Customer Reviews:
 Tunnel Vision... October 14, 2007
9 out of 14 found this review helpful
Jan Greenburg does a good job of reporting the facts around the recent Supreme Court nominations but she avoids any challenge to the narrow views of those that controlled the conservative nominations.
The notion that Justice Kennedy is not a "true conservative" --never questioned by Greenburg---because 20% of his votes are not "in-line" is a bit absurd. It might have been worthwhile for Greenburg to consider what the true conservative position on Roe vs. Wade (one of Kennedy's "liberal" votes) might be. True conservatives value stare decisis and respect the fact that after thirty years many--the majority of the nation in fact-- now view Roe as a resolved matter. Several subsquent opinions, including Casey, affirmed its findings by using it as a precedent. Imagine if the court overturned it and then ten years from now a court with several Hillary Clinton appointees re-affirmed it. The Court would have been shown to be the mere pawn of the political powers that be. It would emerge less respected and less able to do its job. So, what's the true conservative position on Roe vs. Wade?
The reality that Greenburg never considers is that the White House values Scalia and Thomas not for their true conservativism, but for their right wing judicial activism. Greenburg never scrutinizes Justice Scalia's devotion to "original intent" when it goes against the outcome that he desires. She might want to glance at Gonzalez vs. Oregon, where Scalia's dissent claimed that the Justice Dept could block implementation of an assisted suicide act duly enacted by the popular will in a state initiative. So, where is the prohibition of assisted suicide in the Constitution? What happened to the great "Federalist"? The Drug Enforcement Act--the supposed basis of Scalia's decision--was not intended to outlaw or otherwise regulate assisted suicide and was enacted without any consideration of the subject. The Gonzalez v Oregon dissent (joined by Thomas and the new Chief) shows the bald faced hypocrisy of Scalia's "strict constructionism." Some questioning of "conservative" assumptions and a broader perspective would have made this a much more thoughtful and worthwhile book.
 A terrible disappointment... October 7, 2007
12 out of 20 found this review helpful
I thought, considering the book's title and that this reporter touted her access to nine justices, that this would detail the inner dynamics and interpersonal relationships of the justices and their clerks, like The Brethren. Instead, it was a laborious and too-detailed factual account of process the Executive and Legislative Branches used to select this court.
I see strong bias on the part of the author, who as a reporter, hopes to keep "inside access." She veritably fawns over Alito, in an effort to ingratiate herself with him and his family while, in contrast, she trashes the reclusive Souter, and the presumably uncooperative Kennedy.
Only 20% of this book was worthwhile reading.
 In A Class By Itself September 30, 2007
5 out of 10 found this review helpful
In all respects -- writing, research, organization, balance -- this is the best book on the Supreme Court. To be sure, there'll be other (and perhaps better) books written on this always fascinating institution. For now, however, it positively towers over its competition. I've read (and enjoyed) them all -- Woodward/Armstrong's, Toobin's, Rosen's -- but Jan Crawford Greenburg's "Supreme Conflict" is, to reiterate my title, in a class by itself.
Highly recommended.
 Decent book for non-lawyers September 27, 2007
3 out of 7 found this review helpful
Most legal reporting in the mainstream media stinks. Either non-lawyers miss the point of cases, or lawyers fail to translate that point to a level where the average person can understand. "Supreme Conflict" is an exception. This book focuses more on the personalities and dynamics of the justices, and on the nomination and selection process, than on particular cases. The tales of how certain people are selected for the Court, and how they mesh with the other justices once they have arrived, are interesting glimpses into a world rarely seen by outsiders. Some reviewers point out, rightly, that "Supreme Conflict" does not hash out particular cases in detail. But that's not the kind of book this is.
Other reviewers contend "Supreme Conflict" is too sympathetic to the right. That leaves me scratching my head, given the account of how Bush Jr. picked Harriet Miers as a nominee. True to form, Bush Jr. got some kind of gut feeling and couldn't be talked out of it by reason, and you see what that got him. We also see the mechanism of how the great right-wing spin machine is deployed for, or against, particular nominees. None of this is particularly flattering for Republicans.
This is a good companion to "The Brethren," by Bob Woodward, a similarly-good popular level book about the Supreme Court of an earlier era. Most libraries will have this book, and it is worth checking out if you're interested in the Supreme Court but not so interested as to add "Supreme Conflict" to your permanent collection.
Fascinating September 5, 2007
5 out of 9 found this review helpful
Do not start reading this book if you have to go to work or to school the next day. I read it in two evenings because it was so interesting.
Greenburg is to be congratulated for getting interviews with so many of the judges and for doing so much research and confirmation. The interest builds, and the final chapters on the Roberts, Miers, and Alito nominations are riveting, even though we know the final outcome. But what we didn't know is all the behind the scenes work.
I think Greenburg was fair to the justices and to those in the White House involved in the nomination process. She tells what they did well and what they did poorly. And some of the mistakes were monumental (Bush believing Sununu when he said that Souter was a conservative, for instance). Just from reading the book, it would be difficult to guess Greenburg's own political leanings.
Many things are surprising in this book. Justice O'Connor did not really know much about constitutional law when nominated. Clarence Thomas influenced Scalia's vote more than vice-versa during the first term. And liberal Democrats, more than anyone else, are responsible for Roberts and especially Alito, two conservative white males, being on the court.
|
