Customer Reviews

The Majesty of the Law: Reflections of a Supreme Court Justice

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(9)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

I'm not sure what _The Majesty of the Law_ is really about. It's partly a recap of the writing of the U.S. Constitution and a few important people and decisions in the Supreme Court's history. It's partly a history of the women's movement. It's partly Justice O'Connor's personal recollections about people she's worked with.

What she writes is basically okay, but there is nothing particularly interesting or challenging about it. Most of the ideas presented are civics class platitudes--people should be treated equally regardless of race or gender, and that sort of thing. Nothing much wrong with it, but it is not as intellectually stimulating as some other judges' and justices' books.

Perhaps it is best compared to a junior high social studies book, which happens to be written by someone who has spent a couple of decades on the United States Supreme Court. And that's part of what makes it so frustrating: anyone could have given us this kind of runthrough of the material she covers, even without being a Supreme Court justice. Surely Justice O'Connor has more to offer than this.

It's not quite a bad book. It might be useful to introduce a 12-year-old to the material, and if that is what she was aiming for, she has done well. But well read adults who have heard it all before are likely to be bored.

As other reviewers have noted, this book is not an in-depth analysis of legal issues. Rather it's an attempt to provide an informal, backstage glimpse into life on the Supreme Court from the perspective of the first woman justice.

Some of her points will loom large with women who, like me, were "firsts" on a much smaller scale. For instance, she notes the significance of changing the nameplates from "Mr. Justice..." to simply "Justice..."

As we might expect from a down-home woman who was brought up riding horses in Arizona, O'Connor remains modest and matter-of-fact. She recognizes her role and the respect she deserves. She describes the difficulties of women in the law, frankly and without self-pity, and acknowledges the preference for sharing experiences with other women in law.

And her behind-the-scenes glimpses reflect her perspective as a woman who cares about people as well as principles. She shares wonderful anecdotes about Thurgood Marshall. And she says absolutely nothing about Clarence Thomas, even when discussing the process of confirmation to the Court.

In my favorite chapter, Justice O'Connor raises strong, provocative questions about jury duty. Established 900 years ago, she says, the concept remains sound but the implementation is due for an overhaul. Why shouldn't jurors take notes? Why should they be subjected to long waits in uncomfortable rooms? And jurors surely deserve better compensation, she says.

O'Connor compares US juries with those of other English-speaking countries -- England, Canada, and Australia. She notes that other countries do not send civil cases to juries as frequently, so jurors do not have to sit through days and weeks of complex testimony that leaves them so bewildered they may as well flip a coin. (Actually a coin flip would be fairer than trying to sort through half-remembered facts!) And lawyers spend so much time psyching out jurors they want to challenge that jury selection can take weeks. In Europe, says O'Connor, juries are selected in minutes!

If anything, Justice O'Connor doesn't go far enough. Paying for jury service won't help a self-employed or sales person who could lose an account worth thousands of dollars. And jurors often experience serious emotional symptoms following a difficult case.

However, it is refreshing to hear such honesty from a distinguished member of the legal profession. O'Connor even recalls the New Yorker cartoon where a jury foreman tells the judge, "We find the defendant guilty and sentence him to jury duty." So true! I'm told that some juries begin to identify with criminal defendants -- they're treated in more or less the same way!

If you know someone who's called for jury duty, buy him or her this book -- good reading for the interminable, senseless waiting time.

Indeed that there are very few books like this one for which you feel that every minute you spend reading is well spent.

She writes in plain and simple English and every sentence has content, logic and weight. She also writes in a tight and balanced structure, so you can always unfailingly find each of her opinion illustrated and evidenced fully and succinctly. Therefore, even just by the writing style, it is an enjoyable book. Much more than that, it is an inspiring book for anyone interested in the impact of institutions, because it points out many interesting aspects about the government institution that worth attention and deliberation. Just to give an example, she notes in her book that many countries have something similar to Constitution or Bill of Rights that intends to uphold liberty and democracy, but many fail to enforce it nearly as well as United States, a country that enshrines "the right of its unelected Supreme Court to use the Bill of Rights to declare illegal the actions of the democratically elected legislature or executive". The book does not attempt to give a theory about how institutions influence development or how institutions itself evolve, but it shows that these are very interesting and potentially very important questions to answer.

For someone out of the legal profession, this book also provides the very necessary basic knowledge in balanced width and depth. (However, I can understand if a person well acquainted with law may find it too elementary.)

This book starts off in a dull way: the history of constitutional law and the judges who helped shape it. Later on Judge O'Connor talks about her perspective of the people she worked with, which makes it well-worth reading. I plan to read her other book: her life growing up on a Texas ranch.

Like other books from Supreme Court Justices, this one is informative and interesting. It is very easy to read, probably more so than some of the others. The sections on law and history are very interesting. The section on women was not quite as interesting, but that was to be expected (focusing on a special interest as opposed to the broader scope of the court). The explanations of how the Court works is very good and something about which the public is often wrong. Overall, a good Supreme Court book.

Actually I have the CD version. I enjoyed "reading" this book. But I have to admit I am a Constitution semi-nerd, and enjoy learning details of the founding fathers and previous court cases.

This book reads just like a textbook. She gives great detail about American history and only very small examples of supreme court decisions. I was hoping for more about her ideas and interpretation of the law with real life examples but got very little of that. Not a bad book, just not what I was hoping for.

I love Sandra Day. I love the simple language and easy way she eases the non-lawyer into her love of the Constitution and the beauty of the structure of our law. I love her voice. She does a wonderful job of narrating her own book. She's relaxing to listen to and she presents the material as if she were reading to a group of elementary school students. Oddly, this doesn't feel at all condescending. In fact, she presents her material and her remarkably high position with shock and awe and such humility that doesn't seem to be talking down to anyone. She simply shares with the listener her love of the law and her admiration for the Constitution and the great Justices that came before her and those that she worked with.
This is wonderful book for a non-lawyer.

Sandra Day O'Connor combines moments from American history, her own life, and past court decisions to explain what's so majestic about the law. This isn't a story, it's not a study, and it's hardly an autobiography. Instead, it's more of a collection of ruminations retold in a conversational, accessible tone. Don't expect Sandra Day O'Connor to spill the beans on what goes on behind closed doors, but do expect to understand our nation's first female justice better.

This is a good overview of a very broad topic. It never becomes steeped in legalese, and yet communicates a great deal of information. In addition to details, the book also provides a insight into the overall thought patterns involved in the court's deliberations. While the book does deal with the subject of women in the law, it is more even-handed than might be expected.