Most Helpful Customer Reviews
53 of 57 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A Helpful Introduction to Supreme Court History, February 9, 2007
This is the "companion" volume to the recent PBS series on the Court, but it is very different from that program. The author, Jeffrey Rosen, is a Professor of Law at George Washington University here in Washington, although he also writes for "The New Republic" and other prominent magazines such as "The Atlantic." Rather than exclusively focusing on case development, as the PBS series pretty much does, Rosen rather concentrates on developing a focus on the "temperament" of various Justices (and President Jefferson) and how their temperamental outlooks and characteristics affected the activities of the Court. The book is built around four chapters, each of which juxtaposes two individuals, who Rosen argues had substantially different temperaments: Marshall and Jefferson; Harlan I and Holmes; Black and Douglas; and Rehnquist and Scalia.
Rosen's focus on temperament is both helpful and, on occasion, a problem. It is helpful because it reminds us of a fact too often overlooked when reading Supreme Court history: for all their lofty status, the Court is still a small group of strong-minded individuals with healthy egos who have contrasting goals and persuasive techniques, but remain fundamentally just humans with all their frailties. So, they can lose their tempers, get alienated, lash out, suffer emotional hurt, and so forth just like the rest of us. Just as in his previous book, "The Most Democratic Branch" (also reviewed on Amazon), Rosen is extremely skillful in explaining legal concepts and Court holdings in such a way as to make them easily understood by the general reader. The problem with his approach is that he must juxtapose individuals to make it work, and I found myself disagreeing to a certain extent with his portrayals of certain folks (Holmes, especially, Jefferson somewhat less so, and William O. Douglas a bit), which seemed strained in order to give some zip to his discussion. Conversely, I found him too sanguine in evaluating others, such as Rehnquist and even Black to a certain extent. But these are issues that can be argued incessantly.
One of the most valuable sections of the book is the conclusion, which is largely devoted to a fascinating interview of Chief Justice Roberts after his first year heading the Court. At 258 pages, including notes, the text moves alone nicely, and only on occasion does Rosen get too immersed in detailed legal analysis as to cause difficulties for the general reader. I found the Rehnquist-Scalia and the Black-Douglas chapters to be the best--but this is not to slam the other two chapters. There are some great illustrations and helpful notes, but no bibliography. A good, solid treatment for the general reader.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
16 of 17 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
The real Justice League of America, May 13, 2007
It's one of the fundamental principles of the U.S. Constitution that the three branches of government are more-or-less equal, with checks and balances assuring that no branch takes over. The reality, of course, is different: at times - particularly in the 1800s - the Congress was the more powerful branch, while at other times -especially recently - the Presidency has taken the reins. The judicial branch, however, has always been in third place; although it makes a difference at times, it rarely is more visible than its "coequals". Nonetheless, there are times that the judicial branch - and in particular, the Supreme Court - has assumed a critical role in history.
Jeffrey Rosen's The Supreme Court is not so much a history of the institution as a study as to how certain personalities affected the Court. He focuses on four such rivalries that dictated not only the direction of the Court but also the direction of the country. The first rivalry (and the only one featuring a non-Court figure) is Thomas Jefferson and John Marshall. These two embodies the two principal political philosophies of the early United States: Republicanism and Federalism. Unlike previous Chief Justices, Marshall really defined the Court and made it an important part of the government, most notably with the Marbury v. Madison decision. Since Marshall differed with Jefferson on many issues, this set the two branches at odds with one another.
The next rivalry is John Marshall Harlan and Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., a pairing that is probably the most obscure to the modern reader. Holmes, with his nickname "The Great Dissenter" earned a reputation based on his dissents in some free speech cases, but often had much less sympathetic rulings, such as his opposition to civil rights and his support of eugenics. Harlan, on the other hand, was more forward-thinking, and notably dissented on Plessy v. Ferguson, the Court decision that - after Dred Scott - is probably the darkest mark on the institution's history.
The third section deals with Hugo Black and William Douglas. Unlike the previous pairings, these two were politically of a similar bent, but they still had different judicial philosophies, with Black being the sounder reasoner and Douglas being somewhat more free-wheeling. Douglas's presidential ambitions, which never really amounted to much, also affected his decision-making. Similarly, the fourth section deals with two Justices with similar politics yet different philosophies: William Rehnquist and Antonin Scalia. While Rehnquist would often try for consensus, Scalia is more absolute in his beliefs and doesn't really seem to care who he rankles.
