Format: PaperbackChange
Price:$8.49+ Free shipping with Amazon Prime
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
on February 22, 2013
Worth a read. The author has a tendency to interpret US Supreme Court decisions through his prism of left wing orientation. He sees evil in Justice Roberts where evil does not exist. The author is brilliant but confuses political conservatism with judicial conservatism. He is smart enough to know the difference and even eludes to the distinction but is unable to understand Justice Roberts's reasons for his opinion in the Obama Care Act. Justice Roberts clearly applied Judicial conservatism in that case by upholding the doctrine that if there is a way an act of congress can be upheld it should be and Justice Roberts found a way using the power to tax. Robert N Grosby
on February 19, 2016
Only reason I give it three stars is that I thought i would enjoy it but the book goes a bit over my head. As someone who follows politics closely I thought nothing of it at the time I ordered it
on October 19, 2012
I read "The Nine," and "Too Close to Call." They were both good books. But this book, like the third installment of any trilogy rehashes a bunch of previously covered material. We already knew that Justice Souter didn't like Washington, was appalled by Bush v. Gore, and came close to resigning in protest.
The book also tries too hard to be a dueling biography of two powerful Chicagoians--President Obama and Chief Justice Roberts--it is fair to each side, but it took two thirds of the book to get to them both being in power and the conflict between their respective ideological preferences.
The Chapter on the health care decision was interesting--but it was only a chapter, and it was at the very end of the book, after 250 pages of what Barack Obama and John Roberts did in their 20, occasional chiming in of Justice Scalia with barbs, a treatise on why Justice Thomas doesn't ask questions, etc, etc.
This book could've been something had it had a cohesive narrative around the health care cases. Instead it was a bunch of mini-biography magazine pieces stitched together. Not a complete waste of my time, but not that good of a read either.
The book also tries too hard to be a dueling biography of two powerful Chicagoians--President Obama and Chief Justice Roberts--it is fair to each side, but it took two thirds of the book to get to them both being in power and the conflict between their respective ideological preferences.
The Chapter on the health care decision was interesting--but it was only a chapter, and it was at the very end of the book, after 250 pages of what Barack Obama and John Roberts did in their 20, occasional chiming in of Justice Scalia with barbs, a treatise on why Justice Thomas doesn't ask questions, etc, etc.
This book could've been something had it had a cohesive narrative around the health care cases. Instead it was a bunch of mini-biography magazine pieces stitched together. Not a complete waste of my time, but not that good of a read either.
on December 30, 2012
It is a good book, worth reading. I selected it because with the major cases coming up this year I thought the time was right. The author makes too much of an assumption on how verse the reader is on the personalities and idiosyncrasies of the Supreme Court Judges.
on December 11, 2012
Jeffrey Toobin does a workmanlike job gathering the cases most influential for the Robert's Court, but his portraits and cases tend to run into each other. Best for an amateur student who wants to catch up.
on December 25, 2012
Very interesting insight into the inner workings of the court, it's Justices, and how they correlate with the other 2 branches of government.
on April 7, 2014
Jeffrey Toobin is a wonderful TV commentator available on many cable and network talks shows or whoever wishes to strain the envelope of the U.S. Supreme Court on issues, mostly political, and none of which most Court Members are qualified to understand or judge. The pretense that at least five members of SCOTUS has a clue about the law is laughable and I rather wish that Professor Toobin (normally brilliant) would not have allowed readers to believe that the current court has a foothold on subjects which they have never found themselves participating: POLITICS. These are high paid lawyers whose moral code is typically attached to a major interest in lobbying or self-serving bank accounts. I don't mean to insult the writer of this view presented as The Oath, he is a remarkable man, but to have Sublime Chief Justice Roberts face off with a Constitutional Lawyer twice elected President of the United States in a double runaway is ludicrous. It took a slight majority of the House and Senate to put Roberts on the Court and several million voters to put Mr. Obama in the White House.
To better understand my comments, turn to page one and don't stop reading: The Oath. By the way, the origin's of the term: Dunce Cap came from the name of a 13th century theological scholar. Prepare yourself: John Duns SCOTUS.
To better understand my comments, turn to page one and don't stop reading: The Oath. By the way, the origin's of the term: Dunce Cap came from the name of a 13th century theological scholar. Prepare yourself: John Duns SCOTUS.
on August 13, 2013
I had read Toobin's book "The Nine" and love it so I was really interested in reading this one. Although I am an attorney, I found I had to really plod through this book with all the cases cited. I did learn about the political agendas of thr current justices of the Supreme Court.
on November 19, 2012
If you are interested in the inner workings of the Supreme Court but are anything but a left-side kool-aid drinker, this book is frustrating. It delivers some tidbits, but more than half of it is regurgitation of talking points from the left, generally gratuitously. But if you want "the liberals guide to the Supreme Court 1995 to 2012" this isn't a bad read I suppose.
