Product Description
When the Supreme Court in 2003 struck down a Texas law prohibiting homosexual sodomy, it cited the right to privacy based on the guarantee of "substantive due process" embodied by the Constitution. But did the court act undemocratically by overriding the rights of the majority of voters in Texas? Scholars often point to such cases as exposing a fundamental tension between the democratic principle of majority rule and the liberal concern to protect individual rights. Democratic Rights challenges this view by showing that, in fact, democracy demands many of these rights. Corey Brettschneider argues that ideal democracy is comprised of three core values--political autonomy, equality of interests, and reciprocity--with both procedural and substantive implications. These values entitle citizens not only to procedural rights of participation (e.g., electing representatives) but also to substantive rights that a "pure procedural" democracy might not protect. What are often seen as distinctly liberal substantive rights to privacy, property, and welfare can, then, be understood within what Brettschneider terms a "value theory of democracy." Drawing on the work of John Rawls and deliberative democrats such as Jürgen Habermas, he demonstrates that such rights are essential components of--rather than constraints on--an ideal democracy. Thus, while defenders of the democratic ideal rightly seek the power of all to participate, they should also demand the rights that are the substance of self-government. ... Read more

Product Description

Customer Reviews (35)

Interesting but incomplete
Greenhouse's relatively short book hits a lot of high points and provides much interesting insight into the mind of Justice Blackmun.I would recommend reading a more comprehensive history or biography of the Burger Court (The Brethren is an excellent choice) before picking this up, though, as Greenhouse provides only minimal historical context outside of the Blackmun papers themselves.

A Surprisingly Familiar Path
Justice Blackmun is one of multiple justices in the second half of the 20th Century who was nominated by a Republican and developed into a liberal leader on the bench.His company includes Earl Warren, Bill Brennan, David Souter, and John Paul Stevens.Given that Justice Stevens just announced his retirement as I read this book, it was interesting to trace Blackmun's own journey.Like many modern justices, he was a Harvard Law Grad who worked in private practice and was an appeals court judge.He was then brought on to the court by his close friend and confidante Warren Burger.Burger convinced President Nixon to appoint Burger after his first two choices to replace Abe Fortas flopped in the Senate.

Together, Burger and Blackmun were known as the "Minnesota Twins."But their close relationship did not survive working side by side on the court.Their views differed more and more and Blackmun did not think much of Burger's management of the court.

Blackmun's most famous decision was Roe v. Wade, but he was involved in many other important decisions including other abortion cases, gender equity decisions, and those surrounding Nixon's resignation.But none had the impact of Roe v. Wade, which made Blackmun both a national hero and villain.

Greenhouse's telling of Blackmun's story is done entirely through his own writings.She used not only his decisions, but the running chronology he kept of major events, his early life diary, his draft thoughts on cases, and the notes the justices pass one another on the bench.It is an interesting way to follow Blackmun and the court during his twenty-four years on the court.

Riveting!
Harry Blackmun's papers, including his memos, correspondence, and personal notes, were released to the public five years after his death. These papers are the principal source drawn upon by Linda Greenhouse for this book, which is less a biography than it is an account of his tenure as a Justice of the Supreme Court.

The early chapters move quickly through Blackmun's formative years - childhood, college, resident counsel at the Mayo Clinic, and service as federal judge. This section of the book is fascinating and provides valuable context for his career as a Justice, placing special attention on the foundation of his life-long friendship with Warren Burger (which as you may know was eventually strained and broken during their years together on the Court).

The meat of the book deals with his service as Justice of the Supreme Court, and this is where it gets really interesting. Blackmun's papers are apparently quite extensive and they enabled Greenhouse to give play-by-play accounts of the decisions in which he took part. From notes taken during oral arguments, through conference, and then into the process of drafting opinions, the back and forth between the justices, and sometimes within Blackmun's own mind, is riveting. Where else does humanity's attempt to apply rigorous logic to society's messiest problems find such complete expression as in the workings of the Supreme Court?

Although Blackmun is obviously the focus here, the reader is given windows into the thought processes of other justices as well, through memos, correspondence, etc. Each one, possessed of powerful intellect, nonetheless finds himself/herself at the outer edge of the law's definition, where their decisions inevitably reflect their individual experiences as humans.

Fascinating stuff. Very well written. Although I haven't read much about the Supreme Court I think the level of procedural detail afforded to the author through Blackmun's papers probably makes for a unique read.

Tangential side note: while I gained tremendous respect for all of the Justices portrayed, and their clerks, I also found new levels of appreciation for the well-conceived division of powers within our government. Checks and balances!

Well written
A well-written, highly selective history of how this conservative Republican third-choice Nixon Supreme Court appointee who was seen as the "Minnesota Twin" of his old friend Warren Burger became the author and passionate defender of Roe v. Wade.This won't tell you everything about Blackmun's life, as it rushes through his first 60 years to get to the Supreme Court.But it's an intelligent summary of how Blackmun developed into the Justice that he became.

One thing to remember about this book
I also had high hopes for this book, as anyone who knows Linda Greenhouse's work can attest, she is a reliable interpreter of the High Court and supreme in analytic ability. As a biographer I must always defer to the hard evidence, in this case Justice Blackmun's papers, which Ms. Greenhouse drew her information from. But I read in the reviews of her work an expectation that plagues the best writers-their publics want everything in every work they read. There are in this case editors to satisfy and publishers to placate. Linda Greenhouse, like all the rest of us, must dance to the publisher's tune and it is clear that some necessary cuts (i.e., marketing considerations) were made that left her vulernable to the criticism we see here. At any rate, Good Job Linda, I applaud you. ... Read more

Product Description

Customer Reviews (5)

Fascinating and Non-Partisan View of Things
I bought this book expecting to find a conservative diatribe against big government.What I found, instead, was a fascinating and wide ranging exploration of some of the most controversial constitutional issues of the day.

In her Preface, Foley explains that she used to work for democrats on the Hill and considered herself a liberal.Then she went to law school and realized how little she knew about the Constitution and how it had been manipulated for political ends and transformed into a completely different kind of government. After spending many years researching the framers writings and political philosophers of the constitutional era, she came to realize that individual liberty was meant to be the dominant idea of the United States.After reading her careful analysis, I have to say that I now agree with her.

One of the most interesting ideas is her notion of "residual individual sovereignty," which is expressed by the Ninth Amendment.She basically asks us to consider what it meant when the founders told us that the "people" were "sovereign".She asks us to consider whether popular sovereignty is merely a collective idea, or if it has an individual dimension as well?She thinks it has an individual dimension and, if one understands the proper limits of governmental power, being a person who has sovereignty is a powerful idea.You're a king, I'm a king.Seriously.It's very empowering.And sovereignty was understood, at the time of the founding, to mean something pretty specific.Sovereigns could do whatever they wanted, so long as it did not harm other sovereigns.So if you and I have "residual individual sovereignty" (what's left over after we gave specific limited powers to government), then we are all free to do as we wish, so long as it doesn't hurt others.The harm principle (for those who are familiar with it) underlies our individual sovereignty and provides the basis for interpreting the Ninth Amendment (which has been considered an "inkblot" under orthodox legal ideas).

Foley is not afraid to attack orthodoxy.So yes, her tone is confident, but no overly so.She has research to back up everything she says (unlike so many other writers in the field).The endnotes for this book are almost 100 pages long, in small type.If you read these endnotes (I have), you cannot doubt that her assertions are worthy of serious consideration, even though they fly in the face of some of the most entrenched legal assumptions.You may not agree with her, but her ideas are plausible, consistent, and original.If the Constitution were interpreted to follow her originalist vision, the U.S. would be a very different, and very much more tolerant and free, place.

I have bought a couple of extra copies of this book since I first read it, to give to some friends who are stuck in pledging allegiance to ideologies that are divisive and unproductive.If you'd like to read a book on constitutional law that is not the tool of someone with a particular ideological agenda, you couldn't find a more interesting, well researched, and fascinating read.It will take you on an intellectual journey that you will not forget.And when you're done, you should pass the book along to a friend.

She kind of reminds me of Glenn Beck, though I know a lot of readers will moan when I say this because they think Beck (even though they probably never listened to him) is some sort of radical conservative.But for those of you who do know Beck, you know that one of his most refreshing traits is that he hates all the bastards (politicians) equally, because they have all betrayed the principles of our government when it's been convenient for them to do so.Foley is of the same ilk.We should all boycott those ideological books in favor of more books like these.

