Format: PaperbackChange
Price:$8.49+ Free shipping with Amazon Prime
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
on November 14, 2012
As a legal analysis of Supreme Court cases, this book is sub-mediocre. Toobin excoriates justices who fail to adhere to precedents--well, not to all precedents, just those he likes. The overruling of Plessy in Brown v. Board is (properly) treated as long-overdue; that Wickard v. Filburn overruled more than a Century of decisions, including Schecter just a few years earlier, is overlooked; while Roe v. Wade, which almost all Constitutional scholars acknowledge was at best "creative", is treated as written in stone. Nothing unusual about these views politically, but they aren't very helpful for anyone trying to understand the Court.
Toobin lavishes a number of pages on the Ledbetter case, which was, in the scheme of Supreme Court law, inconsequential. There are at least two federal laws prohibiting pay discrimination against women. Ledbetter's attorneys had chosen, for reasons never explained, to bring their suit under the statute that raised a serious (and, as it turned out, fatal) statute of limitations issue; and to relinquish their claim under another statute which posed no such problem. They lost the case, because the claim was filed too late. It's result, whether good or bad, was quickly changed by Congress and the new President. The case became a sound-bite political issue about women's rights, but is of negligible legal importance, and certainly not as useful in a discussion of the Supreme Court as Toobin's extensive presentation suggests.
As reporting on the idiosyncrasies of the Justices and the Court, Toobin and his book are heavily biased towards the Left, with the right-wing justices all scheming troglodytes trying to impose their cramped view of justice on the country, and the left wing group all visionaries trying to make the world a better place. Aside from this obvious bias, I was annoyed by Toobin's use of the now-common writing technique of inventing conversations, and even thoughts, of his subjects, all presented as if Toobin had actual, first-hand knowledge. What's insidious about this kind of writing is that even when one is alert for it, the impression it creates remains. Guys Toobin doesn't like have evil intentions, as proven by his recital of what he thinks they may have said or thought; guys (and women) he likes have only noble ends in mind.
There are definitely better ways to learn about the cases the Court considers. There must be better, and less partisan, reporters of what makes the Justices tick.
Toobin lavishes a number of pages on the Ledbetter case, which was, in the scheme of Supreme Court law, inconsequential. There are at least two federal laws prohibiting pay discrimination against women. Ledbetter's attorneys had chosen, for reasons never explained, to bring their suit under the statute that raised a serious (and, as it turned out, fatal) statute of limitations issue; and to relinquish their claim under another statute which posed no such problem. They lost the case, because the claim was filed too late. It's result, whether good or bad, was quickly changed by Congress and the new President. The case became a sound-bite political issue about women's rights, but is of negligible legal importance, and certainly not as useful in a discussion of the Supreme Court as Toobin's extensive presentation suggests.
As reporting on the idiosyncrasies of the Justices and the Court, Toobin and his book are heavily biased towards the Left, with the right-wing justices all scheming troglodytes trying to impose their cramped view of justice on the country, and the left wing group all visionaries trying to make the world a better place. Aside from this obvious bias, I was annoyed by Toobin's use of the now-common writing technique of inventing conversations, and even thoughts, of his subjects, all presented as if Toobin had actual, first-hand knowledge. What's insidious about this kind of writing is that even when one is alert for it, the impression it creates remains. Guys Toobin doesn't like have evil intentions, as proven by his recital of what he thinks they may have said or thought; guys (and women) he likes have only noble ends in mind.
There are definitely better ways to learn about the cases the Court considers. There must be better, and less partisan, reporters of what makes the Justices tick.
on January 24, 2013
Kind of boring and repetitive. His earlier book on the court "The NInes" was fabulous. Read that if you haven't.
on January 27, 2017
This book is not as good as Toobin's Nine.
I found that the subject matter was not as well researched as Nine.
He also doesn't come off as professional as in Nine. For instance, he attacks Alito way too often. I found his comment on Scalia, however, moving from extreme conservative to ranting and raving angry man to be right on. He also praises Obama way too much. Because his book is not as balanced as Nine, and clearly liberally leaning, it doesn't appear as professional.
