79 of 89 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.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
32 of 37 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Good Supreme Court history, but sloppy history, October 22, 1999
Irons has put together a useful and well-written history of the Supreme Court from its genesis in the Constitutional Convention to the present. His short profiles of each justice and his (or her) contribution are particularly helpful. He also does a great job of bringing to life many of the individual litigants who came before the court, putting faces on the names from the past. Unfortunately, in history itself he seems to have lost his way. One will find laughers like that Lincoln dismissed McClellan after the disastrous defeat at Antietam in Virginia that a sixth grader wouldn't make (it was in Maryland, it was at least a tactical victory and Lincoln kept McClellan for another two months). He places too much emphasis on black-white relations, which while important were not the only thing the Supreme Court did in the nineteenth century. Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, the trail of tears case, is nowhere present, even though it led to the largest confrontation between the power of a president and of the court in our history. In the context of their times, the cases in which the court struck down the civil war income tax and dealt with the constitutionality of greenbacks were also important, but are barely touched on. He starts well, with good descriptions of Charles River Bridge and Gibbons v. Ogden; I wish he'd continued as comprehensively.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
23 of 29 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Easy to Read, Fun to Discuss, October 8, 2000
This review is from: A People's History of the Supreme Court (Paperback)
Peter Iron's book, A People's History of the Supreme Court, was a joy to read through all the many hours I was engrossed in this immense book. He puts his ideological cards on the table in the introduction and then, if you have any spark of liberal spirit inside you, you go along for the ride as Irons takes the reader through over two hundred years of siginificant cases of the Supreme Court. The great pleasure of this book is that it also allows the reader to see the personalities of both the court and the petitioners before the court. Dred Scott becomes more than the name of the decision. It is fascinating, too, how politics and legal decisions are weaved together in this epic book as they are in the actual decisions themselves. It was a wonderful book that demonstrated that the Constitution is for the people and the story of the Constitution is the story of the people.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