A Disappointment: Lapses Into Assumptions
Kind of interesting, but the author lapses into standard assumptions and bigotry, even immediately after talking about the "tyranny of the majority." Her hatred of fat people, for example, leaves one wondering if the rest of her arguments are so unexamined. She skirts over the obvious instances (religion, primarily) where the majority can be dangerous, but--even though this is directly related to her main thesis--ignores the impact of assumption and bigotry. Thinking that all fat people are lazy (she uses this lie at least twice), without any actual scientific basis for this assumption, does far more damage to everyone's freedom than the obvious act of trying to convert someone to your religion. It's the sneaky hatreds that are the worse, but she can't even identify them in herself. Similarly, she also never discusses the impact of governmental inertia and incompetence as a force of tyranny. Yes, she's too sure of herself, and stuck in theory, not reality.

Too Sure Of Itself For Its Flaws, Interesting Though
Books of this sort are interesting but too doctrinaire and selective to be convincing ... surely to the level of assurance suggested. This is furthered by the author -- again not unique to her -- questionable use of history, often ignoring troubling matters that would make her conclusions harder to reach. Thus, even if you respect her argument of libertarian views based on individual sovereignty (I do), how she gets there and how she applies it leaves something to be desired.

A few examples. As is typical of the genre, at least of those favored by the blurbs on the back of the book, the author argues recent courts have 'invented' things to fit the Constitution into what they feel is necessary for society. Interesting. After all, the author opposes Justice John Marshall's (who was at the founding) rejection of applying the Bill of Rights to the states in 1833 (before the 14th Amendment). One can also cite the Slaughterhouse Cases. That was 1873. And, a myriad others before the New Deal. As some note, pre-New Deal cases quite often upheld regulations. The 'Lochner Court' stereotype, notwithstanding.

Or, in general, all the liberty violations upheld in the past by the courts (no sending contraceptives thru the mail, various sexual practices, prohibtion laws [the fact a few did not doesn't suggest 'original understanding' which she claims is a primary drive of her jurisprudence] etc. One might also note times have changed -- there weren't even any police forces back in 1789.Modern society requires more laws (though citations of spitting on the sidewalk as an issue, is that not a public nuisance, is curious); but in many ways we are more free than we were in the past.

This is so even if general principles, though not how they were often applied, might be interpreted differently. She cites Burke ... but he was a conservative who supported many repressive laws on tradition grounds. Selective use of his statements mislead. Likewise, her balancing of state interest at times is rather brief (esp. latter chapters ... the one on illegal drugs are almost conclusionary; the body of the book is under 200pg) and a bit dubious. For instance, as to motorcycle helmets and public health costs, she notes the state generally doesn't pay. What if it did?

The book does have benefits, if we admit to such problems, suggesting that off the top claims and a bit more modesty is often useful in such works. The fact a 'living constitution' approach can use a work of this nature is a bit ironic, but so it goes. I'd add a recent book by Daniel Farber on the Ninth Amendment was also pretty brief, providing some interesting arguments, but not enough depth at times. A good companion volume.

Compelling Libertarian Thesis
Bound to be a future classic-- a sort of modern, practical John Stuart Mill "On Liberty"-esque book. An intriguing historical account of the unique features of the American Constitutional structure that have been unfortunately abandoned, leading to a proliferation of significant and trivial laws that restrict individual liberty and expand government's power. Foley's thesis is that there are "twin foundational principles" of American law that make it unique from all prior forms of government:(1) limited government (in terms of the powers granted by the people to their governors); and (2) residual individual sovereignty.She convincingly shows how these principles indicate a harm principle at work in American law-- not just in theory, but in fact.

Most original is her treatment of number 2 (residual individual sovereignty), which she traces back to the original Law of Nations devised by writers influential with the founding fathers, such as Vattel, Grotius and von Puffendorf. To the founding fathers, sovereignty, as defined by this Law of Nations, was understood in a very specific way, to mean complete liberty or power to do as the sovereign pleased, subject only to the principle of "do no harm" (except in self-defense).In the newly formed United States, the founding fathers parsed out to the governors only a very limited portion of sovereignty (limited powers) and kept the residuum in the hands of the people.When paired with the conception that American government was intended to possess power only to protect the people's life, liberty, and property, Foley shows us how the residual sovereignty remaining in the people's hands is very broad and meaningful indeed.This notion was memorialized in the Ninth Amendment (which has been completely ignored by the judiciary, as if it did not exist).

Unlike writers like Joel Feinberg (who is also highly recommended), Foley
offers a comprehensive definition of legal harm that can be applied to judge the legitimacy of all laws.She then proceeds to do so, tackling with finesse and mind-boggling breadth of knowledge issues like sex, drugs and alcohol, reproduction, marriage abortion, assisted suicide and others.

The writing is clear, crisp and entertaining.Her historical research is very original and tight.This book is a great read for anyone who is interested in a deep theory of the American Constitution. Unlike the previous reviewer (who apparently cannot spell), I would wholeheartedly recommend to anyone, conservative, liberal, libertarian or anywhere in between.Looking forward to reading her future work.

libetrian with liberal veiws
Where are theconstitutional values for liberty>? I do not recommend this book. ... Read more

Product Description
Why did formally independent Chilean judges, trained under and appointed by democratic governments, facilitate and condone the illiberal, antidemocratic, and anti-legal policies of the Pinochet regime? Challenging the common assumption that adjudication in non-democratic settings is fundamentally different and less puzzling than it is in democratic regimes, this book offers a longitudinal analysis of judicial behavior, demonstrating striking continuity in judicial performance across regimes in Chile.

The work explores the relevance of judges' personal policy preferences, social class, and legal philosophy, but argues that institutional factors best explain the persistent failure of judges to takes stands in defense of rights and rule of law principles. Specifically, the institutional structure and ideology of the Chilean judiciary, grounded in the ideal of judicial apoliticism, furnished judges with professional understandings and incentives that left them unequipped and disinclined to take stands in defense of liberal democratic principles, before, during, and after the authoritarian interlude.

Product Description
Millions of Americans were baffled and outraged by the U.S. Supreme Court's role in deciding the presidential election of 2000 with its controversial ruling in Bush v. Gore. The Court had held a unique place in our system of checks and balances, seen as the embodiment of fairness and principle precisely because it was perceived to be above the political fray. How could it now issue a decision that reeked of partisan politics, and send to the White House a candidate who may have actually lost the election? In Supreme Injustice, best-selling author and legal expert Alan M. Dershowitz addresses these questions head-on, at last demystifying Bush v. Gore for those who are still angered by the court's decision but unclear about its meaning. Dershowitz--himself a former Supreme Court clerk--argues that in this case for the first time, the court's majority let its desire for a particular partisan outcome have priority over legal principles. As in his other bestselling books, Dershowitz clarifies complex legal issues, explaining concepts such as "equal protection" and "irreparable harm." Digging deeply into their earlier writings and rulings, Dershowitz proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the justices who gave George W. Bush the presidency contradicted their previous positions to do so.The most egregious ruling since the Dred Scott Decision, Bush v. Gore has shattered the image of the Supreme Court as a fair and impartial arbiter of important national issues. The resulting loss of the American people's respect, Dershowitz concludes, has severely compromised the Court's role in national affairs. And yet Dershowitz sees some benefit emerging from this constitutional crisis--if we understand its lessons and take action to prevent it from happening again. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (128)

Book review
My order was processed in an acceptable amount of time. Book was in condition as advertised.

He makes it interesting
Dershowitz makes this potentially dry subject very interesting, while remaining credible.Although I went into the book agreeing with the author, the book got me angry all over again.I'd guess that even those who wanted a Bush presidency would find much of the information in this book interesting.

