Other Sellers on Amazon
+ $3.99 shipping
98% positive over last 12 months
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required. Learn more
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle Cloud Reader.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
CHIEF JUSTICE: A Biography of Earl Warren Hardcover – June 3, 1997
| Ed Cray (Author) Find all the books, read about the author, and more. See search results for this author |
| Price | New from | Used from |
Enhance your purchase
- Print length608 pages
- LanguageEnglish
- PublisherSimon & Schuster
- Publication dateJune 3, 1997
- Dimensions6.5 x 1.5 x 9.75 inches
- ISBN-100684808528
- ISBN-13978-0684808529
Frequently bought together

- +
Products related to this item
Editorial Reviews
Amazon.com Review
From Library Journal
-?Steven Puro, St. Louis Univ.
Copyright 1997 Reed Business Information, Inc.
From Booklist
From Kirkus Reviews
Review
I'd like to read this book on Kindle
Don't have a Kindle? Get your Kindle here, or download a FREE Kindle Reading App.
Product details
- Publisher : Simon & Schuster (June 3, 1997)
- Language : English
- Hardcover : 608 pages
- ISBN-10 : 0684808528
- ISBN-13 : 978-0684808529
- Item Weight : 1.95 pounds
- Dimensions : 6.5 x 1.5 x 9.75 inches
- Best Sellers Rank: #1,264,219 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #631 in Western U.S. Biographies
- #1,209 in Lawyer & Judge Biographies
- Customer Reviews:
About the author

Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read author blogs and more
Products related to this item
Customer reviews
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on AmazonTop reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Although there were some mildly negative points made about him, some viewpoints of enemies and acknowledgment that he was pursuing a personal view of justice rather than the law, it is a bit of a hagiography. You get the feeling that the author is politically on the same page as Warren and tended to believe only the best of him. Or, it could be he was an almost perfect man fit for the golden age of Athens.
The book starts with Warren's childhood, where he was an above-average student who went into the county courtroom every day because it was too hot outside and became entranced with the law. He would go to UC Berkeley for his undergraduate and law degrees, and after a few odd jobs would wind up as the Alameda County DA, where he made a name for himself by cleaning out organized crime, gambling, and prostitution from the county. His work gave him high visibility, from which to launch his campaign for Attorney General of California, where he would be responsible in the infamous forced internment of Japanese and Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor (as the author notes, only near the end of his life did he come to terms with this act). Then, as now, State AG was merely a stepping stone to the Governor's Mansion, to which he won three terms. Although a Republican, he pushed for progressive reforms in many areas: he tried to get all Californians covered for healthcare (and failed), he tried to make college in California excellent and inexpensive (and succeeded), and he tried to pass worker safety and environmental protection legislation (and did both). He was extremely popular in the state, in fact, in 1946 he won the primaries for the Democratic, Republican, and Progressive parties (Under California law at the time, you could file for the nominations of all parties). His reputation as a moderate consensus-builder in a Democratic state who had still accomplished most of what he wanted made him a lock for the Vice-Presidential slot alongside Tom Dewey, which seemed as sure a thing as possible. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) for Warren, the 1948 election was won by Harry Truman in the biggest surprise in American politics. He would run again four years later, in 1952, hoping to be able to become a consensus candidate for President. Instead, he ended up having to surrender his chances due to an insufficient budget and lobbying by Dwight Eisenhower. Ike, however, knew what Warren had given up and promised him the thing that he really wanted: an appointment to the Supreme court, which happened less than a year later, with the passing of Chief Justice Fred Vinson. This is where the book heats up. The book makes clear that Warren was neither an intellectual, nor a brilliant writer nor the possessor of a natural legal intuition. What he did have, though, was the willingness to work very hard, as well as the ability to persuade colleagues to vote with him. His leadership became apparent when the Brown decision was handed down, unanimously. Brown was nearly evenly divided before, however, Warren went to work on his colleagues one at a time and managed to wrangle agreement on what is, aside from Roe v. Wade, the most famous and without a doubt the most celebrated court case of all. Never one to settle with small or half measures, Warren proceeed to establish a broad interpretation of the constitution, guided by a simple moral compass. He knew that any decision could be backed up by reasoning and precedent, so he picked the side he felt was morally right and let his clerks sort it out. The major cases, including Gideon v. Wainwright (establishing a right to an attorney), Miranda v. Arizona (ever seen a cop show?), and Mapp v. Ohio (ensuring state legislatures were determined by population and not by land) were controversial, but now they seem almost natural. Occasionally the court went too far for the public: banishing school prayer sparked a debate that continues to this day, but again, Warren was looking out for fairness--in this case, he wanted no ill-will toward non-believing schoolchildren. As the book notes, very few of the Chief's vast pronouncements have been rolled back by the Burger and Rehnquist courts, and it seems certain by this point that they will have long life in the republic. The book also goes over his involvement in the Warren Commission to investigate the JFK assassination, in some detail. However, some of the most interesting material involves his ability to lead the other disparate justices on the court: moderating the continuing feuds between the liberal activist faction, including Hugo Black and William Douglas; and the judicial restraint supporters like Felix Frankfurter and Robert Jackson.
John Roberts should read closely how Warren managed to provide a model for being a Chief Justice: kind but firm, willing to compromise but continually steering the court in his own direction. Love him or hate him, Warren is rightfully considered among the best Chief Justices, and this book tells why. After reading, it is little wonder that after Warren's departure, and the arrival of the super-political hack Warren Burger, justices like William Brennan, Black and Douglas regarded him as the real chief. Warren was a man who transcended his times: his total lack of prejudice and dedication to preserving the American dream gave him a greater impact on America than Eisenhower or Nixon, his arch-enemy. We could use more men from all persuasions like him.
The book is not overtly dramatic. Earl Warren was a carefully guarded man performing a duty that required a non-partisan appearance. And some of the cases required several readings before I could really understand them. The writing was lucid, but the cases are complicated - at least for my limited mind. (The state law says this, legal precedent suggests that, the amendment applies to federal law, not the state, but only if it's a felony. Warren, Black, Douglas signed the majority opinion. Frankfurter wrote a dissenting opinion. Brennan wrote a concurring opinion agreeing with the decision but opposing the reasoning behind it. Then they all agreed to narrow the decision, but to remand it to state court. Hmmm.)
I will have two lasting impressions of the book: First, Earl Warren's enormous and endemic sense of fairness. Second, how narrowly many of our civil liberties were won - often by just a 5-4 or 6-3 majority - and how little it would take to overturn those decisions.

