|
|
Gag Gifts, Occasion Gifts - The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court
|
List Price: $17.95
Our Price: $12.21
Your Save: $ 5.74 ( 32% )
Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours
Manufacturer: Simon & Schuster
|
Average Customer Rating:  
|
|
Binding: Paperback
Dewey Decimal Number: 347.7326
EAN: 9780743274029
ISBN: 0743274024
Label: Simon & Schuster
Manufacturer: Simon & Schuster
Number Of Items: 1
Number Of Pages: 592
Publication Date: 2005-07-01
Publisher: Simon & Schuster
Studio: Simon & Schuster
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Editorial Reviews:
|
The Brethren is the first detailed behind-the-scenes account of the Supreme Court in action. Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong have pierced its secrecy to give us an unprecedented view of the Chief and Associate Justices -- maneuvering, arguing, politicking, compromising and making decisions that affect every major area of American life.
|
|
|
Spotlight customer reviews:
|
Customer Rating:
Summary: Crazy Old Men? A clerk's eye view.
Comment:
I have become interested lately in the various opinions handed down by the Supreme Court in the Guantanamo habeas corpus cases. I was particularly surprised by the vehemence of the dissenting opinions expressed. This lead me to this book, to find out more. Published in 1979, it documents the internal workings, decision making and rivalries in the Supreme Court between the years 1968 and 1975. The activist Chief Justice Warren resigned at the start of this time, and the remainder of his colleagues moved towards retirement, replaced by Nixon appointees. The Court's more controversial cases in this time dealt with segregation, abortion and Watergate.
They say that no man is a hero to his butler, and I think this book provides a law clerk's eye view of the workings of the court and the interactions of the justices. Each year, each justice hires three (more recently four) law clerks to help with research and documentation. The clerks leave after one year, and the book is laced with opinions about lazy justices being over-reliant on their clerks to write their opinions, how hard working clerks can influence which cases are taken and what opinion `their' justice forms. I think this needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. It is certainly true that the justices are appointed to life-long posts (they can be impeached by Congress, but otherwise make up their own minds when to retire), and that the temptation exists both to remain at work though they get older and physically weaker, and to get less interested in the writing of complex opinions. However I think it is clear that all the justices mentioned here, closely valued their own opinion and were jealous in casting their vote in the judicial conferences. It is also clear that, over the years, their basic philosophies could lead close observers to predict what their views on a particular case were likely to be.
I have read that one of the authors' main sources for this book was the Justice Potter Stewart, who was in the running to become Chief Justice after Warren retired, but declined to put his name forward. There is an element of sour grapes towards Justice Burger, who did become Chief Justice. Burger is depicted as dim-witted, vacillating, manipulative and devious. I am sure that being in (essentially) a job for life, with eight other colleagues can lead to enormous frictions, especially when you are both free and required to express your opinions, which can have enormous consequences on society.
The book is very informative about the workings of the Supreme Court, the characters of the Justices and the role of famous precedent setting cases. It is both enlivened and cheapened by the gossipy nature of some of the anecdotes, for example, when Justice Hugo Black died, he asked that all his personal papers be destroyed, to preserve the confidentiality of the decision making process. His paster, who wished to say something at his funeral, was left without much to go on, so he went to Black's book collection, and looked through books written by Black;s former law clerks; the pastor chose some of the underlined passages, especially from one particular book which was heavily marked, to illustrate what he believed were Black;s interests and views. The book quotes the other justices saying, after the funeral, that Black must have been turning in his grave, as he only underlined areas with which he disagreed!.
There was an ongoing issue about how to define pornography, whether it was a version of free speech or an offense to the general public. The justices could not come up with a definition of pornography that might not infringe (they felt) on free speech, so the best they could come up with was expressed by Potter as `I can't define it, but I know it when I see it'. Unfortunately this translated into the Supreme Court having to view, and decide by majority, on every piece of contested pornography in these years!. This is also dealt in a gossipy, jocular way, which again undermines some of the seriousness of the decisions - in fact the `liberals' (Brennan and Douglas) felt nothing should be banned, provided it was proven that if was capable of being only viewed by adults who specifically were aware of its contents, therefore they did not view any of the material.
The relative standing of each justice is also described, especially Harry Blackmun's inferiority complex, his indecision and his desire not to be seen a overly-influence by Justice Burger (despite being a life-long acquaintance). Their interaction, and the pride they took in contributing to developing law - as opposed to writing futile and bitter dissents, is contrasted with their profound (and perhaps egotistical) political philosophies. Their personalities are largely described in relation to their clerks also - an `amiable' justice takes the time to learn his clerks first names, something you might think is common courtesy ; however usually their personality contrasts with their legacy - William O. Douglas, a liberal icon, is seen as acerbic, imperious and eccentric.