For instance, if he's going to attack Alito so much (and I'm not a conservative), then he needs to balance it also with a number of problems Sotomayor has made on the bench as well. Otherwise,t he piece comes off as a Democratic propaganda piece.
Hopefully, his piece on the Trump court will be better.
I found that the subject matter was not as well researched as Nine.
He also doesn't come off as professional as in Nine. For instance, he attacks Alito way too often. I found his comment on Scalia, however, moving from extreme conservative to ranting and raving angry man to be right on. He also praises Obama way too much. Because his book is not as balanced as Nine, and clearly liberally leaning, it doesn't appear as professional.
For instance, if he's going to attack Alito so much (and I'm not a conservative), then he needs to balance it also with a number of problems Sotomayor has made on the bench as well. Otherwise,t he piece comes off as a Democratic propaganda piece.
Hopefully, his piece on the Trump court will be better.
on December 20, 2012
I read Toobin's books for the engrossing behind-the-scenes storytelling and try to skip over the biased and somewhat lazy legal analysis that unfortunately comes along with it.
on January 27, 2013
A little too long and repetative - gets boring. Lot's of detail and statistics. Like being back in college with required reading.
on July 8, 2016
Toobin is a partisan, not a journalist. Nothing wrong with that; if your politics match his you'll glow with satisfaction, and if they differ, you'll burn with disdain; both very satisfying emotions. Only if you are interested in a dispassionate discussion of facts will you be disappointed. For a far better, far more informative discussion of the Roberts court, see Tribe and Matz _Uncertain Justice_.
on September 24, 2012
As The Oath begins, government officials are obsessing over the precise words and exact phrasing that Roberts will use to administer the Inaugural Oath to Obama. The irony, per Toobin, is that Roberts himself couldn't give a twit about honoring those words. It's like Seinfeld's car rental bit.:"Anyone can take the reservation, the important part is to keep the reservation." Toobin is saying that Roberts (and pals) took the Oath, they just didn't keep the Oath. And isn't that really the most important part of the oath -- the keeping, not the taking. (yada, yada).
The problem with this premise, besides being simplistic and repetitive, is that it constrains the discussion of the cases Toobin cites. He extracts only what is material to his argument. But the cases are far richer. They tell fascinating stories of real-life disputes. They show the evolution of how we as a people think of our citizenship. And in balancing the ever-present conflicting values, they explore a variety of perspectives. Toobin gives us just one perspective. In fact, he seems to lack the empathy to even grasp other points of view, which explains his harsh condemnation of The Roberts Court.
You can read the actual cases for yourself and listen to the oral arguments for free at the Supreme Court's website.
The rest of this review will focus on a gun control case ("Heller") because that is where Toobin's narrative begins and because I happened to have read Heller recently.
Toobin uses the 2nd Amendment as bait and switch. His readers are already in agreement that people shouldn't be carrying around guns. So it doesn't take much sleight of hand to convince us that the only reason there are still guns out there is because of a conservative bloc that knows they've got it wrong but are simply playing politics. His argument wouldn't be as camouflaged if he led with a freedom of speech or equal protection case.
The shame is that the decision in Heller, written by Antonin Scalia, is far more fascinating than Toobin's account. The case concerns a law in Washington D.C. which, while allowing rifles in the home, outlawed handguns. [Not that it's relevant to this review, but you should know that I am a strong supporter of gun control; I know the stats about guns in the home and I believe that police practices have evolved in the last few decades to a point where virtually every citizen should feel more secure with guns being used by police rather than by themselves. The recent tragic shooting of a Connecticut teen by his father reminds me of a former classmate who killed his brother-in-law under similar circumstances and ruined his own life in the process].
Here are some of the arguments from Heller that Toobin left out:
1. The question of whether an individual has the right to NOT call the police when they are in jeopardy. There are many reasons why you may not want to call the police. Maybe you live in a minority neighborhood where, due to police racism, the response time to a 911 call is exceedingly slow. Maybe you live in a city where, for political reasons, protecting the wealthiest neighborhoods is a police priority. Or maybe it's just because you are growing pot in your backyard. And there are some historians that note the dangers of a citizenry that has grown too dependent on the police for protection.
