What do you think?
Rate this book
九人：美国最高法院风云
着名作家杰弗里·图宾盛名之作
法政学者何帆全新译文
九位大法官如何影响了美国，
如何影响了世界？
《纽约时报》年度十大好书
获J. 安东尼·卢卡斯非虚构作品奖
——————————————
○ 被奉为“司法神殿”的美国最高法院，是否的确与政治绝缘？
○ 历任总统的大法官提名背后，究竟有哪些政治角力？
○ 终身任职的大法官为何会陷入党争？
○ 法庭上立场迥异的“对头”，私下为何是一起看歌剧的莫逆之交？
○ 影响美国历史进程的司法大案，幕后到底有哪些妥协与博弈？
○ 为什么说总统大选会决定最高法院的未来？
所有的答案，都在《九人：美国最高法院风云》中。
——————————————
《九人》生动讲述了最高法院的当代史，也使读者得以近距离观察各位大法官，解释了他们的性格特征、司法理念与人际交往，是怎样影响了哪些改变整个国家的判决……《九人》内容丰富，引人入胜，极具洞察力，读来饶有趣味。——角谷美智子，《纽约时报》首席书评人，普利策奖得主
法政学者何帆全新译文
九位大法官如何影响了美国，
如何影响了世界？
《纽约时报》年度十大好书
获J. 安东尼·卢卡斯非虚构作品奖
——————————————
○ 被奉为“司法神殿”的美国最高法院，是否的确与政治绝缘？
○ 历任总统的大法官提名背后，究竟有哪些政治角力？
○ 终身任职的大法官为何会陷入党争？
○ 法庭上立场迥异的“对头”，私下为何是一起看歌剧的莫逆之交？
○ 影响美国历史进程的司法大案，幕后到底有哪些妥协与博弈？
○ 为什么说总统大选会决定最高法院的未来？
所有的答案，都在《九人：美国最高法院风云》中。
——————————————
《九人》生动讲述了最高法院的当代史，也使读者得以近距离观察各位大法官，解释了他们的性格特征、司法理念与人际交往，是怎样影响了哪些改变整个国家的判决……《九人》内容丰富，引人入胜，极具洞察力，读来饶有趣味。——角谷美智子，《纽约时报》首席书评人，普利策奖得主
502 pages, Kindle Edition
First published August 23, 2007
1,211 people are currently reading
16.4k people want to read
About the author
Jeffrey Toobin
25?books697?followersJeffrey Ross Toobin (J.D., Harvard Law School, 1986; B.A., American History and Literature, Harvard University) is a lawyer, blogger, and media legal correspondent for CNN and formerly The New Yorker magazine. He previously served as an Assistant United States Attorney in Brooklyn, New York, and later worked as a legal analyst for ABC News, where he received a 2001 Emmy Award for his coverage of the Elian Gonzales custody saga.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 2,350 reviews
December 3, 2008
WELL. How I wish I'd had the foresight, at a much younger and more capable age, to consult some kind of career counselor! If only, if ONLY someone back then had the wisdom and charity to inform me of the existence of something called "constitutional law," and advised me to study hard, behave myself, keep my mouth shut, make influential friends, and avoid leaving a drunken trail of scribbled opinions about all my personal and political views as I careened helter-skelter along a haphazard career path towards obsolete drudgery. Recently, while shriveling away into a thoroughly burnt-out, cynical social worker who's abandoned all her dreams and ideals, I've spent many an hour asking myself what else on God's earth I would possibly want to do for a living. And friends, I've been totally unable to answer that question.... until now!
Yes, being on the Supreme Court would totally RULE. Unfortunately, it does seem to take a little more planning and discipline than I've ever demonstrated.... planning and discipline, or some very special friends/bizarre views/unlikely series of events possibly dictated by an unusual positioning of stars and planets. But thanks to Mr. Jeffrey Toobin, I and other poor shmoes who'll never wear the magical robe can now peek behind the velvet curtain in much the same way that we frustrated and unattractive non-celebrities can relish in the "Stars! They're just like us!" portion of Us magazine.
Except it turns out that Supreme Court justices, unlike stars, are not just like us. The Supreme Court seems to be mostly made of (a) bizarrely perfect, overachieving individuals who cannot possibly be real and (b) freaky weirdos. The fun thing about this book is learning which of the justices belong in which category -- and no, it has nothing to do with liberal and conservative ideology. Reading The Nine will allow you to hold vaguely informed judgments about the justices, sort of like how you have about various actors, which is kind of fun. I myself spend a lot of time in Manhattan criminal court, and I have lots of my own little opinions about the judges there. When I see my favorites walking out by the Chinatown park at lunchtime in normal non-judge clothes, I feel alarmed and excited, like I've seen a secret side of these eccentric sorcerers! This book is a bit like that, only with United States Supreme Court justices (for the record, I'd rather eat nuclear waste than be a criminal court judge, which to me seems like the worst job in the world; this may be part of why it took me so long to realize my own Supreme Court vocation). Anyway, that exciting sense of familiarity seems to be what The Nine is going for. This book will, for instance, probably make you adore Antonin Scalia, who is a surprisingly cuddly and endearing originalist grump! This book will not, on the other hand, make you adore Clarence Thomas, who is an even freakier weirdo than you probably already imagine (Actually, who knows, maybe you would decide that you like him. Apparently he's the friendliest justice on the court, and is an avid Nascar and RV enthusiast, so if you're into that stuff you and Justice Thomas would probably hit it off.)
I enjoyed this book, even though it wasn't nearly as trashy as its gold-encrusted John Grishamy cover and sensationalistic title suggest. For instance, is David Souter secretly gay? I have no idea! This book doesn't speculate at all about sleazy, irrelevant stuff like that. Unfortunately, this book also didn't speculate much about why O'Connor chose to resign when she did to take care of her ailing husband, which kind of bummed me out because that was sort of what I read this hoping to learn. To be fair, the answer to that question may be so complex and inaccessible that one day another, possibly longer book will be written on what will always be, for me, the most surprising and troubling decision of her career. Still, with the amount of time Toobin spent focusing on O'Connor's importance and character, this dramatic moment did feel a bit anticlimactic and glossed over here.
Anyway, I wanted to write some fabulous, thoughtful review that really returned to the text and interpreted this document for you, but it's late and I'm lazy.... maybe it's ultimately for the best that I'm not on the bench! As Breyer (the most boring justice) puts it, "All we do is read and write. I used to tell my son if you're really good at doing homework, you get to do homework for the rest of your life." That sounds terrible! Being on the Supreme Court is a whole lotta work. Far easier just to read this book instead, and craft your own armchair decisions and dissents from your luxurious sofa.
Honestly, to me this book was more a three-and-a-half starrer than an legitimate four, and it did feel more like a magazine article than an actual book. If you really want an in-depth, organized study of the Supreme Court, you could probably find something more rigorous. If, however, you are dumb like me and know very little about this madcap band of Constitution-toting partisans, you will enjoy this spirited romp through the halls of justice!
In closing, some thoughts:
* Boy, Toobin really cannot stand Kennedy, whom he paints as a narcissistic, pretentious attention-whore blowhard. Ouch!
* I love Ruth Bader Ginsburg so much, and I wish she was my grandma! I mean that with all due respect to my grandmas; Ginsburg wouldn't be a replacement, she'd just be an extra one. Ginsburg's dissent in Gonzales v. Carhart nearly moved me to tears at the time. I wish she'd been around to write stupid Roe v. Wade instead of that zany Justice Blackmun. Her take makes so much more sense! But I guess these things just don't work that way....
* My preceding point probably brings up the question for my more right-wing Booksters (yes, you know who you are!): is this the Supreme Court book for you? The short answer is "no." Toobin is clearly a bleeding heart liberal and cares not who knows it. So to me, his analysis on the whole did seem pretty fair, because I agree with most of his views. If you're a huge fan of the current five Catholic Supreme Court justices, there's probably a book out there more to your liking. That said, reading this book will probably put you in a pretty good mood, because after much trial and adversity, your guys do win at the end!