Digital Version of Supreme Injustice, Alan Dershowitz
The biggest dissapointment I had with getting this book is that I purchased the Microsoft Reader Version.One is led to believe that one can highlight, cut and paste, etc., by using this new tool for reading.Actually, all you get is electronic pages that are inert.They cannot be printed, one cannot cut and paste from them, all one can do is stare at them on the screen.In order to transfer the print from screen to one's computer, one must first copy (by hand) the print, re-type it on screen into another program, then save.In other words, the e-version, for the researcher is not only ABSOLUTELY USELESS, it DOUBLES THE AMOUNT OF WORK ONE MUST DO TO EXCERPT MATERIAL FROM A BOOK.
I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT KIND OF PERSON MICROSOFT HAD IN MIND WHEN THEY CREATED THIS INFLEXIBLE PRODUCT.IT IS CERTAINLY A DISASTER FOR ME, AND I INTEND TO REQUEST A REFUND ON MY "DIGITAL PURCHASE" SINCE ALL I PURCHASED WAS AN INERT, DOUBLE-THE-WORK TO READ AND EXCERPT BOOK.WHAT A DISASTER!WHAT AN UNMITIGATED DISASTER.IT SORT OF MAKES ONE WONDER WHY THEY EVEN WENT TO THE TROUBLE TO CREATE THIS PRODUCT.

Explains the damage done to American justice in this case
For those who do not know the story, the American Presidential election in 2000 was very close.Democrat Al Gore received more popular votes than Republican George W Bush, but such elections are decided state by state, and the winner in Florida was to determine who would be President.In Florida, more voters intended to vote for Gore than for Bush, but due to several irregularities, the vote was very close.Close enough to require a mandatory recount.Close enough so that either candidate could ask for a hand count of disputed ballots.

As it turned out, a complete recount of all ballots would have confirmed that Gore had won.According to Florida law, such a recount should have been performed.When a recount got under way, it grew increasingly clear that Gore might well win.However, the Republican strategy (in a state where Bush's brother was the governor) was to refuse a recount or to delay any recount until the Presidential winner had to be announced.If the Democrats protested, they would take the case to court.To the Supreme Court.And if they lost that case, they would simply have the Florida legislature declare Bush the winner of the state.Either way, Bush would win an illegitimate victory.

Given that the initial count favored Bush, a Republican victory could not be prevented.And even in the unlikely event that a complete hand count (including "overvotes") favored Bush, neutral observers would still note that a plurality of the Florida voters had tried to vote for Gore, and that Florida law was to favor the clear intent of the voters.So the illegitimacy of the result was inevitable no matter how the hand count came out.The only question was where the blame would rest.Would it be on those in Florida who delayed the count?On the Florida legislature?On the Florida Courts?Or on the Supreme Court?

Dershowitz explains how the blame wound up being applied, quite accurately, to the Supreme Court, which took a case and judged it purely on a partisan basis.And he explains what the result of this mischief will be.First, unlike a miscarriage of justice in a criminal case, which might get blamed on the jurors, the Supreme Court judges are there for life.They'll be considered untrustworthy by a huge number of people for the rest of their lives, and that will make the Supreme Court less credible as long as any of them remain on it.Dershowitz also says that it will call into much greater question the entire process by which Supreme Court judges are selected.And of course, this entire affair has exposed the absurdities of our voting system to the world, which regards us with less esteem as a result.

Many Americans were annoyed with the Supreme Court simply because it picked someone other than the person they voted for. Others were angry because it picked the loser rather than the winner. However, Dershowitz is more concerned with the Supreme Court having showed partisanship at all, especially in a manner that threatens the carefully established checks and balances among branches of government so carefully laid out in our Constitution.

Finally, Dershowitz reminds us that the authority of the Supreme Court "rests on public acceptance of its status as a nonpartisan arbiter of law."Judicial integrity gets built up slowly and in this case was squandered quickly.This book does an excellent job of showing just how dismally the Supreme Court performed here.

U.S. Supreme Court Saved America from Civil War!
U.S. Supreme Court Saved America from Civil War!
The USA Supreme Court saved America.The USA Constitution saved America from chaos, instalbiliy.

The Constitution created three distinct branches of government with "check and balaces". The "legislative", "executive", "judicial" are vested in three seperate branches of government.... and yet Presidents appoint Judges, the Senate can veto Presidential treaties, Congress can override the Presidents veto on a bill....

That how it is supposed to work.Each of the three branches is distinct, seperate, and yet still exercise power over the other.

The USA Supreme Court stepped in to stop the endless recount and saved America from a Civil War.The Supreme Court did the job it was supposed to.The Supreme Court did the job given by the Constitution.

THOSE CAN DO WILL DO, THOSE CANNOT DO WILL TEACH.

Dershowitz is an academic, with tenure, of course, job for life, until he drops dead.Academic never have to work, compete, produce goods, services like in the real world.

If this know-it-all is so smart, why doesn't he run for Congress or President.

Those cannot do will get a job teaching. ... Read more

Product Description

The future of the U.S. Supreme Court hangs in the balance like never before. Will conservatives or liberals succeed in remaking the court in their own image? In A Constitution of Many Minds, acclaimed law scholar Cass Sunstein proposes a bold new way of interpreting the Constitution, one that respects the Constitution's text and history but also refuses to view the document as frozen in time.

Exploring hot-button issues ranging from presidential power to same-sex relations to gun rights, Sunstein shows how the meaning of the Constitution is reestablished in every generation as new social commitments and ideas compel us to reassess our fundamental beliefs. He focuses on three approaches to the Constitution--traditionalism, which grounds the document's meaning in long-standing social practices, not necessarily in the views of the founding generation; populism, which insists that judges should respect contemporary public opinion; and cosmopolitanism, which looks at how foreign courts address constitutional questions, and which suggests that the meaning of the Constitution turns on what other nations do.

Sunstein demonstrates that in all three contexts a "many minds" argument is at work--put simply, better decisions result when many points of view are considered. He makes sense of the intense debates surrounding these approaches, revealing their strengths and weaknesses, and sketches the contexts in which each provides a legitimate basis for interpreting the Constitution today.

This book illuminates the underpinnings of constitutionalism itself, and shows that ours is indeed a Constitution, not of any particular generation, but of many minds.

Customer Reviews (2)

False premise leads to false conclusion
This was not good.First, the subtitle "Why the Founding Document Doesn't Mean What It Meant Before" suggests that Sunstein puts forth an argument against Originalism.But rather than make that argument, he simply dismisses originalism saying that it "would make the constitutional system worse" and if "taken seriously, originalism would permit race and sex discrimination by the national government, sharply limit protection of speech and allow state governments to establish official churches."This is a gross misrepresentation of the Constitution since even someone with the most basic understanding of the document knows that it was never intended to be an an infinite list of what the federal government can NOT do, but rather enumerates those few and defined powers delegated to it by the sovereign states while everything else is reserved to the states or the people.Throughout the book, Sunstein builds upon this false premise with theoretical and thinly-veiled straw man scenarios that predictably collapse under his characterization of originalism. Having dismissed originalism, Sunstein goes on to describe different variations of a living constitution, not through constitutional amendments, but through an evolution of judicial activism and precedent (traditionalism), majority rules (populism), and foreign constitutional law (cosmopolitanism).

I was also disturbed by Sunstein's misrepresentation of Thomas Jefferson's views on the constitution in the book's Introduction, Jefferson's Revenge.As if Jefferson was all for a living constitution, Sunstein misleads the reader by inaccurately portraying Jefferson as an advocate of a liberal interpretation of the constitution who favored reaching beyond its original public meaning.This simply isn't true.If anything, Jefferson was an advocate for a constitutional convention for every generation, not to expand an existing document, but to purge it of previous generations' bloated government and encroachment on individual liberty.There are scores of quotes from the man himself supporting this, but maybe the most direct and clear is in his letter to John Cartwright in 1824. "We have not yet so far perfected our constitutions as to venture to make them unchangeable. But still, in their present state, we consider them not otherwise changeable than by the authority of the people on a special election of representatives for that purpose expressly. They are until then the lex legum."This is far from advocating liberal interpretation of the constitution.And to put to rest any idea that Jefferson was anything but an originalist, look no further than this excerpt from his 1823 letter to his supreme court nominee Justice William Johnson. "On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

The Wisdom of Crowds and Courts
Cass Sunstein publishes new material almost hourly, and I am not always impressed with his output.When he's good (Nudge), he's edgey, supremely confident, and worth a good deal of head-scratching.When he's bad, he can be a partisan suck-up (Radicals in Robes: Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts are Wrong for America).Most of the time, he serves up brilliant ideas, but half-baked. (Infotopia: How Many Minds Produce Knowledge).