2. For some people, particularly women, a rifle is too unwieldy, so, in effect, the law was sexist.
3. With a handgun you can hold an intruder at bay with a gun in one hand while dialing 911 with the other hand. If you've got a rifle trained on the bad guy - now what do you do?
4. In the balance of values, guns are unacceptably dangerous and not all that helpful in a civilized society.
5. You don't necessarily need the 2nd Amendment to find a right to keep a gun in the home. Other provisions of the Constitution, such as the right to be secure in your own home and the right of privacy, might well provide the basis of a right to have at least a small gun with a dozen bullets so that one's options are not limited to running and hiding.
Instead, Toobin's only assertion is that the 2nd Amendment is obsolete because it mentions militia in a grammatically confusing way. In fact, we are led to believe that Scalia's archeological dig into the 18th Century is the thrust of Scalia's opinion. That's circuitous -- Scalia is merely responding to the "obsolete" argument to acknowledge it -- but not to use it affirmatively to strike down the Washington, D.C. law. By overlooking the meat of the clash and compromise of the important values at stake in this debate, Toobin leaves us with his simplistic conclusion --that the opinion was nothing more that "just another way to achieve their political goals."
As to the grammar, Toobin asserts that there is unanimous agreement that the 2nd Amendment is ungrammatical. What he doesn't say is that there were amicus briefs filed by grammarians that show differences of opinion. One such grammar test that I think is interesting is to use the exact text, but substitute words relating to health care: "A well regulated health care system being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to choose their own doctors shall not be infringed."
His scepticism about President Obama's position follows the same logic. We ask our elected representatives to advocate our interests, but to also uphold our Constitution. So when Obama pushes for common sense gun control legislation, while also believing that the 2nd Amendment is not obsolete, Obama may be just doing his job. Toobin overlooks that possibility and jumps to the conclusion that Obama flip-flopped for political reasons.
I grew frustrated with The Oath's cynical view of how our democracy works. I may be naive, but I believe that there must be at least some part of these great men that cares about, for example, finding the proper place for guns in a free and civilized nation. Why couldn't Toobin put his considerable expertise and access into shedding light on the higher values actually addressed by the Court and the President. I didn't like that Toobin was dismissive, essentially saying that gun control was nothing more than a political football.
My recommendation is to read the actual opinions written by the Court (for all the cases Toobin cites). They are fascinating reads and are far more illuminating than Toobin's account of them, which I found to be tailored, not for insight, but to support his premise.
The problem with this premise, besides being simplistic and repetitive, is that it constrains the discussion of the cases Toobin cites. He extracts only what is material to his argument. But the cases are far richer. They tell fascinating stories of real-life disputes. They show the evolution of how we as a people think of our citizenship. And in balancing the ever-present conflicting values, they explore a variety of perspectives. Toobin gives us just one perspective. In fact, he seems to lack the empathy to even grasp other points of view, which explains his harsh condemnation of The Roberts Court.
You can read the actual cases for yourself and listen to the oral arguments for free at the Supreme Court's website.
The rest of this review will focus on a gun control case ("Heller") because that is where Toobin's narrative begins and because I happened to have read Heller recently.
Toobin uses the 2nd Amendment as bait and switch. His readers are already in agreement that people shouldn't be carrying around guns. So it doesn't take much sleight of hand to convince us that the only reason there are still guns out there is because of a conservative bloc that knows they've got it wrong but are simply playing politics. His argument wouldn't be as camouflaged if he led with a freedom of speech or equal protection case.
The shame is that the decision in Heller, written by Antonin Scalia, is far more fascinating than Toobin's account. The case concerns a law in Washington D.C. which, while allowing rifles in the home, outlawed handguns. [Not that it's relevant to this review, but you should know that I am a strong supporter of gun control; I know the stats about guns in the home and I believe that police practices have evolved in the last few decades to a point where virtually every citizen should feel more secure with guns being used by police rather than by themselves. The recent tragic shooting of a Connecticut teen by his father reminds me of a former classmate who killed his brother-in-law under similar circumstances and ruined his own life in the process].