* Justice Thomas is a total freaky weirdo (I know I already said that, but it bears repeating).
* It makes me so sad that Justice Stevens is so friggin' OLD! He's so DEAR! Actually, all my favorite justices are super old. How horrible. I can't even think about it. Please let's move on.
* Alito is still the most unlovable on the whole team. He's not even a freaky weirdo, he's just no fun at all. Borrrring!
* Someone else on here repeated this, but in case you missed it, one of the greatest pieces of Supreme Court trivia in here is that Ginsburg and Scalia's families spend New Years together every year. There's actually a lot of nice stuff in here like that, things you wouldn't expect about how these people interact with their coworkers that is pretty surprising. In this narrative, a lot of that sense of camaraderie seems to have evaporated since the Bush v. Gore fiasco and Rehnquist's death. I don't know if that's true; as noted, unfortunately I'm not on the court, and have to take old Jeffrey Toobin's word for it.
Sigh.
Yes, being on the Supreme Court would totally RULE. Unfortunately, it does seem to take a little more planning and discipline than I've ever demonstrated.... planning and discipline, or some very special friends/bizarre views/unlikely series of events possibly dictated by an unusual positioning of stars and planets. But thanks to Mr. Jeffrey Toobin, I and other poor shmoes who'll never wear the magical robe can now peek behind the velvet curtain in much the same way that we frustrated and unattractive non-celebrities can relish in the "Stars! They're just like us!" portion of Us magazine.
Except it turns out that Supreme Court justices, unlike stars, are not just like us. The Supreme Court seems to be mostly made of (a) bizarrely perfect, overachieving individuals who cannot possibly be real and (b) freaky weirdos. The fun thing about this book is learning which of the justices belong in which category -- and no, it has nothing to do with liberal and conservative ideology. Reading The Nine will allow you to hold vaguely informed judgments about the justices, sort of like how you have about various actors, which is kind of fun. I myself spend a lot of time in Manhattan criminal court, and I have lots of my own little opinions about the judges there. When I see my favorites walking out by the Chinatown park at lunchtime in normal non-judge clothes, I feel alarmed and excited, like I've seen a secret side of these eccentric sorcerers! This book is a bit like that, only with United States Supreme Court justices (for the record, I'd rather eat nuclear waste than be a criminal court judge, which to me seems like the worst job in the world; this may be part of why it took me so long to realize my own Supreme Court vocation). Anyway, that exciting sense of familiarity seems to be what The Nine is going for. This book will, for instance, probably make you adore Antonin Scalia, who is a surprisingly cuddly and endearing originalist grump! This book will not, on the other hand, make you adore Clarence Thomas, who is an even freakier weirdo than you probably already imagine (Actually, who knows, maybe you would decide that you like him. Apparently he's the friendliest justice on the court, and is an avid Nascar and RV enthusiast, so if you're into that stuff you and Justice Thomas would probably hit it off.)
I enjoyed this book, even though it wasn't nearly as trashy as its gold-encrusted John Grishamy cover and sensationalistic title suggest. For instance, is David Souter secretly gay? I have no idea! This book doesn't speculate at all about sleazy, irrelevant stuff like that. Unfortunately, this book also didn't speculate much about why O'Connor chose to resign when she did to take care of her ailing husband, which kind of bummed me out because that was sort of what I read this hoping to learn. To be fair, the answer to that question may be so complex and inaccessible that one day another, possibly longer book will be written on what will always be, for me, the most surprising and troubling decision of her career. Still, with the amount of time Toobin spent focusing on O'Connor's importance and character, this dramatic moment did feel a bit anticlimactic and glossed over here.
Anyway, I wanted to write some fabulous, thoughtful review that really returned to the text and interpreted this document for you, but it's late and I'm lazy.... maybe it's ultimately for the best that I'm not on the bench! As Breyer (the most boring justice) puts it, "All we do is read and write. I used to tell my son if you're really good at doing homework, you get to do homework for the rest of your life." That sounds terrible! Being on the Supreme Court is a whole lotta work. Far easier just to read this book instead, and craft your own armchair decisions and dissents from your luxurious sofa.
Honestly, to me this book was more a three-and-a-half starrer than an legitimate four, and it did feel more like a magazine article than an actual book. If you really want an in-depth, organized study of the Supreme Court, you could probably find something more rigorous. If, however, you are dumb like me and know very little about this madcap band of Constitution-toting partisans, you will enjoy this spirited romp through the halls of justice!
In closing, some thoughts:
* Boy, Toobin really cannot stand Kennedy, whom he paints as a narcissistic, pretentious attention-whore blowhard. Ouch!
* I love Ruth Bader Ginsburg so much, and I wish she was my grandma! I mean that with all due respect to my grandmas; Ginsburg wouldn't be a replacement, she'd just be an extra one. Ginsburg's dissent in Gonzales v. Carhart nearly moved me to tears at the time. I wish she'd been around to write stupid Roe v. Wade instead of that zany Justice Blackmun. Her take makes so much more sense! But I guess these things just don't work that way....
* My preceding point probably brings up the question for my more right-wing Booksters (yes, you know who you are!): is this the Supreme Court book for you? The short answer is "no." Toobin is clearly a bleeding heart liberal and cares not who knows it. So to me, his analysis on the whole did seem pretty fair, because I agree with most of his views. If you're a huge fan of the current five Catholic Supreme Court justices, there's probably a book out there more to your liking. That said, reading this book will probably put you in a pretty good mood, because after much trial and adversity, your guys do win at the end!
* Justice Thomas is a total freaky weirdo (I know I already said that, but it bears repeating).
* It makes me so sad that Justice Stevens is so friggin' OLD! He's so DEAR! Actually, all my favorite justices are super old. How horrible. I can't even think about it. Please let's move on.
* Alito is still the most unlovable on the whole team. He's not even a freaky weirdo, he's just no fun at all. Borrrring!
* Someone else on here repeated this, but in case you missed it, one of the greatest pieces of Supreme Court trivia in here is that Ginsburg and Scalia's families spend New Years together every year. There's actually a lot of nice stuff in here like that, things you wouldn't expect about how these people interact with their coworkers that is pretty surprising. In this narrative, a lot of that sense of camaraderie seems to have evaporated since the Bush v. Gore fiasco and Rehnquist's death. I don't know if that's true; as noted, unfortunately I'm not on the court, and have to take old Jeffrey Toobin's word for it.
Sigh.
June 20, 2011
It’s certainly not outside of the realm of possibility that I am deluded. Completely and utterly deluded. Nevertheless, I have always held the American judiciary in much greater esteem than either the executive or legislative branches of government for several reasons—but most persuasive among them is my firm belief that the judiciary is the best situated to transcend workaday partisan politics.
Sure, judges are appointed by partisan politicians for partisan reasons. Therefore, they are functions of the vitriolic, electorate-responsive machinery known as American politics. (This is my concession that judiciary is more admirable than its peer branches in only a relative sense.) But once awarded their posts, however, they are no longer beholden to the partisanship which empowered them.
Let’s narrow our discussion of the judiciary to the United States Supreme Court for purposes of specificity—and to give proper credit to the extraordinary book dealing with that institution known as The Nine by Jeffrey Toobin.
David Souter provides an exceptional instance of the integrity which the judiciary branch does not demand, but enables. Souter was appointed to the Supreme Court by George H.W. Bush. According to Toobin, Bush was not particularly interested in the politics or strategy of such appointments. He simply wished to appoint an acceptable and competent justice to the Court—a Republican-leaning nominee, to be sure, but the rigor of his partisan stances was never tested. (This strikingly contrasts the younger Bush’s appointments of Roberts and Alito, which were, to differing degrees, a product of an informal vetting with Republican party’s social conservatives rather than the scrutiny of Congress. In this respect, the elder Bush deserves either credit for his integrity or blame for his political carelessness.)
