Format: PaperbackChange
Price:$8.49+ Free shipping with Amazon Prime
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
on July 7, 2016
Toobin's writing about the Supreme Court is always well worth reading, and this book is no exception. It traces the difficult relationship between President Obama and the Court from its ill-starred beginning to the ambiguous upholding of most of the Affordable Care Act in 2013. At the beginning, of course, Chief Justice Roberts made mistakes in administering the President's oath of office, and the process had to be repeated. And at the end, the Chief Justice astonished many observers by voting to uphold most of the provisions of the ACA. Many felt that this showed an unexpected liberal side to the Chief, but Toobin argues that he was still playing a conservative game, but in a long term context. The book is elegantly organized, basically chronologically but featuring one justice and one issue in turn. The short biographies of the justices are illuminating and very helpful, as is the review of the major cases that came before the court.
The book is also strongly opinionated -- moreso than I expected. He argues forcefully that Roberts came to the court with a "conservative" agenda in mind that was at the root the opposite of conservative. The Roberts court, in his view, was on a mission to overturn much of the law settled by Supreme Court decisions from the New Deal on. Toobin argues this compellingly, and argues that it was a radical rather than a conservative approach. I found his arguments convincing, but his political views are in line with my own. A more conservative -- or more Republican -- reader might find the arguments less convincing. Whether or not you agree, however, this book is well worth reading, both informative and thought provoking.
The book is also strongly opinionated -- moreso than I expected. He argues forcefully that Roberts came to the court with a "conservative" agenda in mind that was at the root the opposite of conservative. The Roberts court, in his view, was on a mission to overturn much of the law settled by Supreme Court decisions from the New Deal on. Toobin argues this compellingly, and argues that it was a radical rather than a conservative approach. I found his arguments convincing, but his political views are in line with my own. A more conservative -- or more Republican -- reader might find the arguments less convincing. Whether or not you agree, however, this book is well worth reading, both informative and thought provoking.
on August 11, 2013
Toobin writes for the New Yorker on legal issues. He has done numerous profiles and articles on the Supreme Court over the years, including an outstanding book on the Renquist Court titled "The Nine."
Woven throughout the first half of this book are snapshot biographies of the two newest justices, Sotomayor and Kagan. The subtitle of the book captures it perfectly: "The Obama White House and the Supreme Court."
Toobin covers:
(1) The botched oath on inauguration day
(2) The Lily Ledbetter Act
(3) The Citizens United Case (gets the extra attention it deserves)
(4) The arguments and decision on the Affordable Care Act
Toobin definitely sympathizes with the liberals on the court more than the conservatives and it comes out in his writing. He does have some kind words at times for Roberts and the conservatives, but the major flaw in this book is that he doesn't leave it up to the reader to decide what was right and wrong.
Nonetheless, it's a very good book.
Woven throughout the first half of this book are snapshot biographies of the two newest justices, Sotomayor and Kagan. The subtitle of the book captures it perfectly: "The Obama White House and the Supreme Court."
Toobin covers:
(1) The botched oath on inauguration day
(2) The Lily Ledbetter Act
(3) The Citizens United Case (gets the extra attention it deserves)
(4) The arguments and decision on the Affordable Care Act
Toobin definitely sympathizes with the liberals on the court more than the conservatives and it comes out in his writing. He does have some kind words at times for Roberts and the conservatives, but the major flaw in this book is that he doesn't leave it up to the reader to decide what was right and wrong.
Nonetheless, it's a very good book.
TOP 500 REVIEWERVINE VOICEon October 18, 2012
The title of Jeffrey Toobin's The Oath refers to Chief Justice John Robert's infamous flubbing of the presidential oath when he swore in Barack Obama in 2009. Toobin begins with that celebrated misstep, then looks back to examine the backgrounds and early careers of the President and Chief Justice, then goes on to chronicle the last few years of Court history. This book is a sort of sequel to or continuation of Toobin's earlier work The Nine, which examined the Court from about 1990 to 2005. Both The Nine and The Oath are invaluable guides to what often seems the most mysterious, if not impenetrable, of the three branches of the US government.
Toobin excels in his ability to explain the most abstract of legal arguments in an easily accessible way. He is also a master of the telling anecdote and the short biographical sketch. I was fascinated by his summaries of the early lives and careers of President Obama, Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. In The Oath Toobin covers Roberts' tenure as Chief Justice, and provides many fascinating details about the way the Chief Justice works with the other justices, usually combining with the four other conservatives to carry the day on decisions like Citizens United but sometimes, as with the health care decision, joining the four moderate/liberals in an attempt to maintain the Court's independence and freedom from political attack.
