|
65 of 73 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Interesting but Flawed, December 30, 2002
I am struggling with my reactions to this book. I have several serious criticisms of the book, but I think many things were well done. Let me first list the positives and then all the negatives.A People's History of the Supreme Court gives a brief biography of every justice who has ever served on the Supreme Court and interwoven with this, gives a description of some of the most important cases the Supreme Court has decided. In the case descriptions, the author explains, in plain language, the legal issues involved (I think it's plain language, but I'm a lawyer, and law school is very good at teaching lawyers not to speak or understand plain language). He also often describes the history of the legal issue, why it was important to the nation, what the country thought of the legal issue at the time. Finally, he gives a brief story of the actual case itself--who the parties were, why they decided to file the suit, why they appealed their case all the way to the Supreme Court, etc. This is all very important stuff. It is great to have it all collected into one book. Too often, we don't know anything about the people who bring their cases to the Supreme Court but merely know their names. It is important to remember that the cases involved real people with real disputes or heartfelt issues that they wanted the court to resolve. We also know almost nothing about the Supreme Court justices who preceded this one. But they are, in many ways, as powerful or more powerful than the Presidents. They had real-world experience before becoming judges and sometimes cast aside that experience, but sometimes didn't. I found the book extremely interesting and read it quickly from cover to cover. But the book had many flaws: there are factual errors. Some are described in previous reviews. One that I found is that the author incorrectly describes the purposes and text of the 12th Amendment when discussing the Hayes-Tilden election in the late 19th Century. So, although it is important to know everything that is in this book, a reader can't always trust that he or she is getting correct information. Second, I do not have a problem, as others do, that the author states his political views early and often in this book. I agree with the author that it is better for the author to be honest and forthright about biases and let the reader decide if he or she agrees with the author than for the author to pretend to be completely unbiased. My problem is that the author often distorts the record of justices to fit with his opinion of them--an unforgivable sin. For instance, Irons believes that the first Justice Harlan is a great justice. So he describes his opinion dissenting to oppose segregation in Plessy v. Ferguson as a great opinion, but does not even allude to the fact that, in the middle of this great opinion, he hurls racial insults at, as Harlan describes it, the "Chinese race." His views of some of our earliest justices, Story and John Marshall are cramped because he wants to tear them down. Third, I think Irons should have left out the first couple of chapters on the framing of the Constitution. It is a bit tangential to the subject matter of the book and has been done better by more serious historians. Finally, Irons misses the biggest story of the late 20th Century with a cop out. He ends his book in 1992 but publishes the book in 1999. Between 1992 and 1999, the Supreme Court did a great many things--basically reviving doctrines that had been abandoned in the 1930s. Perhaps Irons got tired and after researching for several years, decided not to add a whole chapter on the revolutionary Rehnquist Court. But if so, he should have explained that to us. Instead, he cops out and says that nothing important has happened since 1992. All in all, if you are interested in the Supreme Court, you should read this book. My guess is that you will find it an easy read and be very interested in it, but wind up frustrated with Irons.
|