Souter of course ended up being an extreme disappointment to conservatives. A sort of eccentric bachelor who despised the Washington political scene, Souter’s opinions on the Court were based on a consistent judicial philosophy that generally placed him in agreement with the Court’s liberals. Whether or not his judgments reflected his personal views on these issues, he provided a model for an ideal of jurisprudence in which the integrity of law and justice outweighs one’s personal stances. This isn’t to propose that Souter’s interpretation of Constitutional law is the ‘correct’ one—but only to suggest that he points toward an ideal of thoughtfulness and judicial conscience unencumbered by prejudice or personal willfulness. (Please note that I called this an ‘ideal’—and in this sense an objective never to be reached by Souter or anyone else. Alas, we are 丑耻尘补苍蝉…)
An object lesson in lack of judicial integrity—at least in Toobin’s reckoning—might be provided by the most famous (and now retired) Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day 翱’颁辞苍苍辞谤. 翱’颁辞苍苍辞谤 was the first female justice, appointed by Ronald Reagan, and as such she was the product of a very different brand of conservatism than holds sway today. Hers, more specifically, was a conservativism that did not yet despise intellectualism but was repelled by extremism (of politics and temperament). Wherever she is today, she is no doubt disgusted by the Tea Party movement, whose vulgarity and ignorance she would likely describe as ‘unattractive.’ (翱’颁辞苍苍辞谤 transformed politics into aesthetics: moderation, decorum, and intelligence were attractive; their opposites were certainly not.) This concern for propriety and the political golden mean frequently drew the scorn of right wing of the Supreme Court—particularly Antonin Scalia who, in his opinions for the courts, showed little restraint in voicing his contempt for her unprincipled stances. She was scarcely bothered by these rhetorical attacks in any lasting way though because 翱’颁辞苍苍辞谤, during most of her tenure, ruled the Court.
She was not the Chief Justice, but she was dead-center. Her opinion was often the deciding one in many hot-button cases—because, while she was a political conservative, this conservativism did not extend to all social issues. In other words, she—unlike, say, Scalia or Ginsburg—was persuadable. She also served as a barometer for public opinion in most cases. Whether she followed public opinion or was merely the product of it, she privately relished her position as the voice of the people. As previously noted, she found extremism of either stripe distasteful and undesirable. As a consequence, she found herself the moderate tie-breaker of the Court—a power which she also enjoyed and knowingly wielded.
Like Souter, therefore, 翱’颁辞苍苍辞谤 was often a disappointment to the Republican party. Over time, the Republican party had evolved (or devolved, as she would have likely put it), but her centrist views remained largely unchanged—or they changed only to the extent that the public’s did (which is to say, very slowly).
Many will credit 翱’颁辞苍苍辞谤 for representing popular opinions and values on the Court, but then again, her detractors might note, the Court wasn’t intended as representative body. It was the Court’s expressed purpose to check the powers of the elected officials and to keep their legislation in line with the Constitution, regardless of public sentiment. Thus, seeming to lack a coherent judicial philosophy and following a course of personal (and aesthetic) moderation, rationalized into legal principle, 翱’颁辞苍苍辞谤 lacked integrity and coherence as a Supreme Court Justice. Her part in the Bush-Gore election case, for example, was egregiously unprincipled, and Toobin covers this case in all its disgraceful detail in The Nine.
I don’t believe I’ve ever given a non-philosophical non-fiction book five stars. This is a first. Toobin’s book is the perfect integration of fluid, well-paced writing, personal insight, and a wealth of fascinating factual detail. Right-leaning readers will no doubt find this book biased, chiefly because of its scolding of the Court’s odious involvement in the Bush-Gore case, but his condemnation appears well-argued and reasonable (to these admittedly liberal eyes anyway). At any rate, his discussion certainly furthers the discussion of the role of the Supreme Court in our lives today.
Even after reading this book, I still believe that the judiciary is (by a long shot) the branch of government with the most integrity. And I am aware of how problematic this belief is, too. To suggest that an appointed rather than elected branch is superior in such an essential way makes me sound undemocratic, to be sure—but more alarmingly it doesn’t seem to bode well for the state of representative government today. This awareness makes me very uneasy, but I can’t quite shake the truth of it.
Sure, judges are appointed by partisan politicians for partisan reasons. Therefore, they are functions of the vitriolic, electorate-responsive machinery known as American politics. (This is my concession that judiciary is more admirable than its peer branches in only a relative sense.) But once awarded their posts, however, they are no longer beholden to the partisanship which empowered them.
Let’s narrow our discussion of the judiciary to the United States Supreme Court for purposes of specificity—and to give proper credit to the extraordinary book dealing with that institution known as The Nine by Jeffrey Toobin.
David Souter provides an exceptional instance of the integrity which the judiciary branch does not demand, but enables. Souter was appointed to the Supreme Court by George H.W. Bush. According to Toobin, Bush was not particularly interested in the politics or strategy of such appointments. He simply wished to appoint an acceptable and competent justice to the Court—a Republican-leaning nominee, to be sure, but the rigor of his partisan stances was never tested. (This strikingly contrasts the younger Bush’s appointments of Roberts and Alito, which were, to differing degrees, a product of an informal vetting with Republican party’s social conservatives rather than the scrutiny of Congress. In this respect, the elder Bush deserves either credit for his integrity or blame for his political carelessness.)
Souter of course ended up being an extreme disappointment to conservatives. A sort of eccentric bachelor who despised the Washington political scene, Souter’s opinions on the Court were based on a consistent judicial philosophy that generally placed him in agreement with the Court’s liberals. Whether or not his judgments reflected his personal views on these issues, he provided a model for an ideal of jurisprudence in which the integrity of law and justice outweighs one’s personal stances. This isn’t to propose that Souter’s interpretation of Constitutional law is the ‘correct’ one—but only to suggest that he points toward an ideal of thoughtfulness and judicial conscience unencumbered by prejudice or personal willfulness. (Please note that I called this an ‘ideal’—and in this sense an objective never to be reached by Souter or anyone else. Alas, we are 丑耻尘补苍蝉…)
An object lesson in lack of judicial integrity—at least in Toobin’s reckoning—might be provided by the most famous (and now retired) Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day 翱’颁辞苍苍辞谤. 翱’颁辞苍苍辞谤 was the first female justice, appointed by Ronald Reagan, and as such she was the product of a very different brand of conservatism than holds sway today. Hers, more specifically, was a conservativism that did not yet despise intellectualism but was repelled by extremism (of politics and temperament). Wherever she is today, she is no doubt disgusted by the Tea Party movement, whose vulgarity and ignorance she would likely describe as ‘unattractive.’ (翱’颁辞苍苍辞谤 transformed politics into aesthetics: moderation, decorum, and intelligence were attractive; their opposites were certainly not.) This concern for propriety and the political golden mean frequently drew the scorn of right wing of the Supreme Court—particularly Antonin Scalia who, in his opinions for the courts, showed little restraint in voicing his contempt for her unprincipled stances. She was scarcely bothered by these rhetorical attacks in any lasting way though because 翱’颁辞苍苍辞谤, during most of her tenure, ruled the Court.
She was not the Chief Justice, but she was dead-center. Her opinion was often the deciding one in many hot-button cases—because, while she was a political conservative, this conservativism did not extend to all social issues. In other words, she—unlike, say, Scalia or Ginsburg—was persuadable. She also served as a barometer for public opinion in most cases. Whether she followed public opinion or was merely the product of it, she privately relished her position as the voice of the people. As previously noted, she found extremism of either stripe distasteful and undesirable. As a consequence, she found herself the moderate tie-breaker of the Court—a power which she also enjoyed and knowingly wielded.
Like Souter, therefore, 翱’颁辞苍苍辞谤 was often a disappointment to the Republican party. Over time, the Republican party had evolved (or devolved, as she would have likely put it), but her centrist views remained largely unchanged—or they changed only to the extent that the public’s did (which is to say, very slowly).