The nine justices have a great deal of influence on the lives of Americans, but few of us know much about them. Toobin gives us some insights into their personalities, life histories, and philosophies. He also, and this is probably the most valuable insight in The Oath, gives us some perspective into the probable future course of the Court, as the Chief Justice prepares for a career that could stretch for two more decades at least and as both liberal and conservative justices grow old and inevitably are replaced. It seems clear that there will be more controversial decisions like Citizens United in the next few years, and that it will be even more important for Americans to understand how the Supreme Court functions. Jeffrey Toobin's books The Nine and The Oath will be essential reading for years to come.
Toobin excels in his ability to explain the most abstract of legal arguments in an easily accessible way. He is also a master of the telling anecdote and the short biographical sketch. I was fascinated by his summaries of the early lives and careers of President Obama, Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. In The Oath Toobin covers Roberts' tenure as Chief Justice, and provides many fascinating details about the way the Chief Justice works with the other justices, usually combining with the four other conservatives to carry the day on decisions like Citizens United but sometimes, as with the health care decision, joining the four moderate/liberals in an attempt to maintain the Court's independence and freedom from political attack.
The nine justices have a great deal of influence on the lives of Americans, but few of us know much about them. Toobin gives us some insights into their personalities, life histories, and philosophies. He also, and this is probably the most valuable insight in The Oath, gives us some perspective into the probable future course of the Court, as the Chief Justice prepares for a career that could stretch for two more decades at least and as both liberal and conservative justices grow old and inevitably are replaced. It seems clear that there will be more controversial decisions like Citizens United in the next few years, and that it will be even more important for Americans to understand how the Supreme Court functions. Jeffrey Toobin's books The Nine and The Oath will be essential reading for years to come.
on October 29, 2012
I found this to be an informative primer on the current Supreme Court members. I came away with additions to the common layman knowledge that there are five conservatives and four liberals on the current Court. Beyond his study of the written individual opinions, Toobin reports speaking to many insiders. The result is the reader comes away with knowledge of some individual differences between the Justices on the conservative side, for example. I had read all the lower court opinions and listened to the entire argument in the health care case, so there was little new there for me beyond the confirmation that Roberts had voted to overturn on the initial vote. I would have liked more detail on the Citizens United case and history, but what was provided, particularly about the reason it was heard a second time, was informative. He included a short discussion of the Anna Nicole Smith case, from which I came away knowing virtually nothing, either because of an inadequate explanation, or perhaps because it isn't/wasn't over yet. Fortunately I didn't really care about that one. One "quote" from Justice O'Connor as she was leaving the Court was interesting, as was the review of her reason for leaving when she did (no doubt known to people who followed the news at the time). My guess is that my complaint about it not being longer with even more information is explained by the fact that insider information about the Court is held close to the vest by all involved. But overall, it was a very worthwhile book for me.
on June 13, 2015
If you enjoyed “The Nine” by Jeffrey Toobin, you must read “The Oath.” Both works focus on the intricacies of the United States Supreme Court. Although rulings of the Court are “the Law of the Land,” those who believe that the justices are infallible might be disappointed. There is a reason why so many significant decisions by the Court are 5-4; the justices are political appointees and all too often they refuse to stray from their personal ideologies. The Oath was published in 2012, 227 years after the Constitution of the United States was created on September 17, 1787 and ratified nine months later on June 21, 1788. To the lay citizen, the fact that in each of those 227 years, nine supreme justices continue to vigorously debate what the framers of the document really meant. The Oath has much greater depth and breadth than what is implied by the subtitle, “The Obama White House and the Supreme Court.” Through his meticulous research, dense detail, and lucid writing, Toobin lays bare the inner workings of the Court and the countless ways in which the Laws of the Land have been heavily influenced by politics. Toobin’s work is an outstanding piece of scholarship, but it also is highly readable for those who are unsophisticated in the law or in politics.
Charles E. Speaks, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor Emeritus,
University of Minnesota
Charles E. Speaks, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor Emeritus,
University of Minnesota
on April 21, 2015
This book is informative and well-written. I recommend it to anyone who wants to understand the recent court decisions, as well as the way the supreme court works. Toobin includes bios of each of the justices, which is helpful in understand the court as well as interesting reading. It seems clear that the justices have their own agendas and theories and that those agendas and theories override any other considerations. As interesting as it is, it is also a bit concerning. I'd like to think of the Supreme Court as nine uninvolved fair minded people simply looking at the merits of each case, but that clearly is not what is happening. I suppose justices have always been somewhat political.
on June 23, 2013
Never doubt for a moment that law is at its core politics. If you do doubt it, then read Jeffrey Toobin's latest book, "The Oath: The Obama White House and the Supreme Court" (Doubleday, New York, 2012).