But this is the book that Sunstein's been laying groundwork for with his last four or five.It's worth the wait.He applies the Condorcet Jury Theorem (recently popularized by Surowiecki's The Wisdom of Crowds) to constitutional jurisprudence, and he gets quite a bit of mileage out of it.This is the best "con law and economics" book since Hayek's Law, Legislation and Liberty, Volume 1: Rules and Order.And it's the single most original argument for creative progress in constitutional law in the last 50 years.

If there is a weakness, it's that he has gazed too long into the abyss of cognitive psychology, and come back with the power to mislead.Sunstein obsessively "frames" the debate with the heavy use of straw men.He invents, considers, and rejects three alternative modes of constitutional thinking he dubs "traditionalism," "populism," and "cosmopolitanism."This clever act of creative pigeonholing permits him to characterize the Scalia originalists as "populist radicals," even as he positions himself to the right of Anthony Kennedy (a latte-sipping, foreign-law-citing "cosmopolitan").

I find these faux-contrarian positions wildly, laughably implausible.I can't believe Cass has lost a moment's sleep worrying about America's constitutional sovereignty.But he seems to be suffering "loss aversion."He has chosen to ride the high horse of judicial minimalism until it dies, and then flog it some more.I think he needs new talking points, but the jury will decide... ... Read more

Product Description
During Franklin Roosevelt’s first term, a narrow conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court struck down several key elements of the New Deal legislation. In February 1937, Roosevelt retaliated with an audacious plan to expand the Court—to subdue the conservative justices by outnumbering them with liberals. The ensuing fight was a firestorm that engulfed the White House, the Court, Congress, and the country. Although the Court would remain at nine justices, the confrontation transformed the political and constitutional landscape, saving the New Deal and bringing the nation into the modern world. But it also dealt FDR the biggest setback of his political life and split the Democratic party, thus laying the foundation for a future era of Republican dominance.This brilliant work of political and judicial history unfolds like a thriller, with wonderful characters and unexpected twists. It uses new evidence to make clear that understanding the fight is essential to understanding the personality and presidency of FDR—and America at a crossroads in its history. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (21)

Excellent detailed account
Shesol has created an excellent account of Roosevelt's attempt to pack the Supreme Court.Shesol does a masterful job of explaining the context of Roosevelt's action -- essentially the first half of the book -- as well as providing a detailed description of the reasons that the action ultimately failed.The reader gains a very good sense of the primary characters involved in this dramatic sequence of events -- key Senate leaders, Supreme Court justices, administration players, and Roosevelt himself.This book would have been improved by a stronger hand in editing.Shesol provides a glut of details -- certain sections, in fact, get mired down in them.He clearly did his homework and research.There are few anecdotes told within this book that don't examine four or five highly-different perspectives or reactions.Excellent research, but for the reader, certain sections were simply turgid and swollen.Shesol is an excellent researcher and writer.He deserves an excellent editor in his next book.

excellent book - fine research and well written
makes the Rosevelt "court packing" plan very understandable and I complement the suthor for the vast amount of research that went into it,

Extremely interesting and will change your opinion of FDR
After finishing this book, I am more convinced people will be amazed on FDR's presidency if they look at his entire body of work rather than just his successes. I am no fan of FDR's social policies and it is amazing to see that there were plenty of others in the 30's. I think this book shows you another side of FDR that is more devious and tricky than you ever thought. It also demonstrates that unliked modern thought that everyone just simply went along with him, there was plenty of opposition. What frightening power FDR was trying to acquire and the president's power to nominate Supreme Court justices can never be underestimated. A good read and but it is dry in some areas but in summary, worth your time to read.

The Epilogue is Worth The Price of Admission
Yes indeed, Mr. Shesol gets all kudos for exhaustive research and, following thereupon, exhaustive narration of FDR's court packing plan. But does a discrete incident that was resolved in less than six months deserve 500+ pages of often dry-as-toast recounting?

The longueurs are many; the key points are made again and again. Only constitutional lawyers will delight in the analyses of cases and the distinctions between them. The story, much of it technical and/or behind the scenes does not exactly make for spellbinding reading. I doubt any writer could make it that. Mr. Shesol does have a flair for characterization. The main players do come to life. But not all connections are made. How, for example, did Felix Frankfurter become a key advisor to FDR? Where/when did they first meet?

On the other hand, the epilogue, the last 30 pages, are spellbinding for any student of American history. Mr. Shesol offers his own considered and trenchant analysis here, and it is convincing.

Reads like great fiction--but it's all true!
Even if you're not a history buff you won't want to miss this wonderful book.It's not only a thrilling story, incredibly well-told, but it's amazing how similar the problems facing FDR were to those tormenting Obama these days.There was even an earlier (and smarter) version of the Tea Party.Terrific characters and the most important national issues make this a vital story that's totally fun to read. ... Read more

Product Description
When appointed to the Supreme Court in 1970 by President Nixon, Harry A. Blackmun was seen as a quiet, safe choice to complement the increasingly conservative Court of his boyhood friend, Warren Burger. No one anticipated his seminal opinion championing abortion rights in Roe v. Wade, the most controversial ruling of his generation, which became the battle cry of both supporters and critics of judicial power and made Blackmun a liberal icon.

Harry A. Blackmun: The Outsider Justice is Tinsley E. Yarbrough's penetrating account of one of the most outspoken and complicated figures on the Supreme Court. As a justice, Blackmun stood at the pinnacle of the American judiciary. Yet when he took his seat on the Court, Justice Blackmun felt "almost desperate," overwhelmed with feelings of self-doubt and inadequacy over the immense responsibilities before him. Blackmun had overcome humble roots to achieve a Harvard education, success as a Minneapolis lawyer and resident counsel to the prestigious Mayo Clinic, as well as a distinguished record on the Eighth Circuit federal appeals court. But growing up in a financially unstable home with a frequently unemployed father and an emotionally fragile mother left a permanent mark on the future justice. All his life, Harry Blackmun considered himself one of society's outsiders, someone who did not "belong."

Remarkably, though, that very self-image instilled in the justice, throughout his career, a deep empathy for society's most vulnerable outsiders--women faced with unwanted pregnancies, homosexuals subjected to archaic laws, and ultimately, death-row inmates. To those who saw his career as the constitutional odyssey of a conservative jurist gradually transformed into a champion of the underdog, Blackmun had a ready answer: he had not changed; the Court and the issues before them changed. The justice's identification with the marginalized members of society arguably provides the overarching key to that consistency.

Thoroughly researched, engagingly written, Harry A. Blackmun: The Outsider Justice offers an in-depth, revelatory portrait of one of the most intriguing jurists ever to sit on the Supreme Court. Relying on in-depth archival material, in addition to numerous interviews with Blackmun's former clerks, Yarbrough here presents the definitive biography of the great justice, ultimately providing an illuminating window into the inner-workings of the modern Supreme Court. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

Another fine judicial biography by Tinsley Yarbrough
The author has written extensively on the Supreme Court, including biographies of Harlan I and II, and especially his fine book on Justice Souter (also reviewed on Amazon), as well as one of the ABC-CLIO Supreme Court handbooks on the Burger Court where Justice Blackmun served most of his tenure on the Court. The book is typical Yarbrough: comprehensive research; clarity of analysis; some suggestive insights into the subject. The book begins with Blackmun's formative years, follows him to Harvard and Harvard Law, his early friendship with Warren Burger, the critical clerkship with Judge Sanborn of the 8th Circuit;his career as a Minnesota lawyer (especially resident counsel at Mayo Clinic during 1950-1959) and his appointment to the Eighth Circuit and his service thereupon. So, by the time Blackmun makes it to the big Court, which is at the 141 page mark, readers can really feels they have a good grasp of Blackmun, his character, strengths, and weaknesses.Thereby, the author avoids a mistake frequently encountered in judicial biographies of rushing through the pre-Court career to concentrate on the years as a Justice.

I found the chapter on chamber procedures especially interesting.The author discusses Blackmun's preference for clerks writing first drafts of opinions, a practice he initiated on the Circuit, and raises always the key question re Blackmun: was he the author or editor of his opinions?He analyzes the firestorm that emerged when various articles and Linda Greenhouse's biography of Blackmun, based upon his papers, disclosed his heavy reliance upon clerks. Also, of course, of great interest is his discussion of Blackmun's deteriorating relationship with Burger.The book also discusses Blackmun's key decisions, including "Roe v. Wade," although I think more attention could have been devoted to the prolonged drafting torment Blackmun endured while working on the opinion at Mayo.

