|  |
| Customer Reviews: | | Average Customer Review: ( 266 customer reviews )
Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
384 of 404 found the following review helpful:
 An intimate look at the diverse group of justices who have served our nation on the Supreme Court over the past two decades. Sep 18, 2007
By Paul Tognetti
"The real world is so much more interesting!"
Over the years any number of best selling books have been written about the U.S. Supreme Court. If you are an avid reader like myself then you have probably read a few of them. Of all of the books I have read on this subject I found Jeffrey Toobin's new offering "The Nine: Inside The Secret World of the Supreme Court" to be among the very best. As senior legal analyst for CNN and a staff writer for "The New Yorker" Jeffrey Toobin is uniquely qualified to tackle a topic that most Americans know precious little about and frankly find a bit mysterious. Like peeling the skin from an onion Toobin succeeds in revealing just who these justices are and how they have evolved over time. It is a fascinating study.
One notion that "The Nine" certainly reinforces is the conventional wisdom that says there really is no way of predicting how a judge is going to vote on controversial issues after receiving a lifetime appointment to the United States Supreme Court. While it seems that majority of justices remain true to their philosophies after being appointed to the Court, a fairly significant percentage of appointees veer off in totally unexpected directions. Throughout "The Nine" Jeffrey Toobin introduces us to the men and women who have served on the Court over the past two decades. Depending on your point of view you will find some of the justices extremely likeable and others enigmatic. You will also learn who the reliable liberal and conservative votes are and who tends to occupy the center. And Jeffrey Toobin spotlights a number of controversial 5-4 cases where those 1 or 2 "swing" votes would make all the difference.
It is quite apparent that Jeffrey Toobin is a huge fan of the recently retired justice Sandra Day O'Connor. In fact, on a couple of occasions he refers to her as "the most important woman in American history". Appointed by Ronald Reagan in September 1981 Sandra Day O'Connor would spend a quarter century on the bench and prove to be the swing vote in a myriad of important cases. Toobin also views Justice Stephen Breyer in a similarly favorable light. Over the past few years conservative politicians and voters alike have been extremely critical of what they perceive as a very disturbing new development at the Supreme Court. There is little doubt that a number of the justices have been increasingly influenced by both international law and by the decisions of courts in other nations in making their decisions and in writing their opinions. Indeed, the members of the Supreme Court find themselves sharply divided on this issue and Jeffrey Toobin explains which members buy into this approach and why. This is a trend that certainly bears watching.
"The Nine: Inside The Secret World of the Supreme Court" certainly qualifies as one of the best books I have read this year. Although Toobin displays his liberal leanings in some of his observations from time to time this is nonetheless an extremely well written, generally balanced and very informative book. Highly recommended!
96 of 107 found the following review helpful:
Some Remarkable Insights into the Recent Supreme Court Sep 28, 2007
By Ronald H. Clark
The last several years have delivered a rich harvest of outstanding studies of the Supreme Court. In addition to some highly technical works by political scientists, journalists have contributed studies of remarkable value and insight. I am thinking here of Greenburg's incisive "Supreme Conflict"; Greenhouse's biography of Justice Blackmun; and Biskupic's perceptive study of Justice O'Connor to name a few (not to mention Jeffrey Rosen -- who is a George Washington law professor but who also writes for the popular press and presents PBS programs as well). The good fortune of we "Court watchers" continues in this exceptionally discerning study by Jeffrey Toobin who writes for the "New Yorker" among other publications.
Toobin covers roughtly the period of 1992 through the 2006-07 term of the Court. His focus is similar to that of Jan Crawford Greenburg in "Supreme Conflict": the frustration of conservatives at their inability to secure a Court that would implement their agenda on abortion, public support of religion, and diminution of federalism despite a conservative majority on the Court. But as both books so well explain, all that changed with the coming of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito--as some recent decisions which Toobin discusses in his final chapters indicate. What is interesting is that the same members made up the Court between 1994 and 2005; yet the dynamics of decisionmaking changed dramatically.
To trace this evolution, Toobin discusses the Federalist Society; the Thomas nomination; the pragmatism of Justice O'Connor; Jay Sekulow and his "American Center for Law and Justice";and the perplexing Clinton White House nominations of Justices Ginsburg and Breyer. Toobin uses an effective technique of discussing each Justice in detail not all at the beginning of the book, but at the point in the narrative when that Justice is the central actor. Is is obvious that the author has had the assistance of several of the Justices (in this regard, the book reminds one a bit of "The Brethren") including I would surmise: O'Connor (extensively), Breyer, Souter, and possibly Stevens and even Kennedy. He also interviewed more than 75 law clerks. Hence, the reader is privy to some rather remarkable views of the Justices as seen by their fellows--a major strength of the book. Strangely enough, Chief Justice Rehnquist, whom one would assume would be a central character in this drama, earns relatively little attention. In fact, one of Toobin's most interesting assertions (along with the contention that Souter was close to resigning after Bush v. Gore) is that in the later years of his tenure, Rehnquist really lost his fire to remake law and became content to masterfully administer the Supreme and lower courts.
