consumers of media. Neither court nor congress has the lofty god like ability to define good money from evil money. If the press can speak with out being accountable to any one other then another media form, surely another source of speech should be held to no higher standard then being accountable to media disclosure and harassment. The chapter on politics, money and the first amendment is exquisitely timely. My main complaint it lacks a solid explanation for the courts commitment to stare decisis as opposed to setting rulings right where the current court sees it differently. After all it is the highest court in the land. Numerous other topics are detailed in the book. School vouchers, separation of church and state, Gore Vs Bush, exclusion of evidence, abortion, and affirmative actions are a few. Gerrymandering to create minority safe congressional districts is fascinating and raises many questions. This book is a high quality offering on vitally important issues by someone that reveres the Supreme Court.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by Peter H. Irons
by William H. Rehnquist
by Gerald M. Stern
See all 12 books this book cites