Blackmun emerges as somewhat a solid but not brilliant Justice, inclined to be conservative in his judgments, but willing to modify his positions (such as on the death penalty) over time. The author finds him always to have been a somewhat insecure individual, unsure of his own talents, but always a very hard worker.In the final chapters, the author returns to the issue of who "sculpted" Blackmun's jurisprudence, he or his clerks, since more studies based on his paper have emerged.The oral history interviews with former clerk Harold Koh of Yale Law School are discussed and afford some valuable insights.My only concern with the book is that the author almost totally ignores Linda Greenhouse's fine book on Blackmun, perhaps because he is upset that she was granted exclusive early access to this treasurehouse of information by Blackmun's family (see p. 341). This is most puzzling given the author's otherwise impeccable research. This is, however, but a tiny blemish--the book is a major achievement and adds substantially to our understanding of Blackmun the man and Justice and his role on the Court. ... Read more

Product Description
Davis discusses the increasing role of interest groups, the press, and the public, whose role is not prescribed in the Constitution, in the selection and confirmation of Supreme Court justices and how it affects the process. First he examines in detail the history and nature of the process, then he looks at the role and impact of other players. His conclusions about how non-political actors affect the outcome of Supreme Court justice selection leads him at the end of his book to suggest controversial reforms and their prospects for success. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (2)

Bork I mean Broke? Break it agin I'll fix it
Get ready for Chief Justice Roy Moore.

A Timely Contribution Regarding Supreme Court Nominations
It is hard to think of a more opportune time to read this new book on the strengths and weaknesses of the current Supreme Court nomination process.With the upcoming expected retirement of the Chief Justice, and the current foolishness occuring in the Senate over judicial filibusters, the solid and unemotional analysis offered by Professor Richard Davis is welcome to say the least.The author is very good in explaining how we have gotten into the current nomination mess: the role of the press in shaping nominee images; the incredible importance of interest groups and their energy in driving the process; the public expectation that nomination consideration will occur as much as possible in the open and not behind closed doors as in the past; and the role of nominations in reaffirming pertinent constitutencies for the groups, parties, and the pertinent president.In short, the process is no longer one conducted by the Senate in accordance with its own practices--instead each nomination (and the author does discuss particular examples such as Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter, and of course Robert Bork) has become a major public event and battleground as the various players maneuver for advantage.What we have lost as a result of this "take no prisoners" approach to nominations is all too evident.While the author does not unleash any startling new insights, the book stands as perhaps the best introduction for anyone interested in gaining an understanding of how the process currently functions. The final chapter is devoted to "Reforming the Process," and the author examines a number of thoughtful proposals for mitigating the current mess.Alas, given the current political malaise floating over Washington, one can only reply: "dream on, Professor." ... Read more

Product Description
Beginning with 'We the peoples of the United Nations...', this handy pocket-book contains all Articles of the Charter of the United Nations as well as an introductory note that outlines past amendments. It also includes the Statute of the International Court of Justice that forms an integral part of the UN Charter.
... Read more

Product Description
Schools, welfare agencies, and a wide variety of other state and local institutions of vital importance to citizens are actually controlled by attorneys and judges rather than governors and mayors. In this valuable book, Ross Sandler and David Schoenbrod explain how this has come to pass, why it has resulted in service to the public that is worse, not better, and what can be done to restore control of these programs to democratically elected-and accountable-officials.

Sandler and Schoenbrod tell how the courts, with the best intentions and often with the approval of elected officials, came to control ordinary policy making through court decrees. These court regimes, they assert, impose rigid and often ancient detailed plans that can founder on reality. Newly elected officials, who may wish to alter the plans in response to the changing wishes of voters, cannot do so unless attorneys, court-appointed functionaries, and lower-echelon officials agree. The result is neither judicial government nor good government, say Sandler and Schoenbrod, and they offer practical reforms that would set governments free from this judicial stranglehold, allow courts to do their legitimate job of protecting rights, and strengthen democracy. ... Read more

Product Description
Reader, thou hast here the beginning and end of a discourse concerning government; what fate has otherwise disposed of the papers that should have filled up the middle, and were more than all the rest, it is not worth while to tell thee. These, which remain, I hope are sufficient to establish the throne of our great restorer, our present King William; to make good his title, in the consent of the people, which being the only one of all lawful governments, he has more fully and clearly, than any prince in Christendom; and to justify to the world the people of England,whose love of their just and natural rights, with their resolution topreserve them, saved the nation when it was on the very brink of slavery and ruin... ... Read more

Product Description

What ever happened to our inalienable rights?

The Constitution was once the bedrock of our country, an unpretentious parchment that boldly established the God-given rights and freedoms of America. Today that parchment has been shred to ribbons, explains Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, as the federal government trounces state and individual rights and expands its reach far beyond what the Framers intended.

An important follow-up to Judge Napolitano's best-selling Constitutional Chaos, this book shows with no-nonsense clarity how Congress has "purchased" regulations by bribing states and explains how the Supreme Court has devised historically inaccurate, logically inconsistent, and even laughable justifications to approve what Congress has done.

It's an exciting excursion into the dark corners of the law, showing how do-gooders, busybodies, and control freaks in government disregard the limitations imposed upon Congress by the Constitution and enact laws, illegal and unnatural, in virtually every area of human endeavor.

Advance Praise for The Constitution in Exile from Left, Right, and Center

"Does anyone understand the vision of America's founding fathers? The courts and Congress apparently don't have a clue. But Judge Andrew P. Napolitano does, and so will you, if you read The Constitution in Exile."-BILL O'REILLY

"Whatever happened to states rights, limited government, and natural law? Judge Napolitano, in his own inimitable style, takes us on a fascinating tour of the destruction of constitutional government. If you want to know how the federal government got so big and fat, read this book. Agree or disagree, this book will make you think."-SEAN HANNITY

"In all of the American media, Judge Andrew P. Napolitano is the most persistent, uncompromising guardian of both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution, very much including the Bill of Rights. Increasingly, our Constitution is in clear and present danger. Judge Napolitano-in The Constitution in Exile-has challenged all Americans across party lines to learn the extent of this constitutional crisis."-NAT HENTOFF

"Judge Napolitano engages here in what I do every day on my program-make you think. There's no question that potential Supreme Court nominees and what our Constitution says and doesn't say played a major role for many voters in our last couple of elections. What the judge does here is detail why the federal government claims it can regulate as well as tax everything in sight as it grows and grows. Agree or disagree with him-you need to read his latest book, think, and begin to arm yourself as you enter this important debate."

-RUSH LIMBAUGH

"At a time when we are, in Benjamin Franklin's words, sacrificing essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, here comes the judge with what should be mandatory reading for the executive branch cronies who are busy stealing power while they think we're not watching. Thank goodness the judge is watching and speaking truth to power. More than a book, this is an emergency call to philosophical arms, one we must heed before it's too late."

-ALAN COLMES

Customer Reviews (41)

The Constitution's Eulogy
This book brings home the very sad and scary fact that the U.S. Constitution is essentially dead. Whether you are a Progressive touting the Living Constitution, a fiction that allows the original document to be ignored in the name of pertinence, or a Conservative bemoaning the Constitution in Exile, no one really believes the original document plays any significant part in our government today.

Judge Napolitano does a great service in this book by clearly and succinctly showing why this is so through a careful analysis of caselaw beginning with the First Chief Justice's seminal decisions right up to present cases which run roughshod over the Founders' noble efforts to create a limited government which respects and maximizes true liberty, and replaces it with the eternal dream of an equalitarian paradise, a goal pursued intermittently since the Spartans thousands of years ago createda communal society, and which has invariably failed in the worse possible manner.

It has been said that every time Man seeks to create a Heaven on Earth he winds up with a Hell. We should all be afraid that every time the Constitution is ignored by the Congress, President or the Judicial system, we move another step closer to just such an outcome.

This is scary
The Constitution in Exile: How the Federal Government Has Seized Power by Rewriting the Supreme Law of the Land I'm still working on this one. It's amazing how we've allowed the government to seize so much power just in my lifetime. What i really want to know is how we can stop it.