One section of the book is devoted to Bush v. Gore, a topic to which Toobin has devoted an entire book, and it is a superb analysis of that unfortunate episode. In the third section of the book, much attention is paid to Justice Kennedy, a puzzling character at times, but one who has assumed O'Connor's spot as the swing vote. Also of interest is O'Connor's growing frustration with Bush and the GOP, despite her central role in Bush v. Gore. The final section focuses upon the Bush White House and its maneuvers in filling the Rehnquist and O'Connor vacancies, another outstanding job by Toobin. The most interesting concept raised in this discussion is the Roberts' Court view of stare decisis--namely, does it still exist? Geoffrey Stone (former dean of the University of Chicago law school and provost at Chicago) has spoken eloquently and perceptively about this same phenomenon.
The book runs around 350 pages; it has a number of color photographs, 8 pages of notes, and a brief three-page bibliography. By any measure, Toobin has done as insightful and thorough a job in this study as one could imagine. The writing is crisp, does not bog down in legalistic details, and directs its focus where it should--the Justices as a small group together for the long haul and entrusted with making the most fundamental decisions of American democracy.
110 of 139 found the following review helpful:
 Good, but lacking . . . Oct 07, 2007
By Susanna Hutcheson
"Copywriting for the Discriminating - - (...)"
Toobin carefully covers the main legal issues the Court has heard over the last 15 years. They include abortion, separation of church and state, affirmative action and the death penalty and more. He covers two especially deeply. They are the Clinton impeachment case and Bush v. Gore, when the Court, by a 5-4 vote, effectively decided the 2000 election.
He also goes into the Terry Schiavo case.
You'll read the portraits of the justices which gives it a distinctive flavor.
Unfortunately, most everything in the book has been covered extensively elsewhere. In addition, he doesn't tell us how the court actually works.
This is a good book if you've not read much about the court. But if you have a good knowledge of the cases of the last 15 years, save your money. And certainly if you want to know how the court works, you'll want to find another source.
38 of 46 found the following review helpful:
A grain of salt.. Sep 21, 2007
By Current Affairs
As we move toward the 2008 elections, this book sheds light on a vital arm of our government, and important issues framing the debates. Yes, Toobin may be showing his liberal leanings, but is this so unsettling in our free-speaking democratic society? What Toobin does well -- and is so qualified to do so -- is to share his wealth of knowledge and perspective on that all-important yet all-too-secretive government branch. He succeeds in enlightening us -- and probably, regarding some aspects, the justices themselves -- on several influential developments. One, as pointed out by a previous reviewer, being the courts growing dependence on decisions made abroad. The book is readable and informative...take the liberal leanings with a grain of salt..
44 of 54 found the following review helpful:
Sneering conservatives, rational liberals Dec 29, 2007
By John
The book is decent, but I just thought that the author spent too much time describing "sneering" conservatives, and not really explaining what they stand for. The moderates on the court are always rational, and the conservatives are primitive and spend a lot of time sneering, etc. This is a bit unfair (I am willing to bet that Scalia is more intelligent and more interesting and amusing than the author states).
I also think Toobin short-shrifts some of the liberal negatives. Clinton-appointee Ginsburg once said that she wanted to integrate prisons, so that men and women prisoners would be housed together, because this would force men to understand women better, etc. This type of utopianism is not mentioned in the book (it is the mirror of the conservative attempt to remake America along the lines of the Christian Right).
I also think that in his discussion of international law, he fails to really present the conservative opposition to using foreign law in the U.S. Our legal system is based on Britain's. I highly doubt for instance, that we would want to import legal notions from Latin America and Europe, where for instance, the Code Napoleon holds sway. In Mexico or Brazil or France or Italy, the state is considered right, and the defendant in a criminal case has the burden of proof to show that he is innocent (!). This would stand our British system on its head (do the liberal justices really want to use such precedents ?). In France, the "terror csar" can hold anyone for 55 hours without charges, just by signing a piece of paper. Even the British have gone a LONG way toward an all-powerful state, and the British have even talked about doing away with trial by jury in criminal cases. I hardly think we want that. And yet, this huge issue is not mentioned in the book. Instead, the author presents the idea of importing foreign precedent into the U.S. as a purely good idea.
The book thus glosses over much of the "conservative" side of most of the issues. Moderates and liberals in the book reason. Conservatives "sneer".
The book is worth reading, but I have some pretty major issues with it.
See all 266 customer reviews on Amazon.com
|
| | |
