Customer Reviews

The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court

5 star:		(134)
4 star:		(64)
3 star:		(37)
2 star:		(22)
1 star:		(10)

 

 

Over the years any number of best selling books have been written about the U.S. Supreme Court. If you are an avid reader like myself then you have probably read a few of them. Of all of the books I have read on this subject I found Jeffrey Toobin's new offering "The Nine: Inside The Secret World of the Supreme Court" to be among the very best. As senior legal analyst for CNN and a staff writer for "The New Yorker" Jeffrey Toobin is uniquely qualified to tackle a topic that most Americans know precious little about and frankly find a bit mysterious. Like peeling the skin from an onion Toobin succeeds in revealing just who these justices are and how they have evolved over time. It is a fascinating study.

One notion that "The Nine" certainly reinforces is the conventional wisdom that says there really is no way of predicting how a judge is going to vote on controversial issues after receiving a lifetime appointment to the United States Supreme Court. While it seems that majority of justices remain true to their philosophies after being appointed to the Court, a fairly significant percentage of appointees veer off in totally unexpected directions. Throughout "The Nine" Jeffrey Toobin introduces us to the men and women who have served on the Court over the past two decades. Depending on your point of view you will find some of the justices extremely likeable and others enigmatic. You will also learn who the reliable liberal and conservative votes are and who tends to occupy the center. And Jeffrey Toobin spotlights a number of controversial 5-4 cases where those 1 or 2 "swing" votes would make all the difference.

It is quite apparent that Jeffrey Toobin is a huge fan of the recently retired justice Sandra Day O'Connor. In fact, on a couple of occasions he refers to her as "the most important woman in American history". Appointed by Ronald Reagan in September 1981 Sandra Day O'Connor would spend a quarter century on the bench and prove to be the swing vote in a myriad of important cases. Toobin also views Justice Stephen Breyer in a similarly favorable light. Over the past few years conservative politicians and voters alike have been extremely critical of what they perceive as a very disturbing new development at the Supreme Court. There is little doubt that a number of the justices have been increasingly influenced by both international law and by the decisions of courts in other nations in making their decisions and in writing their opinions. Indeed, the members of the Supreme Court find themselves sharply divided on this issue and Jeffrey Toobin explains which members buy into this approach and why. This is a trend that certainly bears watching.

"The Nine: Inside The Secret World of the Supreme Court" certainly qualifies as one of the best books I have read this year. Although Toobin displays his liberal leanings in some of his observations from time to time this is nonetheless an extremely well written, generally balanced and very informative book. Highly recommended!

The last several years have delivered a rich harvest of outstanding studies of the Supreme Court. In addition to some highly technical works by political scientists, journalists have contributed studies of remarkable value and insight. I am thinking here of Greenburg's incisive "Supreme Conflict"; Greenhouse's biography of Justice Blackmun; and Biskupic's perceptive study of Justice O'Connor to name a few (not to mention Jeffrey Rosen -- who is a George Washington law professor but who also writes for the popular press and presents PBS programs as well). The good fortune of we "Court watchers" continues in this exceptionally discerning study by Jeffrey Toobin who writes for the "New Yorker" among other publications.

Toobin covers roughtly the period of 1992 through the 2006-07 term of the Court. His focus is similar to that of Jan Crawford Greenburg in "Supreme Conflict": the frustration of conservatives at their inability to secure a Court that would implement their agenda on abortion, public support of religion, and diminution of federalism despite a conservative majority on the Court. But as both books so well explain, all that changed with the coming of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito--as some recent decisions which Toobin discusses in his final chapters indicate. What is interesting is that the same members made up the Court between 1994 and 2005; yet the dynamics of decisionmaking changed dramatically.

To trace this evolution, Toobin discusses the Federalist Society; the Thomas nomination; the pragmatism of Justice O'Connor; Jay Sekulow and his "American Center for Law and Justice";and the perplexing Clinton White House nominations of Justices Ginsburg and Breyer. Toobin uses an effective technique of discussing each Justice in detail not all at the beginning of the book, but at the point in the narrative when that Justice is the central actor. Is is obvious that the author has had the assistance of several of the Justices (in this regard, the book reminds one a bit of "The Brethren") including I would surmise: O'Connor (extensively), Breyer, Souter, and possibly Stevens and even Kennedy. He also interviewed more than 75 law clerks. Hence, the reader is privy to some rather remarkable views of the Justices as seen by their fellows--a major strength of the book. Strangely enough, Chief Justice Rehnquist, whom one would assume would be a central character in this drama, earns relatively little attention. In fact, one of Toobin's most interesting assertions (along with the contention that Souter was close to resigning after Bush v. Gore) is that in the later years of his tenure, Rehnquist really lost his fire to remake law and became content to masterfully administer the Supreme and lower courts.