Here are some of the arguments from Heller that Toobin left out:
1. The question of whether an individual has the right to NOT call the police when they are in jeopardy. There are many reasons why you may not want to call the police. Maybe you live in a minority neighborhood where, due to police racism, the response time to a 911 call is exceedingly slow. Maybe you live in a city where, for political reasons, protecting the wealthiest neighborhoods is a police priority. Or maybe it's just because you are growing pot in your backyard. And there are some historians that note the dangers of a citizenry that has grown too dependent on the police for protection.
2. For some people, particularly women, a rifle is too unwieldy, so, in effect, the law was sexist.
3. With a handgun you can hold an intruder at bay with a gun in one hand while dialing 911 with the other hand. If you've got a rifle trained on the bad guy - now what do you do?
4. In the balance of values, guns are unacceptably dangerous and not all that helpful in a civilized society.
5. You don't necessarily need the 2nd Amendment to find a right to keep a gun in the home. Other provisions of the Constitution, such as the right to be secure in your own home and the right of privacy, might well provide the basis of a right to have at least a small gun with a dozen bullets so that one's options are not limited to running and hiding.
Instead, Toobin's only assertion is that the 2nd Amendment is obsolete because it mentions militia in a grammatically confusing way. In fact, we are led to believe that Scalia's archeological dig into the 18th Century is the thrust of Scalia's opinion. That's circuitous -- Scalia is merely responding to the "obsolete" argument to acknowledge it -- but not to use it affirmatively to strike down the Washington, D.C. law. By overlooking the meat of the clash and compromise of the important values at stake in this debate, Toobin leaves us with his simplistic conclusion --that the opinion was nothing more that "just another way to achieve their political goals."
As to the grammar, Toobin asserts that there is unanimous agreement that the 2nd Amendment is ungrammatical. What he doesn't say is that there were amicus briefs filed by grammarians that show differences of opinion. One such grammar test that I think is interesting is to use the exact text, but substitute words relating to health care: "A well regulated health care system being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to choose their own doctors shall not be infringed."
His scepticism about President Obama's position follows the same logic. We ask our elected representatives to advocate our interests, but to also uphold our Constitution. So when Obama pushes for common sense gun control legislation, while also believing that the 2nd Amendment is not obsolete, Obama may be just doing his job. Toobin overlooks that possibility and jumps to the conclusion that Obama flip-flopped for political reasons.
I grew frustrated with The Oath's cynical view of how our democracy works. I may be naive, but I believe that there must be at least some part of these great men that cares about, for example, finding the proper place for guns in a free and civilized nation. Why couldn't Toobin put his considerable expertise and access into shedding light on the higher values actually addressed by the Court and the President. I didn't like that Toobin was dismissive, essentially saying that gun control was nothing more than a political football.
My recommendation is to read the actual opinions written by the Court (for all the cases Toobin cites). They are fascinating reads and are far more illuminating than Toobin's account of them, which I found to be tailored, not for insight, but to support his premise.
on April 27, 2014
I borrowed the kindle version from my library's e-lending program. I put it down halfway through the first chapter and have not gone back. The author is so over the top in describing President Obama's life and activities from the perspective of a devoted fan or star-crossed lover that he makes it difficult to focus on the prose. In the first chapter he is discussing the similarities and differences in Obama and Roberts experiences at Harvard, but Roberts is the evil product of rich parents and conservative Harvard instructors, while Saint Obama somehow managed to make it through unscathed to become the savior of south Chicago. Tone down the rhetoric Jeffrey and your book would be a lot more palatable.
on February 11, 2013
Entertaining at a very basic level, but should probably be re-shelved as fiction and given the subheading "Inspired by Actual Events". The author's surprisingly stark distaste for Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito moves from professional criticism to personal digs (e.g., calling Scalia a "crank"), which gives the book a decidedly immature tone. Disappointing, overall.