Many will credit 翱’颁辞苍苍辞谤 for representing popular opinions and values on the Court, but then again, her detractors might note, the Court wasn’t intended as representative body. It was the Court’s expressed purpose to check the powers of the elected officials and to keep their legislation in line with the Constitution, regardless of public sentiment. Thus, seeming to lack a coherent judicial philosophy and following a course of personal (and aesthetic) moderation, rationalized into legal principle, 翱’颁辞苍苍辞谤 lacked integrity and coherence as a Supreme Court Justice. Her part in the Bush-Gore election case, for example, was egregiously unprincipled, and Toobin covers this case in all its disgraceful detail in The Nine.
I don’t believe I’ve ever given a non-philosophical non-fiction book five stars. This is a first. Toobin’s book is the perfect integration of fluid, well-paced writing, personal insight, and a wealth of fascinating factual detail. Right-leaning readers will no doubt find this book biased, chiefly because of its scolding of the Court’s odious involvement in the Bush-Gore case, but his condemnation appears well-argued and reasonable (to these admittedly liberal eyes anyway). At any rate, his discussion certainly furthers the discussion of the role of the Supreme Court in our lives today.
Even after reading this book, I still believe that the judiciary is (by a long shot) the branch of government with the most integrity. And I am aware of how problematic this belief is, too. To suggest that an appointed rather than elected branch is superior in such an essential way makes me sound undemocratic, to be sure—but more alarmingly it doesn’t seem to bode well for the state of representative government today. This awareness makes me very uneasy, but I can’t quite shake the truth of it.
February 9, 2008
"This book is based principally on my interviews with the justices and more than seventy-five of their law clerks," author Jeffrey Toobin writes in his notes that close the book. "The interviews were on a not-for-attribution basis -- that is, I could use the information provided but without quoting directly or identifying the source."
If you read the book back-to-front -- like the apocryphal politicos who look for their names in the index before reading a book -- you'll see the problem with this book right away. You've got to trust Toobin as an author and a journalist in order to trust the book.
I started out trusting it, but somewhere around the time that he took on Bush v. Gore, my view started to change... this was a man with an agenda to push, and though it may make for entertaining reading, it doesn't inspire confidence when all of the sources are anonymous.
So I didn't finish this one. I bailed out at page 199, just before he began to profile Scalia. I'm no fan of Scalia's jurisprudence myself, but I am also loath to impugn the reputation of a sitting Justice... and I feared that was what Toobin was about to do.
I close my eyes during the scary parts of movies. I even close my eyes on Splash Mountain, for heaven's sake. So it comes as no surprise that when I smelled the vitriol that was about to come, I bailed out. Maybe it didn't come after all. But I wasn't sticking around to find out.
Modern journalism isn't well served by the preponderance of anonymous sources, all with an axe to grind, in our newspapers' front pages. I'm frankly surprised I got this deep into the book before questioning its methodology. And that, dear reader, is a testament to its entertainment value, at least for a while.
Soon after I shut the book for good, Super Tuesday came along and I saw Toobin on CNN, huffing and puffing along with all the other talking heads. It was then that I knew shutting the book was the right decision. The Supreme Court exists to live above the political. It's not always successful (cf. Bush v. Gore), but it's meant to. Having a political analyst analyze the Court is, in a way, missing the point.
If you read the book back-to-front -- like the apocryphal politicos who look for their names in the index before reading a book -- you'll see the problem with this book right away. You've got to trust Toobin as an author and a journalist in order to trust the book.
I started out trusting it, but somewhere around the time that he took on Bush v. Gore, my view started to change... this was a man with an agenda to push, and though it may make for entertaining reading, it doesn't inspire confidence when all of the sources are anonymous.
So I didn't finish this one. I bailed out at page 199, just before he began to profile Scalia. I'm no fan of Scalia's jurisprudence myself, but I am also loath to impugn the reputation of a sitting Justice... and I feared that was what Toobin was about to do.
I close my eyes during the scary parts of movies. I even close my eyes on Splash Mountain, for heaven's sake. So it comes as no surprise that when I smelled the vitriol that was about to come, I bailed out. Maybe it didn't come after all. But I wasn't sticking around to find out.
Modern journalism isn't well served by the preponderance of anonymous sources, all with an axe to grind, in our newspapers' front pages. I'm frankly surprised I got this deep into the book before questioning its methodology. And that, dear reader, is a testament to its entertainment value, at least for a while.
Soon after I shut the book for good, Super Tuesday came along and I saw Toobin on CNN, huffing and puffing along with all the other talking heads. It was then that I knew shutting the book was the right decision. The Supreme Court exists to live above the political. It's not always successful (cf. Bush v. Gore), but it's meant to. Having a political analyst analyze the Court is, in a way, missing the point.
April 27, 2016
This isn't The Brethren. That should be made clear from the start. Bob Woodward's book on the United State Supreme Court's 1969-75 terms is, in my mind, a classic. I've never read a better, more entertaining, more detailed book on the Supreme Court's inner workings. It also gives a glimpse of an interesting moment in legal history, as the progressive years of the Warren Court ended, and a gradual rightward shift began (despite, rather than because, of the incompetence of Warren Burger).
Jeffrey Toobin's The Nine clearly aspires to The Brethren, only during a different time period (it covers the Court from the Reagan administration to roughly present-day); however, it falls short.
I just can't put my finger on exactly why.
Toobin is a clear, accessible writer, so that you don't need to be a lawyer or law student to understand what's going on. His book is relatively short and brisk and it makes its points (the point being that it's politics).
Despite this, I was never fully engaged. Partially, this might be due to the fact that, despite the book's subtitle, there isn't much revealed here that is secret, at least if you pay a little bit of attention to the Court. Toobin makes a big deal about Sandra Day O'Connor's moderate instincts and her tendency to craft opinions that hewed to the prevailing political winds, if not the Constitution. O'Connor's role as the swing vote, though, was always clear. It's also no shocking secret to discover that Anthony Kennedy is a gaseous windbag. Anyone who's read his muddled, condescending, self-important opinions knows this without Toobin's insight (I think that Lawrence v. Texas is rightly decided for a variety of reasons, but Kennedy's "sweet mysteries of life" reasoning is a shaky foundation on which to rest such a seminal case).
Still, for anyone unfamiliar with the Supreme Court, this is as good a place as any to start. I say this because it's not polemical by any means. This book has been accused of having a liberal-tilt, but I'm not seeing it. There are certain people who see bias everywhere, usually when they don't read exactly what they're thinking. According to some reviews, The Nine might as well have been written by Trostky. To which I mutter a wearied whatever.
On the whole, Toobin is even-handed in his criticism. His description of former Chief Justice Rehnquist as bitter and inconsistent (which was true, by the way) is no harsher than that of Stephen Breyer, who comes across as self-deluded as to his own abilities.
The only place Toobin really takes a stand is on Bush v. Gore, which he thought was a mess. And it was. The whole situation was a mess, and the fact the Supreme Court waded into it virtually guaranteed a never-ending controversy. Had they instead hewn to their self-imposed doctrine of avoiding political questions, and let things take their course, things would have been a whole lot better. Of course, that will convince no one, since a person's reaction to Bush v. Gore is perfectly correlated to their political identification.
The book ends with a weak call that the we deserve a better Court.
This conclusion sort of sums up my reaction. There is nothing inherently wrong or false; it's just flaccid. It wasn't that I was looking for something that took a stronger stand, right or left, it's just that I was looking for something with a little more vigor, or failing that, a little more humanity, which is what made The Brethren so unforgettable.
Jeffrey Toobin's The Nine clearly aspires to The Brethren, only during a different time period (it covers the Court from the Reagan administration to roughly present-day); however, it falls short.
I just can't put my finger on exactly why.
Toobin is a clear, accessible writer, so that you don't need to be a lawyer or law student to understand what's going on. His book is relatively short and brisk and it makes its points (the point being that it's politics).
