Other Sellers on Amazon
+ Free Shipping
+ $3.99 shipping
+ $3.99 shipping
Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Opinions of the United States Supreme Court (Feminist Judgment Series: Rewritten Judicial Opinions) Paperback – August 2, 2016
The Amazon Book Review
Book recommendations, author interviews, editors' picks, and more. Read it now.
Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
Frequently bought together
About the Author
Linda L. Berger is a Professor of Law and the Associate Dean for Faculty Development and Research at the Boyd School of Law, University of Nevada, Las Vegas. She is also is the President of the Legal Writing Institute and a founder of the peer-reviewed journal Legal Communication and Rhetoric.
Bridget J. Crawford is a Professor of Law at Pace University, New York. She is also an elected member of the American Law Institute and the American College of Trust and Estate Counsel.
- Item Weight : 1.87 pounds
- Paperback : 578 pages
- ISBN-10 : 110756560X
- Product Dimensions : 6.02 x 1.22 x 8.98 inches
- ISBN-13 : 978-1107565609
- Publisher : Cambridge University Press (August 2, 2016)
- Language: : English
- Customer Reviews:
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
The idea here (with two academic introduction chapters) is to re-write twenty-five US Supreme Court opinions (mostly after 1965) in a feminist fashion. This is part of a trend -- e.g., there is a collection of alternative opinions for Brown v. Bd. and Roe v. Wade, both worthwhile reads. I found this set more disappointing though as a whole it was okay. Each opinion has a brief introduction written by someone else (for some reason) and these on the whole were tiresome. I use the word vaguely for a reason -- tiresome in various ways, such as not very helpful, tediously written etc.
Some of the opinions were a tad redundant -- the Planned Parenthood v. Casey opinion amounted to a thinly re-written version of Justice Blackmun's concurrence. The inclusion of an opinion originally written by Ruth Bader Ginsburg also seemed a silly choice given there are numerous opinions that one could include instead. The legal reasoning of some were somewhat dubious or conclusionary. Note the conceit was that they were supposed to use cases and other source material available at the time of the original opinions. Thus, e.g., the broad argument in this version of Griswold came off a tad anachronistic. A few were pretty interesting but only a few were really good (such as the draft case).
Net, I was disappointed, but since there was so much here, it was okay. OTOH, I wouldn't suggest spending $40 for this sort of thing.