Toobin writes about the high court as well as anyone living. His first book on the court, "The Nine," relied extensively on interviews with court clerks, and, perhaps, the justices themselves.
He returns to those sources in "The Oath" to provide a behind the scenes look at the court's most controversial decisions during the past four years.
If you're like most folks, you think an appeal to the Constitution, like reliance on the Bible, should end any debate.
"The Constitution says ...," we like to say, just as we report on Jesus's utterances as though he were walking among us. But reliance on both the Bible and the Constitution is really the beginning of any debate; just what we are to make of these documents, how we are to read them, is the stuff of both theology and the law.
The high priests of constitutional interpretation are the nine justices of the Supreme Court, each appointed for life, and most serving well into their 80s. They are the final arbiters of what the Constitution means. A political party controlling the appointment of judges can exert great influence on how the document is read and interpreted.
Today's debate on judges pits "judicial activists," judges who "legislate from the bench," unelected elites imposing their values on the rest of us, against originalists, those adhering to the intent of the founders. Or so the argument goes. What if the real activists were those pretending both that the founders' intentions could be readily discerned and that the founders really wanted us to be faithful to their intentions? What if originalism is really just an ideological hoax?
This debate about competing schools of constitutional interpretation pits, in the language of the law's scholars, proponents of "originalism" against the "living constitution."
The bizarre notion that we are to interpret the Constitution as strict textualists bound to the intentions of the framers is largely the brainchild of Justice Antonin Scalia. It serves as the political platform of the Federalist Society, a group which set its sights, a quarter of a century ago, on transforming the judiciary into a group of lifetime appointees dedicated to reading the current values of the Republican Party into the law of the land. It is activism of the highest kind, hoping to eliminate a woman's right to have an abortion, to securing an individual's right to possess firearms, to making public life better reflect the private religious beliefs of those who claim a close familiarity with God's will.
Toobin decodes judicial decisions on such issues as corporate contributions to political advocacy campaigns, health-care reform and immigration reform, into expressions of political or policy preferences by the justices.
A core of four steadfastly conservative justices, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and John Roberts, can be counted on to tilt in the direction of Republican windmills; Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg will tilt in the direction of the Democrats.
That leaves Anthony Kennedy, a swing vote, and, in Toobin's view, a man with a vast and somewhat egomaniacal view of his role as a justice, with the enormous power to decide cases by siding with either the conservative or liberal bloc of justices.
A document so clear in its meaning that only those willfully blind can misread it ought not routinely yield 5-4 decisions when put to the test of interpretation.
Toobin ends his book with the following observation, which summarizes things perfectly:
"There was some irony in the conservative embrace of originalism, in insistence by Scalia and others that the Constitution is `dead' and unchanging. With their success, driven by people, ideas, and money, conservatives proved just how much the Constitution can change, and it did. Obama and his party were the ones who acted like the Constitution remained inert; they hoped the Constitution and the values underlying it would somehow take care of themselves. That has never happened, and it never will. Invariably, inevitably, the Constitution lives."
Long live, I might add, the living Constitution.
Toobin writes about the high court as well as anyone living. His first book on the court, "The Nine," relied extensively on interviews with court clerks, and, perhaps, the justices themselves.
He returns to those sources in "The Oath" to provide a behind the scenes look at the court's most controversial decisions during the past four years.
If you're like most folks, you think an appeal to the Constitution, like reliance on the Bible, should end any debate.
"The Constitution says ...," we like to say, just as we report on Jesus's utterances as though he were walking among us. But reliance on both the Bible and the Constitution is really the beginning of any debate; just what we are to make of these documents, how we are to read them, is the stuff of both theology and the law.
The high priests of constitutional interpretation are the nine justices of the Supreme Court, each appointed for life, and most serving well into their 80s. They are the final arbiters of what the Constitution means. A political party controlling the appointment of judges can exert great influence on how the document is read and interpreted.
Today's debate on judges pits "judicial activists," judges who "legislate from the bench," unelected elites imposing their values on the rest of us, against originalists, those adhering to the intent of the founders. Or so the argument goes. What if the real activists were those pretending both that the founders' intentions could be readily discerned and that the founders really wanted us to be faithful to their intentions? What if originalism is really just an ideological hoax?
This debate about competing schools of constitutional interpretation pits, in the language of the law's scholars, proponents of "originalism" against the "living constitution."
The bizarre notion that we are to interpret the Constitution as strict textualists bound to the intentions of the framers is largely the brainchild of Justice Antonin Scalia. It serves as the political platform of the Federalist Society, a group which set its sights, a quarter of a century ago, on transforming the judiciary into a group of lifetime appointees dedicated to reading the current values of the Republican Party into the law of the land. It is activism of the highest kind, hoping to eliminate a woman's right to have an abortion, to securing an individual's right to possess firearms, to making public life better reflect the private religious beliefs of those who claim a close familiarity with God's will.
