1. The format is similar to "The End of Hunger" in that there are multiple writers rather than one. But what I like about this book is that unlike "The End of Hunger" it's very organized. Each writer gets a separate case they comment on and each case leads to the next case until we get to a present Pipeline Case that the ACLU is currently working on.
2. I like how there is such a variety in regards to the approach/style each writer chooses to take when analyzing their selected case. Some were personally involved/impacted with the case in some way so they tell their story, others get into the legal jargon (was great reading the "lawyer writers" who did this), others describe how one case impacts society as a whole, etc.
2A. These different styles stem from the fact that figures of a variety of fields were selected in a way. Sure all of them were writers but writers from different genres and some were/are lawyers, musicians, and filmmakers as well.
3. I like how A big-time lawyer and author in this book were allowed to argue against the ACLU for a particular case. I feel like his section showcased that the ACLU, like any other organization if you "look beyond the veal" is composed of fallible human beings that are capable of making wrong decisions.
1. I felt like some of the writers "flexed too much" or they tried to place as many big words as they could into one sentence just for the heck of it and you could tell.
1A. Some writers well..... "flexed too little" lol like they would just literally describe the case and what led up to the case and that's it like you could basically google the insight they provided, or maybe they googled, yourself.
2. The book needed more writers that are also lawyers and/or legal scholars. Don't get me wrong I enjoyed the historical insight and storytelling but certain cases needed individuals to dig up extra details and legal professionals are the best for that kind of thing.
3. Certain sections were way too long and I found myself reading half of those and skipping half of them. Additionally, in certain sections writers were either too biased (liberal) and/or failed to showcase why a particular narrowly applicable case should matter to me and what I should get from it personally so I skipped some of those sections in their entirety after a few pages in.