One section of the book is devoted to Bush v. Gore, a topic to which Toobin has devoted an entire book, and it is a superb analysis of that unfortunate episode. In the third section of the book, much attention is paid to Justice Kennedy, a puzzling character at times, but one who has assumed O'Connor's spot as the swing vote. Also of interest is O'Connor's growing frustration with Bush and the GOP, despite her central role in Bush v. Gore. The final section focuses upon the Bush White House and its maneuvers in filling the Rehnquist and O'Connor vacancies, another outstanding job by Toobin. The most interesting concept raised in this discussion is the Roberts' Court view of stare decisis--namely, does it still exist? Geoffrey Stone (former dean of the University of Chicago law school and provost at Chicago) has spoken eloquently and perceptively about this same phenomenon.

The book runs around 350 pages; it has a number of color photographs, 8 pages of notes, and a brief three-page bibliography. By any measure, Toobin has done as insightful and thorough a job in this study as one could imagine. The writing is crisp, does not bog down in legalistic details, and directs its focus where it should--the Justices as a small group together for the long haul and entrusted with making the most fundamental decisions of American democracy.

Toobin carefully covers the main legal issues the Court has heard over the last 15 years. They include abortion, separation of church and state, affirmative action and the death penalty and more. He covers two especially deeply. They are the Clinton impeachment case and Bush v. Gore, when the Court, by a 5-4 vote, effectively decided the 2000 election.

He also goes into the Terry Schiavo case.

You'll read the portraits of the justices which gives it a distinctive flavor.

Unfortunately, most everything in the book has been covered extensively elsewhere. In addition, he doesn't tell us how the court actually works.

This is a good book if you've not read much about the court. But if you have a good knowledge of the cases of the last 15 years, save your money. And certainly if you want to know how the court works, you'll want to find another source.

As we move toward the 2008 elections, this book sheds light on a vital arm of our government, and important issues framing the debates. Yes, Toobin may be showing his liberal leanings, but is this so unsettling in our free-speaking democratic society? What Toobin does well -- and is so qualified to do so -- is to share his wealth of knowledge and perspective on that all-important yet all-too-secretive government branch. He succeeds in enlightening us -- and probably, regarding some aspects, the justices themselves -- on several influential developments. One, as pointed out by a previous reviewer, being the courts growing dependence on decisions made abroad. The book is readable and informative...take the liberal leanings with a grain of salt..

The book is decent, but I just thought that the author spent too much time describing "sneering" conservatives, and not really explaining what they stand for. The moderates on the court are always rational, and the conservatives are primitive and spend a lot of time sneering, etc. This is a bit unfair (I am willing to bet that Scalia is more intelligent and more interesting and amusing than the author states).

I also think Toobin short-shrifts some of the liberal negatives. Clinton-appointee Ginsburg once said that she wanted to integrate prisons, so that men and women prisoners would be housed together, because this would force men to understand women better, etc. This type of utopianism is not mentioned in the book (it is the mirror of the conservative attempt to remake America along the lines of the Christian Right).

I also think that in his discussion of international law, he fails to really present the conservative opposition to using foreign law in the U.S. Our legal system is based on Britain's. I highly doubt for instance, that we would want to import legal notions from Latin America and Europe, where for instance, the Code Napoleon holds sway. In Mexico or Brazil or France or Italy, the state is considered right, and the defendant in a criminal case has the burden of proof to show that he is innocent (!). This would stand our British system on its head (do the liberal justices really want to use such precedents ?). In France, the "terror csar" can hold anyone for 55 hours without charges, just by signing a piece of paper. Even the British have gone a LONG way toward an all-powerful state, and the British have even talked about doing away with trial by jury in criminal cases. I hardly think we want that. And yet, this huge issue is not mentioned in the book. Instead, the author presents the idea of importing foreign precedent into the U.S. as a purely good idea.

The book thus glosses over much of the "conservative" side of most of the issues. Moderates and liberals in the book reason. Conservatives "sneer".

The book is worth reading, but I have some pretty major issues with it.

This is a well-written and well-documented look at our Supreme Court's decision making process. Toobin interviewed the Justices--and many of those who work with them--and has provided an important insight into the workings of this often-overlooked, but equally important and powerful, third branch of our government.

It's too bad that rightwing posters here have given this excellent book only one or two stars and (laughably) even characterize it as "far left" simply because the facts of how the Court works don't square with what they'd like people to believe. It's unfortunate for them, perhaps, but this is what research and journalism are supposed to do.

All in all, a great read--and an interesting behind-the-scenes look at a process that all Americans should know much more about--and pay much more attention to.