It is that good.
If you have asked why? This book will tell you. This is the second Napolitano book I have read, and he continues to excel at telling you in detail how and why. If you are going to remove a cancer you have to get to the root of it and this is what he does. If you want to see the corruption of law ( good book title :hint hint:) You need to read this book from cover to cover. I have recommended this book to everyone I know and everyone I don't know. It should be required reading in every high school, college, and coffee shop.
You can't fix it if you don't what's wrong with it.

A Great Read!
I really enjoyed this book.Thanks to Judge Napolitano, even a lay person can understand how our constitution has been perverted.I STRONGLY recommend this as an essential read for getting enlighted on a subject matter that impacts our lives every day.

Well Organized, Well Presented.Very enjoyable.Worth reading a couple of times.
An EXCELLENT book for anybody who is interested in American History and Politics. It definately takes an ideoloigical bias towards a very conservative view of the founders, but it uses this lens in an attempt to illustrate how our constitution really has no relevance anymore. Napolitano documents very well the supreme court cases and legislation that mark the path by which our constitution was "exiled". The level at which this book is written means it can be read by most anyone, but those with particular interest would be students who are currently studying a course in politics, or history. It is an excellent supplement to learning about important issues in American life and the court cases that shaped our history. I would suggest it to both liberals and conservatives, but liberals should be aware that he does take a very consistent approach that could get on your nerves at times if you aren't used to "reading books you don't agree with". Conservatives might be suprised by his opposition to any laws regarding culture war issues,for example, Don't Ask Don't Tell. Napolitano is less a contemporary conservative and much more a "constitutionalist". ... Read more

Product Description

Product Description
The Supreme Court grew out of a unique opportunity to interview all nine sitting Supreme Court Justices plus retired Justice O'Connor for a documentary on the Supreme Court. Through Brian Lamb and Susan Swain's interviews with our country's most influential judges, the book offers portraits of the Justices that introduces readers to the closed world of the Supreme Court, and what's it's really like to serve on the nation's highest Court. Accompanying the Justices around the Supreme Court, and through offices steeped in historic memorabilia, Lamb and Swain offer readers a window into a fascinating world to which few have had access. In these pages, Justice Sotomayor reflects on her first impressions of the job and the acclimation process. Justice Breyer takes us behind the scenes on a private tour of his Chambers as he describes how the Court works. And Chief Justice Roberts talks about the role of the Court in Society, the role of the Chief Justice, and the process of deciding cases. Enriching this unique material are interviews with journalists, court historians, and other experts on the Court. Journalists Joan Biskupic and Lyle Denniston (the longest serving Supreme Court reporter) talk about the process that unfolds in the Court and the impact of a new member of the Court. Clerk of the Supreme Court William Suter provides insights into the traditions of the Court. Historian Jim O'Hara discusses the Supreme Court building and its history. Two attorneys who have argued numerous cases in front of the Supreme Court tell readers what it's like facing the justices in fast paced oral arguments. Vividly illustrated with color photographs, the book is a perfect gift for anyone interested in the makings of this powerful institution. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (2)

Some interesting insights into the Supreme Court
This book is an outgrowth of C-SPAN's recent production of a program about the Supreme Court building.If you have never visited the Court in person here in Washington, you may find this an odd topic--but the architecture and history of this magnificant building are quite interesting.After a brief introduction about the program and how it was crafted, the book divides into three sections.The first section, which is quite interesting, consists of interviews with all the sitting Justices in 2009 (including Justice Sotomayor but not Justice Souter who was interviewed but would not allow its complete publication), as well as retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.A fairly wide range of topics are covered, not just those relating to the building. While these are not dynamic or vigorous interviews designed to pin the Justices to the wall regarding controversial issues, nonetheless some interesting facts emerge.I found the most valuable interviews to be with Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Alito and Sotomayor. Justices are seldom interviewed at length in any connection, and because of the friendly nature of these interviews, they all seem somewhat relaxed and informal, and desirous of cooperating.

The second section ("Supreme Court Experts") consists of interviews with reporters who cover the Court, former Solicitor General Drew Days III, Maureen Mahoney, a leading court advocate who clerked for Chief Justice Rehnquist, the Supreme Court Historian and the Court's clerk.All of these interviews disclosed interesting information, but I found that of Joan Biskupic (who covers the Court for "USA Today" and has written two important Justice biographies), Ms. Mahoney, and William Suter (the Court's clerk) particularly helpful.The Drew Days III interview, however, was a knockout--full of inside information, clearly articulated, with his usual class and professionalism.The third section is basically supplemental information, such as statistics on Court workload, Justice biographical data, and some C-SPAN requests for greater press access (including the immediate release of some oral arguments).

The book runs some 370 pages and includes an index and two sections of color photographs--other black and white pictures are scattered throughout the text. Brian Lamb and his C-SPAN team are to be commended for the care and professionalism manifested throughout the book--dealing with Justices is not always the easiest way to spend your time.I have been reading books about the Court, and even teaching it at times, for about 45 years, and I found out some new and interesting things about this most remarkable (but misunderstood) institution.That is the best praise I can give this helpful resource.

Interesting but...
This book, while interesting, is not revealing in the way it could have been. All the sitting justices were interviewed for this book. Instead of asking probing questions of the justices, they were asked softball queries. Of course, one realizes that C-SPAN was granted unique access to the Court and the people that work there, and thus, they were probably required not to ask inquisitive questions. As a result, this book amounts to little more then a guidebook that would be sponsored by the Court available at the Supreme Court bookstore. However, there are some interesting tidbits of information that I did not know before, such as how all the justices shake hands before oral arguments or that the most junior justice is responsible for opening the door and taking notes at conference. Overall, a good, although not really balanced introduction to the way the Supreme Court works. ... Read more

Product Description

This book explains how the debate over originalism emerged from the interaction of constitutional theory, U.S. Supreme Court decisions, and American political development. Refuting the contention that originalism is a recent concoction of political conservatives like Robert Bork, Johnathan O'Neill asserts that recent appeals to the origin of the Constitution in Supreme Court decisions and commentary, especially by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, continue an established pattern in American history.

Originalism in American Law and Politics is distinguished by its historical approach to the topic. Drawing on constitutional commentary and treatises, Supreme Court and lower federal court opinions, congressional hearings, and scholarly monographs, O'Neill's work will be valuable to historians, academic lawyers, and political scientists.

Product Description
From the Duke lacrosse team to the Scooter Libby trial,the recent spate of highly publicized cases has reignitedpublic interest in the use and abuse of prosecutorial power.Based on the premise that every American should have abasic understanding of the role of prosecutor, No HigherCalling, No Greater Responsibility analyzes the prosecutionfunction in the broad context of criminal justice. Drawingon his personal experiences as a local, state, and federalprosecutor, Colorado Attorney General John Suthersexplains in straightforward terms how the system worksand how it might be made to work better, offering afascinating look at the intricacies of crime and punishment. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (5)

Excellent book by an dedicated crime fighter
This is an excellent book by one of Colorado's most dedicated crime fighters.Throughout the book Mr. Suthers uses many examples and stories from his personal involvement in fighting some of Colorado's most infamous cases to illustrate his points.While some of his stories are sad and even shocking, others have a humorous side.On each page Mr. Suthers' dedication to fighting crime and his conviction that public safety is government's most important responsibility resonates clear.

Insightful, intelligent, helpful and very well written
As a lay person I found the observations, perspectives and policy recommendations in Suthers' book to be highly intelligent, interesting and provocative.His public career as a district attorney, chief administrator of the Colorado prison system, U.S. Attorney and state attorney general provide him powerful and unique understandings of the criminal justice system and its operation.His recommendations for changes to this system are based on his diverse and practical experience, and they should be considered seriously by all who affect criminal justice policy.On top of it all, Mr. Suthers' writing style makes this book an easy, quick read.

Insider's View of Criminal Prosecution
I enjoyed the book very much. It discussed the relationship of criminal prosecution to areas such as motivation, punishment, the media, legalization of drugs, and ethics, all with lots of colorful real-life examples of cases and crimes.

Informative and engaging
This book is very informative and an easy read.Suthers
illustrates his arguments with stories that engage the reader
whether he is talking about the seven deadly sins or
alternative sentencing.The chapter "Calls for Reform" is
especially useful in understanding the challenges of the
criminal justice system.