Despite this, I was never fully engaged. Partially, this might be due to the fact that, despite the book's subtitle, there isn't much revealed here that is secret, at least if you pay a little bit of attention to the Court. Toobin makes a big deal about Sandra Day O'Connor's moderate instincts and her tendency to craft opinions that hewed to the prevailing political winds, if not the Constitution. O'Connor's role as the swing vote, though, was always clear. It's also no shocking secret to discover that Anthony Kennedy is a gaseous windbag. Anyone who's read his muddled, condescending, self-important opinions knows this without Toobin's insight (I think that Lawrence v. Texas is rightly decided for a variety of reasons, but Kennedy's "sweet mysteries of life" reasoning is a shaky foundation on which to rest such a seminal case).
Still, for anyone unfamiliar with the Supreme Court, this is as good a place as any to start. I say this because it's not polemical by any means. This book has been accused of having a liberal-tilt, but I'm not seeing it. There are certain people who see bias everywhere, usually when they don't read exactly what they're thinking. According to some reviews, The Nine might as well have been written by Trostky. To which I mutter a wearied whatever.
On the whole, Toobin is even-handed in his criticism. His description of former Chief Justice Rehnquist as bitter and inconsistent (which was true, by the way) is no harsher than that of Stephen Breyer, who comes across as self-deluded as to his own abilities.
The only place Toobin really takes a stand is on Bush v. Gore, which he thought was a mess. And it was. The whole situation was a mess, and the fact the Supreme Court waded into it virtually guaranteed a never-ending controversy. Had they instead hewn to their self-imposed doctrine of avoiding political questions, and let things take their course, things would have been a whole lot better. Of course, that will convince no one, since a person's reaction to Bush v. Gore is perfectly correlated to their political identification.
The book ends with a weak call that the we deserve a better Court.
Cass Gilbert's steps represent at some level a magnificent illusion - that the Supreme Court operates at a higher plane than the mortals who toil on the ground. But the Court is a product of a democracy and represents, with sometimes chilling precision, the best and worst of people. We can expect nothing more, and nothing less, than the Court we deserve.
This conclusion sort of sums up my reaction. There is nothing inherently wrong or false; it's just flaccid. It wasn't that I was looking for something that took a stronger stand, right or left, it's just that I was looking for something with a little more vigor, or failing that, a little more humanity, which is what made The Brethren so unforgettable.
October 2, 2008
3.5 stars. This book is really about the political trajectory of the Supreme Court over the past 30 years. Toobin seeks to show a gradual, unlikely shift leftward over the years of the Rehnquist Court (followed by a striking and uncharacteristically - for the institution - speedy swing back to the right since the Roberts and Alito confirmations).
Not exactly a work of rigorous scholarship, so don't read it if you want a primer on important cases (though Toobin does a good job describing, in plain English, most of the issues at stake). But it's diligently researched - obvious from the volume of material on the justices' personal lives and the many accounts of exchanges at oral arguments - and if Toobin's agenda is a bit obvious, his thorough profiles of the lead actors are wonderful, fair and rare.
I agree with reviewers who take issue with Toobin's seeming worship of Sandra Day O'Connor. At the risk of oversimplifying, I'd say he credits her swing vote for just about every 5-4 decision when he agrees with the outcome, while letting her off the hook when she swings the wrong way.
His coverage of Bush v. Gore is pretty good; he shows, I think adequately, that the Court's intervention in the Florida recount was a low in its history, not because of the outcome, but because it injected itself into a political drama that did not require or deserve its intervention. He rightly points out that the Court prides itself on moving slowly and staying above the political fray, but that in this case, it was so eager to jump into the debacle as to be unseemly, not to mention that events were moving too quickly for the Court even to keep up. One comes away feeling as embarrassed for the Court as angry.
The book is very readable. Toobin, notwithstanding his tendency to break paragraphs in odd places, is a good writer. I most enjoyed the anecdotes about the justices themselves. Things you may not know:
- Clarence Thomas is universally adored on a personal level. From justices to cafeteria workers, he is kind to everyone in the building.
- Ruth Bader Ginsburg's and Antonin Scalia's families celebrate every New Year together.
- David Souter, once mistaken for Stephen Breyer by a stranger, was asked what the best thing was about serving on the Supreme Court, and responded: "The privilege of serving with David Souter."
- William Rehnquist ran all the betting pools at the Court.
- There is a basketball court on one of the upper floors of the Supreme Court building. It is known as "the highest court in the land."
Not exactly a work of rigorous scholarship, so don't read it if you want a primer on important cases (though Toobin does a good job describing, in plain English, most of the issues at stake). But it's diligently researched - obvious from the volume of material on the justices' personal lives and the many accounts of exchanges at oral arguments - and if Toobin's agenda is a bit obvious, his thorough profiles of the lead actors are wonderful, fair and rare.
I agree with reviewers who take issue with Toobin's seeming worship of Sandra Day O'Connor. At the risk of oversimplifying, I'd say he credits her swing vote for just about every 5-4 decision when he agrees with the outcome, while letting her off the hook when she swings the wrong way.
His coverage of Bush v. Gore is pretty good; he shows, I think adequately, that the Court's intervention in the Florida recount was a low in its history, not because of the outcome, but because it injected itself into a political drama that did not require or deserve its intervention. He rightly points out that the Court prides itself on moving slowly and staying above the political fray, but that in this case, it was so eager to jump into the debacle as to be unseemly, not to mention that events were moving too quickly for the Court even to keep up. One comes away feeling as embarrassed for the Court as angry.
The book is very readable. Toobin, notwithstanding his tendency to break paragraphs in odd places, is a good writer. I most enjoyed the anecdotes about the justices themselves. Things you may not know:
- Clarence Thomas is universally adored on a personal level. From justices to cafeteria workers, he is kind to everyone in the building.
- Ruth Bader Ginsburg's and Antonin Scalia's families celebrate every New Year together.
- David Souter, once mistaken for Stephen Breyer by a stranger, was asked what the best thing was about serving on the Supreme Court, and responded: "The privilege of serving with David Souter."
- William Rehnquist ran all the betting pools at the Court.
- There is a basketball court on one of the upper floors of the Supreme Court building. It is known as "the highest court in the land."
June 1, 2012
In law school I had one of the most sadistic, demanding and universally feared professors in the entire school for Constitutional Law, which is probably the most important class in law school. The first day of class he called me an idiot and told me I didn’t know how to read. For the next few weeks of the semester, he regularly berated me for my ignorance and ineptitude (which in retrospect, I fully deserved), but I got off easy (he stopped abusing me after a few weeks once I adapted my schoolwork schedule to focusing only on his class; also it’s worth pointing out that he even called one of my classmates FAT and regularly told people they were so stupid they were probably going to fail the class/out of school). Needless to say, I came to dread going to class and even went through great lengths to manufacture illnesses in order to justify my absence. To be honest, I only skipped his class once or twice the entire semester, because despite the stress of being on the receiving end of his abuse, and the accompanying “heart palpitations,” I actually got a lot out of the class and later came to enjoy it (perhaps because I too, am a sadist, and received a perverse sense of pleasure in seeing the little shits in my class squirm). Regardless of the intimidation factor, Professor Higgins was exactly how I imagined all law professors would be, no doubt informed by the The Paper Chase. My school turned out to be more like Legally Blonde.*
In any case, Con. Law grew on me; in part out of necessity and self-preservation, but also because I found the justices fascinating. Professor Higgins focused a lot on the individual judicial philosophy of the justices and I came to know and love the writing styles and kinks of each of them. Scalia’s brilliant, but a sanctimonious asshat, 翱’颁辞苍苍辞谤 effectively legislated from the bench, Kennedy is melodramatic, and Justice Stevens - my favorite - was perhaps the most idiosyncratic Supreme Court Justice in history; he began his career as a moderate conservative, and sometime during his tenure on SCOTUS an ideological shift occurred** within the court in which he became the head of the liberal bloc. He almost never joined the majority opinion, but rather preferred to either write a concurring opinion with his own rationale for the ruling, or often dissented.