In each pairing, Rosen casts one person as hero (Marshall, Harlan, Black and Rehnquist) and one as villain (Jefferson, Holmes, Douglas and Scalia). Of course, things are not really that simple and Rosen recognizes flaws in the heroes and virtues in the villains; perhaps it is better not to use the heroes-and-villains analogy at all, but it is clear Rosen favors one in each rivalry. This has less to do with politics than with technique: Rosen favors Justices who can promote harmony within the Court and can create rulings with real potency to them. Rulings that go 5-4 are not nearly as strong as those decided unanimously, and are more likely to be eventually reversed.
In the final section, Rosen offers an early analysis of new Chief Justice John Roberts, one that is generally positive. Roberts, Rosen believes, seems to have learned from the better Chief Justices (a group in which Rosen would include Marshall, Warren and Rehnquist) as to how to run the Supreme Court. Rosen's writing is insightful, clear and reasonably objective (in the sense that he doesn't seem to favor either the political right or left). This book is a good, alternative way at looking at the history and structure of the Supreme Court.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
23 of 28 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
A guide to understanding the Supreme Court, February 8, 2007
America's fascination with the law has been a long-standing love affair that traces its roots to an era before the birth of the nation. Although many seem to think that attraction to the law is a recent phenomenon born of television and 24-hour news, history tells a different story. As far back as the early 18th century and the trial of John Peter Zenger, the U.S. has been enthralled by courtroom battles. While television coverage magnified cases such as Terry Schiavo and O.J. Simpson, other moments in history such as the Scopes Monkey Trial and the trial of Fatty Arbuckle were the focus of equally intensive media scrutiny.
Americans love the law, but many citizens lack knowledge of the operation of one significant legal institution: the United States Supreme Court. Indeed, more of us recognize Judge Judy than the nine current sitting justices. The Court itself contributes to the mystery of its operations by a long tradition of cloistered behavior. Little by little, more information about its workings and personalities seem to be coming into the public eye.
THE SUPREME COURT: The Personalities and Rivalries That Defined America, by Jeffrey Rosen, is a companion book to an important four-hour television series on the Supreme Court produced by WNET in New York. Knowing how the Court was created and how it operates helps make the institution more understandable and relevant.
Rosen, a professor of law at George Washington University and a reporter for The New Republic, examines four pairs of influential personalities who shaped the Court. Chief Justice John Marshall and President Thomas Jefferson had contrasting visions on what political role the Court should play as our nation grew. Justices John Marshall Harlan and Oliver Wendell Holmes represented divergent views on the relationship between minority rights and majority rule. Justices Hugo Black and William Douglas were both liberal advocates in the Warren Court era. Finally, Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Antonin Scalia were conservative jurists with far different approaches to building consensus on the Court.
As he frames the debate and analyzes these figures, Rosen cements a point essential to understanding the Supreme Court. It is far more than legal scholarship and judicial philosophy that shape the Court --- it is the personality and interaction of the individual members at a specific moment in history that created the institution that to this day remains an exciting and critical cog in the workings of American government.
THE SUPREME COURT is not a scholarly work of jurisprudence and does not claim to be. In some ways it reflects the central point of its author that the Court is more than legal books, lawyer's briefs and judicial opinions. Rosen ends his book with an enlightening and illuminating interview with the nation's newest Chief Justice, John Roberts. Chief Justice Roberts very well may represent a generational change in the workings of the Court. He seems to understand that the Supreme Court in the 21st century must begin to accommodate modern technology. More significantly, he appreciates the history of the position he occupies and the importance of his task as Chief Justice.
Rosen concludes that Roberts recognizes "The Court has best served itself and the nation when the individual justices have been willing to subordinate their own interests and agendas in the interest of building judicial consensus and institutional legitimacy." The Chief Justice's legacy will depend upon his ability to lead the Court towards that goal. Rosen, an astute observer of the Supreme Court, and every citizen who cares about what is at stake will be watching.
--- Reviewed by Stuart Shiffman
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
