|
Or take the case about abortion, something many liberals support. To the book's great merit, it deals as objectively as possible with the court's decisions -- showing how they were, almost invariably, not the result of "conservatives" vs. When the court had to view porn films to decide whether they are "obscene" or "educational", Marshall once quipped at the end of one such movie, addressing the obviously uncomfortable and prudish Henry Blackmun: "Educational. Why, then, four instead of five start.
It is by no means a "evil Nixon destroyed the saintly liberal Warren" job. The quote above is the way Thurgood Marshall would salute the chief, Warren Burger, when they met in the hallway. Far from being supportive of the decision, the authors note that, whatever the outcome, the court's reasoning in this case was a mess -- essentially the judges acting as doctors and legislators, making "deals" to arrive at a "reasonable" opinion. Who is the "deep throat" inside the court, and how does HE know all of it. "liberals", but of complex interaction of legal views and personal characters.
The authors note that, socially, the court's decision might have been correct, but constitutionally, it was simply wrong. Except if one of the judges themselves was the source, which is very unlikely, it is hard to see how they could get all the information. *I* didn't learn anything new -- what about you, Harry."This book, as you can see, had unprecedented information about the supreme court. The issue is simple: credibility. Let us take, for example, the discussion about the death penalty.
The authors present the anti-death-penalty argument given to the court in full, but they also present, in rebuttal, the arguments of the judges who disagreed -- noting that, all in all, there was no constitutional reason to reject the death penalty as "cruel and unusual" per se, but only -- at most -- specific laws that applied it unfairly, and that this is precisely what the court did. The book's claims ring true; they give a lot of verifiable detail; but you keep asking yourself, how do the authors know all this -- e.g., what happened in judges-only meetings. But that aside, a fascinating book.
This amazing book really emphasizes the strategic interactions the justices engage in everyday. It's a page turner for scholars and people with only a moderate curiosity about the Court alike. 30 years later, this book is still worthwhile.
I think this needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. Read the formally published opinions and dissents, they are dramatic and revealing enough. 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. The court ruled in favour of abortion, as an extension of a woman's right to privacy, and the opinion was written by Blackmun. 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. 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. 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 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.
This lead me to this book, to find out more. Burger is depicted as dim-witted, vacillating, manipulative and devious. 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. 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. Published in 1979, it documents the internal workings, decision making and rivalries in the Supreme Court between the years 1968 and 1975.
I have become interested lately in the various opinions handed down by the Supreme Court in the Guantanamo habeas corpus cases. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
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. 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. 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. 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). 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 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. There is an element of sour grapes towards Justice Burger, who did become Chief Justice. that publication of private papers/stories of Justices would inhibit the free exchange of views in the court.
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. I was particularly surprised by the vehemence of the dissenting opinions expressed. As you would expect Bob Woodward has an excellent command of this case, and the process is described in detail. 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.
Unfortunately this translated into the Supreme Court having to view, and decide by majority, on every piece of contested pornography in these years. 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. 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'. Each year, each justice hires three (more recently four) law clerks to help with research and documentation. 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.
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. 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. I think the absence of any footnotes, references or bibliography does it a disservice.
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.
Other accounts will have to be checked to see if the man is actually so unredeemed. 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.
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. Depth: BStyle: CContent: BResearch: AHistorical Impact: DWoodward and Armstrong write a tale of 7 years and 14 Supreme Court judges.
The two can't help but fall into the mode of journalists (which they tacitly state in the intro). 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. 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.
all rights reserved - Scott Jones
|
