Customer Reviews

The Supreme Court: An Essential History

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

When researching legal history,"the Supreme Court" stands our for easy of use and references. The authors have listed the Courts' by name (i.e The Marshall Court, etc.), making quick and easy use of the book for specific reference. A must read!!

This was great eye opener to our judicial branch of government. Well written and very interesting content.

This book is a survey of the history of the Supreme Court of the United States. It is divided by the court of each chief justice. So we get the John Marshall court, the William Rehnquist court, the Earl Warren court, etc. And, for each court, the major cases decided by that court are discussed. The last court to be discussed is the Rehnquist court and the current John Roberts court is given some space but is limited to a few observations.

Overall, this is not a bad overview of the court's history. It is a good place to get a feel about what the court has gone through and how some of its cases and philosophy have changed with the times. Unfortunately, there is not much detail. There are some cases that are hugely influential and historically important (Marbury v. Madison, Roe v. Wade, etc.) and even though they get more space than other cases, there is still not that much detail. Also, law cases, especially by the time they get to the Supreme Court, can be immensely complicated. Books can be written about each case. So I think it is by the very nature of the subject matter that it is hard to write a detailed overview. There is too much to be written about.

One thing that is clearly shown is the variable nature of the court. There is no consistent philosophy guiding the court throughout its history. Many biases and prejudices enter into each justices' decisions. One wonders if it is just luck that we haven't gotten too many tyrants on the court trying to wield power over the other branches. Maybe it is lack of legitimacy that stops them. But that also means they can't do too many things that are unpopular--which is what we need a court for, isn't it?

What kind of check do the other branches of government really have on the Supreme Court? When they are confirmed, they're there for life. Politics always plays a role. We should confirm them based on their resume more than their politics. Intelligent, deliberate judges might make decisions that are controversial, but they will be well thought-out decisions.

This book is a good place to provoke those questions. But I think it mainly serves to whet a reader's appetite for deeper tomes that delve into the cases in detail or the judges and their philosophy. All in all, a good place to start.

This is a decent introduction to the Court. I just didn't like the way it was presented.