Substantive Yet Accessible
I enjoyed this book quite a bit.As a lay person, it struck the right balance for me between being substantive in its discussion of important issues while remaining very accessible.It is conversational without being informal.It was an enjoyable and thought provoking read. ... Read more

Product Description

In a meticulously researched and engagingly written narrative, Brian McGinty rescues the story of Abraham Lincoln and the Supreme Court from long and undeserved neglect, recounting the compelling history of the Civil War president's relations with the nation's highest tribunal and the role it played in resolving the agonizing issues raised by the conflict.

Lincoln was, more than any other president in the nation's history, a "lawyerly" president, the veteran of thousands of courtroom battles, where victories were won, not by raw strength or superior numbers, but by appeals to reason, citations of precedent, and invocations of justice. He brought his nearly twenty-five years of experience as a practicing lawyer to bear on his presidential duties to nominate Supreme Court justices, preside over a major reorganization of the federal court system, and respond to Supreme Court decisions--some of which gravely threatened the Union cause.

The Civil War was, on one level, a struggle between competing visions of constitutional law, represented on the one side by Lincoln's insistence that the United States was a permanent Union of one people united by a "supreme law," and on the other by Jefferson Davis's argument that the United States was a compact of sovereign states whose legal ties could be dissolved at any time and for any reason, subject only to the judgment of the dissolving states that the cause for dissolution was sufficient. Alternately opposed and supported by the justices of the Supreme Court, Lincoln steered the war-torn nation on a sometimes uncertain, but ultimately triumphant, path to victory, saving the Union, freeing the slaves, and preserving the Constitution for future generations.

Customer Reviews (5)

Lincoln and the Court
Having purchased many titles on the Court and the Civil War, I find Brian McGinty's book one of the best. His writing style is easy to read and flows well. Noteworthy are his additional references, such as habeas corpus, the Strader decision, Article III sec. 2 (the diversity clause). I highly recommend his book.

Focus on Lincoln And The Supreme Court Provides Insight On Numerous Fronts
I found Brian McGinty's book on Lincoln and the Supreme Court a well written, comprehensive review of events and legal thinking on several levels.I learned a lot about the history of race relations in the U.S. from the earliest days of the Revolution through the 1870s, and why the Dred Scott decision was such an important event.I learned a lot about how the Supreme Court developed as an institution, the many personalities that made up the Court over this period, and how the growth of what was a young nation was reflected in the kinds of issues the Court considered.There is a lot of interesting insight about American politics through the middle of the 19th Century, and the personal relationships that influenced the advent of the Civil War, its execution, and its aftermath.

There is a good review of various areas of the law that were important at the time, some of which, such as Admiralty, of less general interest today, but others, such as Civil Liberties and habeas corpus, very much current.

McGinty provides good support for his professed esteem for Lincoln.There is much in this book about the personal and political relationships Lincoln had, and how Lincoln showed wisdom in managing the many forces seeking to influence the course of his presidency and the war.

There is a lot of information packed into the 315 pages of text.McGinty expresses himself well and clearly.Sometimes he uses 10 words when 7 or 8 would suffice, and sometimes he summarizes things he had just explained a few pages earlier, but the reader won't lose track of who the characters are.

As a general reader, I found this an interesting history of the Supreme Court and the Civil War, and I thought it a useful addition to my knowledge of Lincoln's life and philosophy.

An Effective Analysis of Lincoln and the Supreme Court
I found this to be an outstanding work in legal and constitutional history, bringing a fresh perspective to this topic that already has been well covered by others.See, e.g., James F. Simon, "Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney."I think there are several reasons for the outstanding success of the book. First, the author takes his time and thoroughly discusses his topics--no quick summary of a case and then moving on here.Second, the author is extremely through in covering his topic--not just Lincoln and Taney, although that is an important theme obviously, but also he discusses topics such as Lincoln's appointments to the Court and how the Court continued on dealing with these issues after Lincoln's death. Finally, the author writes so effectively that even familiar material becomes interesting and stimulating.

All of the major cases are examined (habeas corpus, trial by military tribunals, Legal Tender, McCardle limitations on jurisdiction, and Texas v. White holding that the Union was never dissolved).Several chapters stand out, including that on Dred Scott (one of the best treatments I have seen) and the Prize Cases, which I used to think were quite boring. In addition, each Justice is profiled in depth, and a Gallery section contains excellent full-page photographs of each. Lincoln's challenge in making Court appointments is well covered, presenting the President with the opportunity to secure solid votes to uphold his conduct of the war, but also the need not to antagonize the border states he sought to keep in the Union. The author's attention to the post-Lincoln Court allows him to offer a fine assessment of Taney's successor, Salmon P. Chase, who managed in the Legal Tender Cases to vote exactly opposite the position he had taken as Secretary of the Treasury.

The book is supported by 29 pages of notes, an excellent bibliography and index, as well as being a beautifully-printed volume to boot.Sometimes taking a new look at an old topic can result in important insights--such is the case with this book.

Full Court Press
A nice overview of the Supreme Court, encompassing the years just prior to Lincoln's election, his term in office, and through the cases decided after his assassination but on matters that arose out of the conduct of the Civil War. The era's critical legal disputes, from the infamous Dred Scott decision to the Test Oath cases, are reviewed. Of special interest to today's reader is the discussion of the validity of sentences imposed on civilians by military tribunals.

This book is a good reminder of the importance of the U.S. Supreme Court, and the rule of law, during our country's Civil War. It also provides useful short character sketches of the various justices who served at that time and the role politics played in the selection of these same men, including Roger Taney and Salmon P. Chase. (More attention, rightfully so, is paid these two flawed but historically important chief justices.)

Brian McGinty provides a good legal analysis in prose that while not soaring is more than adequate to the task.One significant overstatement, I think, is made on page 245, when the author writes, "Although his own views on racial equality had evolved over the years, he [Lincoln] never denigrated blacks." While Abraham Lincoln was ultimately a great man on racial issues, he did say certain negative things about blacks during his life, such as in his famed debates with Stephen Douglas.

(As an aside, the use of the word "denigrated" is interesting in that it is derived from the word "nigare" or "black". It means to "blacken" or disparage.)

Difficult but rewarding
I am not much for political history or biographies.Given a choice between reading Sears' Gettysburg and Goodwin's Team of Rivals, my choice is reading Gettysburg.That fact needs to be explained as I found this a difficult book to read but a very rewarding learning experience.My difficulty has nothing to do with the author's skill as a writer but my preference as a reader.This is a book about judges, most of them old, and their ideas on how the law should be applied.President's have problems with the court when the court's idea conflicts with the Presidents.Lincoln was no exception but he faced a greater danger to the nation and the court's actions could have had a much greater impact than they normally do.

McGinty starts with a series of portraits of the judges and how they had achieved their position.He manages to make them both human and inform the reader of their outlook in an interesting an informative manner.He covers personal quirks, deeply held beliefs, family and background showing us these men as both human and political beings.This provides a very firm foundation for a somewhat technical discussion of the cases and issues that follow.

The chapter on the Dred Scott case is one of the best in the book.Having covered Lincoln's opposition to the Court's decision in a prior chapter, the author walks us through the issues and the Court's decision.He insures that we have the opportunity to gain a solid understanding of their reasoning based on their personalities and the law.

The next major case is Merryman and once more, the author takes the time to cover the issues, the history and the decision.Again, this is a very good chapter and fully explains the issues and what happened after the decision was made.

I was very impressed with the introduction and the author's ideas of the Court's view on secession.While never tested, it has given me a new series of ideas to think and talk about.