Toobin goes into this a bit in The Nine, although his focus is primarily on how highly politicized SCOTUS has become. Justices are selected based on how they stand on Roe v Wade, rather than mere erudition, or professional merit. (To be fair, the Constitution is silent as to what criteria the President is to apply in selection process.) Toobin also focuses heavily on Justice Sandra Day 翱’颁辞苍苍辞谤 and the considerable power she possessed as a moderate conservative and as the “swing vote” of the court. Toobin champions 翱’颁辞苍苍辞谤’s policy-based judicial philosophy of centrism - she was carefully attuned to what would be acceptable to the general public, and always careful to not push the envelope. Her focus was on the practical application of their decisions, rather than interpreting the Constitution in a vacuum like her more abstract colleagues, such as Scalia and Thomas.
Although Toobin is appropriately critical of the shift towards the political when it comes to the selection process, he seems to advocate for it when applied to the decision-making processes of the justices (at least when it came to Justice 翱’颁辞苍苍辞谤, whom he focused on heavily, and made no secret of his reverence for her). Toobin should have paid equal attention to some of the more apolitical (and interesting) justices like Souter or Stevens, by way of contrast. Furthermore, Toobin’s account is in no way objective. Despite my own leftist proclivities, I would have preferred a more nonpartisan portrayal of SCOTUS, but I suppose it isn’t really fair to set that expectation when even the justices themselves aren’t capable of being completely detached from their own ideologies, nor are they required to be.
Despite the above referenced criticisms, this was a great, light read. Toobin writes about the legal complexities of the issues before the court in a way that is easily digestible and accessible, never pedantic, and even fun to read. He also includes gossipy tidbits about the justices, which adds to the entertainment factor, as well as humanizing these somewhat abstract figures. (Come on, show me a lawyer that doesn’t love to gossip. I dare you.)
In closing, I wish I had read this before I started law school. I think it would have given me a great, general perspective on SCOTUS and some of the contemporary justices. Also it could have provided me some much needed fodder for discussion in class to impress Higgins! Prof. Higgins was a strange guy; runty and belligerent, he often decried the evils of milk (please refer to the aforementioned fat phobia), and was a bit touchy feely outside of class. But to this day, I know all of those SCOTUS cases pretty well - I can’t say the same about any of the cases I read for say, Property (except for that one about the fox hunt: “first in time, first in right!”). Prof. Higgins retired after my second year of law school; he used to always complain that he should be retired and drinking champagne cocktails on the French Riviera instead of stuck teaching Constitutional Law to a bunch of thankless cretins. I hope he ended up there.
For a much more detailed, substantive review of The Nine, please refer to this one:
*caveat: I haven’t actually seen more than 10 minutes of Legally Blonde.
** in part because of Stevens’ own evolving ideology, or in part because of how far to the right the court had shifted since Stevens’ appointment in 1975.
In any case, Con. Law grew on me; in part out of necessity and self-preservation, but also because I found the justices fascinating. Professor Higgins focused a lot on the individual judicial philosophy of the justices and I came to know and love the writing styles and kinks of each of them. Scalia’s brilliant, but a sanctimonious asshat, 翱’颁辞苍苍辞谤 effectively legislated from the bench, Kennedy is melodramatic, and Justice Stevens - my favorite - was perhaps the most idiosyncratic Supreme Court Justice in history; he began his career as a moderate conservative, and sometime during his tenure on SCOTUS an ideological shift occurred** within the court in which he became the head of the liberal bloc. He almost never joined the majority opinion, but rather preferred to either write a concurring opinion with his own rationale for the ruling, or often dissented.
Toobin goes into this a bit in The Nine, although his focus is primarily on how highly politicized SCOTUS has become. Justices are selected based on how they stand on Roe v Wade, rather than mere erudition, or professional merit. (To be fair, the Constitution is silent as to what criteria the President is to apply in selection process.) Toobin also focuses heavily on Justice Sandra Day 翱’颁辞苍苍辞谤 and the considerable power she possessed as a moderate conservative and as the “swing vote” of the court. Toobin champions 翱’颁辞苍苍辞谤’s policy-based judicial philosophy of centrism - she was carefully attuned to what would be acceptable to the general public, and always careful to not push the envelope. Her focus was on the practical application of their decisions, rather than interpreting the Constitution in a vacuum like her more abstract colleagues, such as Scalia and Thomas.
Although Toobin is appropriately critical of the shift towards the political when it comes to the selection process, he seems to advocate for it when applied to the decision-making processes of the justices (at least when it came to Justice 翱’颁辞苍苍辞谤, whom he focused on heavily, and made no secret of his reverence for her). Toobin should have paid equal attention to some of the more apolitical (and interesting) justices like Souter or Stevens, by way of contrast. Furthermore, Toobin’s account is in no way objective. Despite my own leftist proclivities, I would have preferred a more nonpartisan portrayal of SCOTUS, but I suppose it isn’t really fair to set that expectation when even the justices themselves aren’t capable of being completely detached from their own ideologies, nor are they required to be.
Despite the above referenced criticisms, this was a great, light read. Toobin writes about the legal complexities of the issues before the court in a way that is easily digestible and accessible, never pedantic, and even fun to read. He also includes gossipy tidbits about the justices, which adds to the entertainment factor, as well as humanizing these somewhat abstract figures. (Come on, show me a lawyer that doesn’t love to gossip. I dare you.)
In closing, I wish I had read this before I started law school. I think it would have given me a great, general perspective on SCOTUS and some of the contemporary justices. Also it could have provided me some much needed fodder for discussion in class to impress Higgins! Prof. Higgins was a strange guy; runty and belligerent, he often decried the evils of milk (please refer to the aforementioned fat phobia), and was a bit touchy feely outside of class. But to this day, I know all of those SCOTUS cases pretty well - I can’t say the same about any of the cases I read for say, Property (except for that one about the fox hunt: “first in time, first in right!”). Prof. Higgins retired after my second year of law school; he used to always complain that he should be retired and drinking champagne cocktails on the French Riviera instead of stuck teaching Constitutional Law to a bunch of thankless cretins. I hope he ended up there.
For a much more detailed, substantive review of The Nine, please refer to this one:
*caveat: I haven’t actually seen more than 10 minutes of Legally Blonde.
** in part because of Stevens’ own evolving ideology, or in part because of how far to the right the court had shifted since Stevens’ appointment in 1975.
October 19, 2021
3.5 rounded down.
I adored RBG; the woman and the judge. When I'd see her sitting in those photos of the nine justices my first thought was what a mighty person in a small package she was, and then I wanted to slip her a booster seat. While she was physically diminutive, she was a powerhouse on behalf of women. I respected and admired her. But I knew little of the other people who have served on our Supreme Court.
I've seen the occasional verbal fisticuffs during confirmation hearings, I've watched more closely during the last two selections because...you know....Trump. I've scratched my head when folks scream about "conservative" or "liberal" judges, because...you know...the justices are supposed to be non-political, non-partisan...those scale balancers representing ultimate unbiased justice for all. I watch new nominees refuse to answer questions about how they might feel about certain issues or how they might decide on contentious topics, or dance around the questions like professional cha-cha dancers. I've seen both sides try to thwart nominations due to their belief the person wouldn't do their bidding. Like, duh? Isn't that what separation of powers means? So I was curious and checked out this read.
Forehead slap. Head drop.
This book details a number of nomination processes, the candidates chosen and their backgrounds, a number of hot-button issues that came before the court for several decades and how the justices came to different conclusions despite looking at the same laws and the same constitution. It takes us on the teeter-totter bounces between "liberal" and "conservative" over the years, and the nature of decisions versus dissenting opinions. It fleshes out the humans under the robes; humans who cannot always separate their DNA and life views from their job responsibilities. Oy vey.
The history here is pretty fascinating, and the book is well written enough, even if a bit "dry". One has to take at face value that the information is accurate, as sources are not cited or revealed. It was interesting to hear a more thorough take on the bits and pieces of history that I've lived through and knew partially. It is discouraging to consider that the one branch of government I credited with truly looking out for the average American citizen might not be as unbiased as I'd hoped.