Toobin decodes judicial decisions on such issues as corporate contributions to political advocacy campaigns, health-care reform and immigration reform, into expressions of political or policy preferences by the justices.
A core of four steadfastly conservative justices, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and John Roberts, can be counted on to tilt in the direction of Republican windmills; Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg will tilt in the direction of the Democrats.
That leaves Anthony Kennedy, a swing vote, and, in Toobin's view, a man with a vast and somewhat egomaniacal view of his role as a justice, with the enormous power to decide cases by siding with either the conservative or liberal bloc of justices.
A document so clear in its meaning that only those willfully blind can misread it ought not routinely yield 5-4 decisions when put to the test of interpretation.
Toobin ends his book with the following observation, which summarizes things perfectly:
"There was some irony in the conservative embrace of originalism, in insistence by Scalia and others that the Constitution is `dead' and unchanging. With their success, driven by people, ideas, and money, conservatives proved just how much the Constitution can change, and it did. Obama and his party were the ones who acted like the Constitution remained inert; they hoped the Constitution and the values underlying it would somehow take care of themselves. That has never happened, and it never will. Invariably, inevitably, the Constitution lives."
Long live, I might add, the living Constitution.
VINE VOICEon July 20, 2013
Journalism, it's been said, is "the first draft of history," but in The Oath CNN and New Yorker correspondent Toobin has created the second draft. While not enough time has passed since President Obama and Chief Justice Roberts botched the administration of the oath of office on Inauguration Day 2009 for a thorough historical study of their relationship, there certainly has been enough time to examine the changing Supreme Court since the time Roberts became Chief Justice of the United States. And it does seem clear from this book that it has created new ways of examining the issue of whether a plaintiff has standing to sue, what the always perplexing Second Amendment allows, and how much of an artificial person a corporation actually is.
Toobin here delves into recent history, providing mini biographies of all the sitting justices, in addition to those of the recent past (O'Connor, Stevens, e.g.), and he gives his analysis and interpretation of recent cases (Heller, Citizens United, Health Care). The author isn't shy about injecting his opinions here, and if one insists upon objective history, this is not the best place to look.
Nevertheless, the author's description of how Obamacare was upheld is incredibly well-done. And I have no dispute with his contention that the Chief Justice in that case did all he could to save not only Obamacare (which he seems to personally disdain) but also the prestige of the court.
The book ends with an epilogue, now irrelevant, which is essentially an apology for not including material on the gay marriage cases, not decided at the time that the book was written, and since they now have been decided, that epilogue might best be removed from future editions.
Toobin here delves into recent history, providing mini biographies of all the sitting justices, in addition to those of the recent past (O'Connor, Stevens, e.g.), and he gives his analysis and interpretation of recent cases (Heller, Citizens United, Health Care). The author isn't shy about injecting his opinions here, and if one insists upon objective history, this is not the best place to look.
Nevertheless, the author's description of how Obamacare was upheld is incredibly well-done. And I have no dispute with his contention that the Chief Justice in that case did all he could to save not only Obamacare (which he seems to personally disdain) but also the prestige of the court.
The book ends with an epilogue, now irrelevant, which is essentially an apology for not including material on the gay marriage cases, not decided at the time that the book was written, and since they now have been decided, that epilogue might best be removed from future editions.
The U.S. Supreme Court: Will New Blood ... New Associate Justices ... Make a Significant Difference?
on August 23, 2014
Jeffrey Toobin's THE OATH: THE OBAMA WHITE HOUSE and the SUPREME COURT is a fabulous interesting look into the inner workings of the U.S. Supreme Court, under its current Chief Justice John Roberts, who wants to push for a less regulated economic environment in keeping with current Republican (and Tea Party) philosophy. Yet the conservative hold a slim majority of 5-4 on the U.S. Supreme Court. Four of the current Associate Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court (2 conservatives; 2 liberals) are in their late 70s or early 80s. In the remaining two and a half years of President Obama's second term, or in the term of Obama's successor following the 2016 election, there are likely to be vacancies in the Supreme Court through resignation or death. Depending upon whether a Democrat or a Republican wins in 2016, the majority of the Supreme Court may be affected for the next decade or two ... whether it is to remain conservative as it is now or become more liberal with the creation of a liberal-leaning new majority. For the Supreme Court, the election of 2016 may be a watershed election that affects the Roberts conservative Court.
THE OATH is a primer in understanding what's at stake!
THE OATH is a primer in understanding what's at stake!