This is not an exciting book to read, unless you enjoy reading about legal precedent.However, it is well written and thought provoking.As my title says; this is not an easy read but it is a rewarding one that will give you an additional perspective on the Civil War.
... Read more

Product Description
This is the most comprehensive, and most comprehensively chilling, study of modern torture yet written. Darius Rejali, one of the world's leading experts on torture, takes the reader from the late nineteenth century to the aftermath of Abu Ghraib, from slavery and the electric chair to electrotorture in American inner cities, and from French and British colonial prison cells and the Spanish-American War to the fields of Vietnam, the wars of the Middle East, and the new democracies of Latin America and Europe. As Rejali traces the development and application of one torture technique after another in these settings, he reaches startling conclusions. As the twentieth century progressed, he argues, democracies not only tortured, but set the international pace for torture. Dictatorships may have tortured more, and more indiscriminately, but the United States, Britain, and France pioneered and exported techniques that have become the lingua franca of modern torture: methods that leave no marks. Under the watchful eyes of reporters and human rights activists, low-level authorities in the world's oldest democracies were the first to learn that to scar a victim was to advertise iniquity and invite scandal. Long before the CIA even existed, police and soldiers turned instead to "clean" techniques, such as torture by electricity, ice, water, noise, drugs, and stress positions. As democracy and human rights spread after World War II, so too did these methods. Rejali makes this troubling case in fluid, arresting prose and on the basis of unprecedented research--conducted in multiple languages and on several continents--begun years before most of us had ever heard of Osama bin Laden or Abu Ghraib. The author of a major study of Iranian torture, Rejali also tackles the controversial question of whether torture really works, answering the new apologists for torture point by point. A brave and disturbing book, this is the benchmark against which all future studies of modern torture will be measured. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (7)

Depressing but valuable
A depressing although valuable book that shows how "clean" torture techniques--those that don't leave visible scars or physically incapacitate the victim--have been the hallmark of torturers in the military and police forces in democratic nations.

Rejali documents the use of psychological torture, waterboarding and other clean methods by France, the UK, the United States and other non-totalitarian/non-authoritarian nations. In the western European countries it started with interrogations in colonies--the UK against the Mau Mau in Kenya and the insurgents in Malaysia during the "emergency" and the French in Vietnam and Algeria. Many of the oligarchs of Latin America took their methods from France.

This is almost a reference book of "clean" torture history and usage with chapters the cover how attitudes and procedures evolved in local practice--cattle prods in Argentina, hooding and sleep deprivation in Northern Ireland, drugs in areas controlled by the United States. With chapters on complicit doctors, apologists for torture and evolving refinement of use of electricity, water and fear it is a grim but important book.

The ray of light that shines through is the efficacy of local, national and international monitoring by the press, the judiciary and non-government organizations in staying the hand of torturers. Put simply, they can't afford to be exposed and caught which is why the stealth techniques have become characteristic of torture in open societies.

A Depressing but Worthwhile Read
Why are so many people, including high ranking people who should know better, so convinced that torture "works," and that it provides reliable intelligence? Do they have supporting data to back up this assertion, or is it just a gut feeling? Well, now we are just a little closer to tossing this bizarre view point to the trash heap of history. Darius Rejali, in his painstakingly researched book "Torture and Democracy," has investigated the records of numerous countries that conducted torture throughout the 20th century, including France during the Algerian uprising and the Germans during WWII. He has convincingly shown, with actual data and analysis, that torture is ineffective for intelligence gathering simply because it produces an avalanche of disinformation, making it almost impossible to separate any real intelligence from false leads.

It is clear to me that Rejali did not begin his project fifteen years ago (prior to 9/11, BTW) with any preconceived notions that he then set out to prove. As he explains, he was actually trying to find out why so many countries, including democracies (though generally in secret), resort to the tactic. His initial thought was that maybe there is something to it, since so many countries repeatedly make use of the approach as an intelligence gathering tool. It was only after conducting years of exhaustive research, thoroughly catalogued in the book, that he realized that the countries who resort to the tactic do so out of ignorance and because they fail to think through what they are doing. And it turns out that many countries, even the Nazis in Germany, eventually figure out that the approach is counter-productive, and eventually revert back to more "traditional" police methods to gather intelligence. This was the case with the French in Algeria, who did not begin to meet with success in the city of Algiers until AFTER they abandoned torture as a policy.

The bulk of the book consists of Rejali cataloguing the use of torture in dozens of countries around the world, including an explanation of the techniques and an explanation of which methods are used in which countries. At first, it makes for compelling reading, but the sheer exhaustiveness of the research, which Rejali had to present to make his case, is pretty depressing, and in truth, it's not necessary to read it all before you say - okay, okay, I get it, I get it, it doesn't work....

For those who want to take a shortcut, the chapters toward the end of the book comprise the majority of Rejali's analysis, and it is possible to skim or skip the middle chapters since the evidence against torture is provided in such relentless and eventually nauseating detail. In other words, one could save a lot of time, if they accept the initial premise that torture is an ineffective tactic, by simply going straight to the two penultimate chapters toward the end - "What the Apologists Say" (which blows big holes in the so-called "Battle of Algiers argument"),and "Why Governments Don't Learn."

I am convinced that the book should be required reading for all people in this country, both private and public citizens, who remain convinced that torture is an effective intelligence gathering tool. It should also serve as an antidote to those who have watched too many episodes of "24" and thus believe the "ticking time bomb" scenario is actually realistic.

For my part, it is depressing that no one takes the time to think this through, and that a book like this is even necessary to convince people that torture is a bad idea. The truth is that, like myself, Rejali appears to be a utilitarian, who would condone the use of torture if it could actually be shown that it is an effective means to gather intelligence in a dire situation. However - it most definitely is not. As Rejali shows again and again, the fundamental fallacy of the "torture is effective" argument is that it presumes magical telepathic powers.How does one know with certainty that the suspect we have caught really does know anything about the ticking time bomb, or where the next terrorist strike will occur, or where the kidnapped little girl is located? We may suspect that he does, but what if it turns out that we're wrong? Undoubtedly he'll start "singing" something if we torture him - but now we'll waste vital time chasing false leads if it turns out he is the wrong guy. Here's a scenario to illustrate the point further. In Iraq a bomb goes off. People gather. US troops arrive. People scatter, including what appears to be a group of ten or so young men.They actually have nothing to do with each other, they just happened to have congregated on one side of the site together. The US authorities manage to grab five of them. Turns out that someone with magic telepathic powers would know that one of the five actually was a bad guy involved with the bombing. But our intrepid torturers don't know this. They start torturing all five of the men. All five subsequently start "singing" information. In the case of four of them, it is by definition all gibberish because they really were innocent bystanders who just ran when the US showed up. Now they most certainly will provide bits and pieces of rumors and stories they've heard around town that sounds like it might have some meaning because they're naming real people and places (of course they would - they're from there) but ultimately none of it has any utility. The one "bad guy" sings too.Half of what he says is gibberish - but some of it is actually real intelligence.(This, BTW - was the problem the French ran into in Algiers, which we have been facing in Baghdad and Afghanistan.) So I challenge all people who believe "torture works" to answer this one simple question: In the above scenario, how on earth are you going to differentiate the 10% real intelligence from the 90% that is gibberish? What magic powers are you going to use to do so?Until we develop mind-reading powers, we cannot be sure whether the person we are torturing even knows anything useful, but then, if we had those kind of powers, we wouldn't have to torture him in the first place - we could just read his mind.

If only the real world worked as simply and neatly as it does in the fictional universe of "24."

A sweeping, encyclopedic work
Torture and Democracy serves several functions, some academic and others pragmatic. The essential claim of the work challenges the classical notion that only autocratic governments torture their constituents. Instead, T&D proposes that democratic governments develop covert, non-scarring (or "clean") torture techniques in order to circumvent the proliferation of torture-monitoring human rights groups. This hypothesis has recently gained credence with the advent of Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, but T&D goes much deeper than that by studying the proliferation of clean torture techniques throughout the 20th century.

Ultimately, Rejali produces a comprehensive compendium of modern torture techniques, espoused in great detail. T&D is useful not only to the aspiring academic, but also vital to human rights groups around the world who are struggling to adapt to the constant evolution of modern torture. All in all, it would be difficult to classify the entire work as anything less than "significant" if not "sweeping."

-EF

Not Exactly On The Level
The book claims to be based on a large number of surveys. In an article in today's Oregonian (Portland, OR's newspaper), Rejali and another author claim that surveys show that a majority of Americans disapprove of torture. A graphic accompanied that article displaying bar charts of survey results. One of those bar charts shows that 70% of Americans think that torture is sometimes justified. One would have to conclude that Rejali knew the conclusion he wanted to come to, and did it DESPITE the survey results that he bases his claims on.

Amazingly Informative
I bought this book in order to be able to shoot down any argument about why torture should be used, I wasn't disappointed. Though, it is not an easy read, so make sure to give the book the attention and breaks it deserves in order to digest all the information presented. It is dense but well worth the read. ... Read more