I adored RBG; the woman and the judge. When I'd see her sitting in those photos of the nine justices my first thought was what a mighty person in a small package she was, and then I wanted to slip her a booster seat. While she was physically diminutive, she was a powerhouse on behalf of women. I respected and admired her. But I knew little of the other people who have served on our Supreme Court.
I've seen the occasional verbal fisticuffs during confirmation hearings, I've watched more closely during the last two selections because...you know....Trump. I've scratched my head when folks scream about "conservative" or "liberal" judges, because...you know...the justices are supposed to be non-political, non-partisan...those scale balancers representing ultimate unbiased justice for all. I watch new nominees refuse to answer questions about how they might feel about certain issues or how they might decide on contentious topics, or dance around the questions like professional cha-cha dancers. I've seen both sides try to thwart nominations due to their belief the person wouldn't do their bidding. Like, duh? Isn't that what separation of powers means? So I was curious and checked out this read.
Forehead slap. Head drop.
This book details a number of nomination processes, the candidates chosen and their backgrounds, a number of hot-button issues that came before the court for several decades and how the justices came to different conclusions despite looking at the same laws and the same constitution. It takes us on the teeter-totter bounces between "liberal" and "conservative" over the years, and the nature of decisions versus dissenting opinions. It fleshes out the humans under the robes; humans who cannot always separate their DNA and life views from their job responsibilities. Oy vey.
The history here is pretty fascinating, and the book is well written enough, even if a bit "dry". One has to take at face value that the information is accurate, as sources are not cited or revealed. It was interesting to hear a more thorough take on the bits and pieces of history that I've lived through and knew partially. It is discouraging to consider that the one branch of government I credited with truly looking out for the average American citizen might not be as unbiased as I'd hoped.
March 12, 2018
I cannot believe I waited to read this book until now. I thought I knew what it was about and that I didn't need this brick in my building of knowledge. I was wrong. This book is exquisite. It is so well written and is such an interesting and important account of US law and politics over the last several decades. A few thoughts:
1. It is amazing how much certain peoples' insecurities and temperaments end up changing the course of history. I am not a believer in the "great man" (or woman) theory of history--I tend to think that there are people that a certain movement or a time chooses instead of people who make things happen. But in the case of the supreme court, the individuals and the culture each created on the Court really did affect the time.
2. I cannot believe that three decades of judicial choices and jurisprudence centered around the law of abortion--like our nation's political branches most wanted to tell women that they had to take their babies to term. But I wonder too if this is right. I do think that there are some true believers who believe abortion is murder, but are there not others who sell this line of thinking to their base but what they really want from their judges are decisions that are proc corporation and anti-integration? I wonder.
3. I know we all miss George Bush, but this book reminded me how crazy that administration was. Especially on the Guantanamo stuff (but then again Obama wasn't exactly the pillar of due process for prisoners either).
4. The whole time I was reading I kept thinking how desperately I wanted an update to this book. It's so much worse now. He doesn't even get to Citizens United and the Garland debacle and Gorsuch. Ugh, please Toobin write an update.
1. It is amazing how much certain peoples' insecurities and temperaments end up changing the course of history. I am not a believer in the "great man" (or woman) theory of history--I tend to think that there are people that a certain movement or a time chooses instead of people who make things happen. But in the case of the supreme court, the individuals and the culture each created on the Court really did affect the time.
2. I cannot believe that three decades of judicial choices and jurisprudence centered around the law of abortion--like our nation's political branches most wanted to tell women that they had to take their babies to term. But I wonder too if this is right. I do think that there are some true believers who believe abortion is murder, but are there not others who sell this line of thinking to their base but what they really want from their judges are decisions that are proc corporation and anti-integration? I wonder.
3. I know we all miss George Bush, but this book reminded me how crazy that administration was. Especially on the Guantanamo stuff (but then again Obama wasn't exactly the pillar of due process for prisoners either).
4. The whole time I was reading I kept thinking how desperately I wanted an update to this book. It's so much worse now. He doesn't even get to Citizens United and the Garland debacle and Gorsuch. Ugh, please Toobin write an update.
August 1, 2008
The author discusses the Court from about 1980 to 2007. He wants to show how politics influences the rulings of the Court, but while reading the book I was struck by the degree to which politics had influenced his writing. He wears his bias on his sleeve, which makes this book a less than reliable source of Court information. He portrays the justices with whom he disagrees as petty, rude ideologues, while portraying the justices with whom he agrees as compassionate, intelligent, and most importantly correct, jurists. Many times I found his treatment of justices and their views so unequal as to be comical. He didn't even describe the judicial philosophies (i.e., how a judge interprets the law) of his "enemies" correctly! Some of the ways he explained legal decisions, opinions, and arguments were disingenuous at best and downright deceitful at worse. Apparently Toobin doesn't believe that reasonable people can reach different conclusions. If you want a good, objective book about the Court look elsewhere. If you want biased rhetoric in writing, this book is for you.
August 25, 2019
I really enjoyed this book about the history of the members of the Supreme Court, the politics surrounding them, and the major decisions. The only reason this not a five star review is that the author is clearly very liberal and his bias is obvious. As someone who is very liberal, even I know was bothered by this bias at times.
Still, I highly recommend this to anyone interested in the Supreme Court.
Still, I highly recommend this to anyone interested in the Supreme Court.
July 21, 2024
I remember only two things about listening, at the end of 2008, to this incredible book, The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court . Well, maybe three things. One is that it introduced me to the author, Jeffrey Toobin, whom I've paid attention to ever since. Second is that I was surprised how much I enjoyed it, learning so much about the Supreme Court, the decisions, the arguments, the direction of liberal to conservative and so much more. Of course, much of what I learned is lost to me, along with so much other acquired knowledge which, though once at the tip of my tongue, becomes inaccessible as it gets tucked away into one of the crevices in my brain, perhaps never to be extricated, but always to be appreciated. The third thing I remember is that sometime after reading the book, I was in the car with my husband and my sister having one of the most heated, yet intelligent conversations initiated by the book. Unfortunately, the content of that conversation is part of what is cloistered away in my brain.
A New York Times review of the book said, "“The Nine” is engaging, erudite, candid and accessible, often hard to put down", in my case turn off. The main point is that this very long book (480 pages)
about a very important and not always understood part of our government was so accessible that I had no problem following it. Toobin is a story teller and he uses this skill to great affect in The Nine. In the hands of another, this book could have been more of a tome, scholarly, important but inaccessible. It is scholarly and certainly important, but it's more than approachable, it's entertaining. Though the court has changed substantially since Toobin wrote this book (2008), I think the substance of it remains relevant. It certainly remains readable and a very good story.
A New York Times review of the book said, "“The Nine” is engaging, erudite, candid and accessible, often hard to put down", in my case turn off. The main point is that this very long book (480 pages)
about a very important and not always understood part of our government was so accessible that I had no problem following it. Toobin is a story teller and he uses this skill to great affect in The Nine. In the hands of another, this book could have been more of a tome, scholarly, important but inaccessible. It is scholarly and certainly important, but it's more than approachable, it's entertaining. Though the court has changed substantially since Toobin wrote this book (2008), I think the substance of it remains relevant. It certainly remains readable and a very good story.
April 3, 2017
Amazingly detailed and well-researched, I'd be surprised if any account of the Supreme Court could outdo this one (I have two from the library, so we shall see). Better than The Secret Lives of the Supreme Court but also has a different purpose and voice, so it might be unfair to compare them.
Adding to my list of the justices in that review, here's some more fun facts (mostly just for me to keep them straight in my head):
White: nicknamed Whizzer (he hated it). Gruff conservative, but sometimes liberal concerning race; strangely, appointed by Kennedy.
Powell: discussing the Bowers v. Hardwick case, said to his law clerk, “You know, I don’t believe I’ve ever met a homosexual.” The law clerk replied that wasn’t very likely (the law clerk himself was gay, and Powell had met his partner before; apparently Powell thought they were roommates).