I've helped chaperone high school field trips to Washington, D.C. for a couple of years, and I always find the visit to the Supreme Court building one of the most impressive, but mysterious, parts of the journey. We sit in the dignified, somber, courtroom, hear guides tell us that the Justices are at that moment at work somewhere in the building, remember the historic decisions announced in that room, but we never see the Justices themselves or get any real sense of them as people. Now Jeffrey Toobin has provided a glimpse of these powerful, private people, the world they inhabit, and the challenges they face.

The Nine basically covers the last twenty years or so of Court history. Not only is it the story of the individuals who have sat on the Court during that time, it is also a chronicle of the ebb and flow of judicial philosophy. Beginning in the early 1980s, conservatives in this country began to work to resurrect "The Constitution in Exile," or the pre-New Deal welfare state status quo which had prevailed until the 1930s, and to put an end to the progressive/liberal dominance of the Court which had been entrenched since the 1950s. Toobin writes that that effort faltered, despite the overall rightward tilt of the legislative and executive branches in the 1980s and 1990s, because of the personalities of the Justices appointed during that period. His heroine is Sandra Day O'Connor, who became the true leader of the Court because of her determination to seek a common sense centrist position rather than adhere to rigid ideology.

Toobin gives us a good picture of each Justice's personality and habits. I already knew that some were more genial or ideological than others, but it was fascinating to read about their personal quirks and the interplay of their ideas when they meet with each other or work with their clerks. I found new respect and liking for some Justices with whom I disagree and more reasons to admire others whose decisions I generally support. I have no legal background, but I enjoyed and was able to follow the ins and outs of the legal arguments. I gained fresh insight into how decisions develop and how hard the Justices and their clerks work. Sadly, I also recognized anew that the Court can go terribly wrong, as in the rushed, partisan decision in Bush v. Gore. Toobin writes in the last chapter that "the Constitution in Exile" movement may have gained new influence with the Roberts and Alito appointments. His book will be an important resource for citizens watching Court decisions and trying to discern trends in coming years.

This is an outstanding book for anyone who is interested in the workings of the Supreme Court and, in particular, constitutional law. Certainly, the author leans to the left rather than the right and this comes across from time to time in his writing. However, that does not mean the book is flawed. It is not offered as a impartial listing of objective facts, which would be difficult to write when dealing with such political matters. Rather, it attempts (and does!) tell the story of the Renquist Court and the emerging Roberts Court using powerful insights and readable prose. It examines the justices as human beings, politicians and deep thinkers, providing tremendous details about their lives and motives along the way.

This attempt to emulate the Woodward classic seems to fall short. The author clearly has a point of view as to how certain cases should come out and we get very little analysis of how the Court gets there. The Court is a political institution, granted, but the Constitution does matter in its decision making. The author often snipes at Scalia for suggesting the same. This book would have been better served with more analysis of the critical decisions and their precedents. Then the reader can form his or her own judgement as to whether the Court was right or wrong.
There is some interesting discussion of the personal relationships amongst the Justices. The liberal-conservative divide does not seem to preclude social activities and friendships, which do ultimately lead to a better functioning institution, something the other branches of government might want to consider.
Therefore, this is an interesting book, but if you are expecting a greater understanding and explanation of the Court's recent jurisprudence, forget it.

We seem to have a view that the most interesting things to read about are those that are kept secret. As a result we have the Woodward industry which periodically tells us the inside story of work of people who are in the political limelight. Nine is such a book and has all the assets and liabilities of these sorts of books.

The main asset is that a great story is told, Whether is be the development of abortion jurisprudence or Bush v. Gore we see in the inside story. Toobin is an engaging writer so the story is well told and may even as reported.

The second asset is the portraits of the Justices. They tend to be brief but we see the justices as personalities. Each has their own quirks which make them interesting. I enjoyed the stories about Thomas and Breyer passing notes. Also the friendship between Scalia and Ginsburg shows that you can be agreeable even when you disagree.

Also the story of the concerted effort by conservatives to capture the court is fascinating, especially the role of groups who brought cases.

Now the liabilities. First and foremost because the book is based primarily on interviews one really does not know who is telling the story. Justice O'Connor who seems to be the strongest character in the book may well have given the insights herself. Without giving the source one has to be a bit concerned. After all often the history is written by the winner or in this case by the most available. In comparing this book to Linda Greenhouse's extraordinary biography of Justice Blackmum,which is fully documented, the difference is clear.

Second the book is light on understanding the legal developments. This is understandable as it is not the purpose of the book.

As a final point I suggest anyone interested Justice Thomas who I think is the most interesting person on the Court to read Supreme Discomfort which gives insights into his character. ( As I am writing this Thomas' autobiography is being published which may shed more light on him.)