The book is particularly good on the abortion judgement and the Watergate decisions, which, I believe, show the Court at is worst and best respectively. The court ruled in favour of abortion, as an extension of a woman's right to privacy, and the opinion was written by Blackmun. The opinion as written is shown to be of equal parts concern not to interfere with medical practice, and as a way for Blackman to redeem his reputation for indecision. It was definitely an unexpected decision of a Nixon appointee, though the progress of the case and the writing of the decision are well described.
The Watergate controversy came to the Court as a challenge by President Nixon to orders for him to release taped Oval Office conversations to an committee investigating the Watergate break-in. As you would expect Bob Woodward has an excellent command of this case, and the process is described in detail. Though there was enormous concern (apparently) among the justices that their opinion be unanimous, and there was manoeuvring to ensure that Justice Burger, when writing the opinion, did not prevaricate or water it down, it seems to me that the strength of the court was that there was no question, from the outset, but that the President would loose. Whether the opinion would be narrowly based, and deferential, or a towering denunciation, was of some concern, but their unanimous view was that the President, who had appointed three of their number, was in the wrong, and must release information which would lead to his impeachment or resignation. Watergate and Nixon's resignation gave the Soviets a short-lived fillip in the Cold War, and at the time was seen as the Stumbling of the American Superpower, but ultimately can be viewed (I think) as the ability of the United States system of governance to impose standards and to correct itself.
In general I think this book is useful, if too biased and gossipy. I think the absence of any footnotes, references or bibliography does it a disservice. As with all Woodwards material, I presume these absences are part of the price paid to get the information in the first place, and his reputation is such that the credibility of the book remains high. However, while it is likely that the events described are factually reported, and the characters and interactions are as fractious and frail as described, I think Hugo Black's view is more germane i.e. that publication of private papers/stories of Justices would inhibit the free exchange of views in the court. Read the formally published opinions and dissents, they are dramatic and revealing enough.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Constitutional law (little) -- Moral judgements (plenty) -- Office politics (lots)
Comment: So, you say you want to understand what CONSTITUTIONAL basis the Supreme Court's decisions stand upon? --- You won't find much of that here.
Maybe you want to know the MORAL basis of all those famous Supreme Court decisions? --- This book's got it covered.
Or maybe you just want to read about the juicy OFFICE POLITICS between the Supreme's. --- Bingo.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Great research, good effort, reads like the Washington Post
Comment: Depth: B
Style: C
Content: B
Research: A
Historical Impact: D
Woodward and Armstrong write a tale of 7 years and 14 Supreme Court judges. To actually write the book, and to access dozens of law clerks and judges, and to amass huge documentation is in itself the feat of the book. The Supreme Court has been the most sheltered of all public institutions with only trifles of coverage before. The book does portray the quirks of the judges, the key decisions of each year, the infighting and the peculiarities of an institution founded on politics yet delivering fundamental cultural dictates.
W and A fall down on two points - first, this is not a history book, but a retro-newspaper account. The two can't help but fall into the mode of journalists (which they tacitly state in the intro). This is not a book by Foote, Sandburg, Tuchman, or any other great historian.
Secondly, in style they go year by year, day by day practically, without developing any great over-arching themes, lessons, keys, or even predictions.
Toobin's recent book "The Nine" is actually sounder and more stylistic due to Toobin's political analysis and book writer's flair.
It is clear that the authors despise Warren Burger, and their portrayal of him is of a petty, manipulative man with little integrity. Other accounts will have to be checked to see if the man is actually so unredeemed.
all rights reserved - Scott Jones
Customer Rating:
Summary: Good Behind The Scene Coverage
Comment: I found The Brethren to be quite informative as well as entertaining as I was provided a glimpse of the personalities and quirks of Justices and the Politicians that interacted with them. Seeing behind the somber facades allowed the reader to consider each Justice as an individual with his own biases and beliefs that came into play when many of this country's landmark decisions were made.
Customer Rating:
Summary: A good read
Comment: We were forced to read this book my senior year in high school. I most certainly did NOT want to read a book about the stuffy ol' supreme court! But I did... because I had to... and it turns out that it's one of my favorite books of all time. Now, 15 years later, I'm an attorney and have read the book countless times over the years. It's so interesting to read about the inner workings of the country's highest court, complete with the politics, personalities, and just outright craziness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