Rehnquist: Hated the Miranda decision.
翱’颁辞苍苍辞谤: My professor likes to say that 翱’颁辞苍苍辞谤 doesn’t care what you do, whether individual or government, as long as you keep it quiet and don’t publicize it and smile politely. Gay? Fine, enjoy your gay sex, just don’t talk about it. Racist? We’re okay with that too, as long as you have a believable pretext that covers up why you really do what you do. Just be polite about it. Her very best friend was Breyer (closer than any other two justices). They were both practical, non-neurotic, not extreme, and took many trips together. Tough on crime, supporter of the death penalty, and big on states’ rights. However, pro-choice (ish), pro-gay (ish). Moderate on race. Powell was her mentor. Republican, but hated the way it moved during the Bush administration and pretty much rejected the party.
Souter: serious dark horse, nobody had ever heard of him before he became justice. His whole life was being a judge, and Bush v. Gore just shattered him and his idea of justice and fairness. He almost resigned because of the partisan actions of his colleagues. Sometimes thinking about it made him weep. Loathed Washington, D.C. Well-loved by his colleagues. Ginsburg liked him because unlike everyone else, the two of them were never assholes to the majority when writing dissents. 翱’颁辞苍苍辞谤 kept trying to get him married off.
Kennedy: a Romantic in the German sense with high-flying language and this sacred idea of women as Madonna-like. After Bush v. Gore (he voted to stop the recount aka got Bush elected), he changed a lot and became more globally-minded, got way more liberal (though he was always a huge fan of travelling).
Thomas: NASCAR and Dallas Cowboys fan, sigh. Does not give a flying fuck about stare decisis. Raging originalist. When Scalia was asked to compare his judicial philosophy with Thomas’s, he said “I am an originalist, but I am not a nut.” Which speaks volumes. But he was a really nice guy generally, sweet to law clerks, and he was close friends with Breyer, in spite of their different opinions. They’d whisper and pass notes and cackle together during arguments. Hated Yale (even though he went there) and thought everyone was out to get him.
Ginsburg: She was appointed two weeks before I was born, so I’ve never known a Ginsburg-less court. The book makes this comparison: what Thurgood Marshall did for racial civil rights, Ginsburg did for women’s rights. TRUE. And two of my very favourite justices.
Breyer: almost got appointed to Ginsburg’s spot, but Clinton thought he seemed heartless (dude was in a massive biking accident before their meeting, so he can be forgiven his lack of pep). Actually a super chipper, friendly, sweet guy. He hates conflict. Best, best friends with 翱’颁辞苍苍辞谤.
Adding to my list of the justices in that review, here's some more fun facts (mostly just for me to keep them straight in my head):
White: nicknamed Whizzer (he hated it). Gruff conservative, but sometimes liberal concerning race; strangely, appointed by Kennedy.
Powell: discussing the Bowers v. Hardwick case, said to his law clerk, “You know, I don’t believe I’ve ever met a homosexual.” The law clerk replied that wasn’t very likely (the law clerk himself was gay, and Powell had met his partner before; apparently Powell thought they were roommates).
Rehnquist: Hated the Miranda decision.
翱’颁辞苍苍辞谤: My professor likes to say that 翱’颁辞苍苍辞谤 doesn’t care what you do, whether individual or government, as long as you keep it quiet and don’t publicize it and smile politely. Gay? Fine, enjoy your gay sex, just don’t talk about it. Racist? We’re okay with that too, as long as you have a believable pretext that covers up why you really do what you do. Just be polite about it. Her very best friend was Breyer (closer than any other two justices). They were both practical, non-neurotic, not extreme, and took many trips together. Tough on crime, supporter of the death penalty, and big on states’ rights. However, pro-choice (ish), pro-gay (ish). Moderate on race. Powell was her mentor. Republican, but hated the way it moved during the Bush administration and pretty much rejected the party.
Souter: serious dark horse, nobody had ever heard of him before he became justice. His whole life was being a judge, and Bush v. Gore just shattered him and his idea of justice and fairness. He almost resigned because of the partisan actions of his colleagues. Sometimes thinking about it made him weep. Loathed Washington, D.C. Well-loved by his colleagues. Ginsburg liked him because unlike everyone else, the two of them were never assholes to the majority when writing dissents. 翱’颁辞苍苍辞谤 kept trying to get him married off.
Kennedy: a Romantic in the German sense with high-flying language and this sacred idea of women as Madonna-like. After Bush v. Gore (he voted to stop the recount aka got Bush elected), he changed a lot and became more globally-minded, got way more liberal (though he was always a huge fan of travelling).
Thomas: NASCAR and Dallas Cowboys fan, sigh. Does not give a flying fuck about stare decisis. Raging originalist. When Scalia was asked to compare his judicial philosophy with Thomas’s, he said “I am an originalist, but I am not a nut.” Which speaks volumes. But he was a really nice guy generally, sweet to law clerks, and he was close friends with Breyer, in spite of their different opinions. They’d whisper and pass notes and cackle together during arguments. Hated Yale (even though he went there) and thought everyone was out to get him.
Ginsburg: She was appointed two weeks before I was born, so I’ve never known a Ginsburg-less court. The book makes this comparison: what Thurgood Marshall did for racial civil rights, Ginsburg did for women’s rights. TRUE. And two of my very favourite justices.
Breyer: almost got appointed to Ginsburg’s spot, but Clinton thought he seemed heartless (dude was in a massive biking accident before their meeting, so he can be forgiven his lack of pep). Actually a super chipper, friendly, sweet guy. He hates conflict. Best, best friends with 翱’颁辞苍苍辞谤.
August 29, 2008
In the past, whenever I have gotten sick or scared about the direction of politics in this country, I have comforted myself with the idea that our governmental balance of power mediates abrupt shifts to the right (I am not worried about abrupt shifts to the left, as the country is generally too far to right already). I didn’t have hope in the Supreme Court, but I did have faith in their moderating effect on law and society.
That was until the presidential election of 2000. I was disgusted by a strongly pro-state-rights court blatantly turning against their own principles and voting for federalist intervention. At that point I lost all hope in the system.
So, I recently read The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court by Jeffrey Toobin, in order to understand what happened and what was happening to the highest court in the land.
The Rehnquist court saw no changes in personnel for 11 years. This is the longest period for justices to work together in the history of the Supreme Court. In that time, Sandra Day 翱’颁辞苍苍辞谤 became the mediating voice. And while she was politically to the right of me, she had a solid thumb on the pulse of American politics. She consistently and thoughtfully voted the voice of the American people. This was correct and just. However, even she lost her head in Gore v. Bush.
This is what Toobin had to say about Gore v. Bush.
Random Chance—a freakishly close vote in the single decisive state—gave the Supreme Court the chance to resolve the 2000 presidential election. The character of the justices themselves turned that opportunity into one of the lowest moments in the Court’s history. The struggle following the election of 2000 took thirty-six days, and the Court was directly involved for twenty-one of them. Yet over this brief period, the justices displayed all of their worst traits—among them vanity, overconfidence, impatience, arrogance, and simple political partisanship. These three weeks taint an otherwise largely admirable legacy. The justices did almost everything wrong. They embarrassed themselves and the Supreme Court. –p.141.
This book was published last year, and that quote was only halfway through. He goes on to describe how that case affected the court. It, in fact, caused it to move to the left. An interesting and refreshing phenomenon (I always value people learning from their mistakes).
That of course, was before 翱’颁辞苍苍辞谤 quit and Rehnquist died. Now all bets are off. The religious right who has been loudly crying foul on ‘Activist Judges” have won in their attempts to place activist judges on the Supreme Court. With George Bush’s two appointments, the Highest Court in the land has taken a decided jump to the right.
I am saddened by this happening in my lifetime. However, I recognize that such phenomena move in waves with lag times. This court is to the right of center. I think (I hope, I pray, I dance) that the country is on a move to the left. The court will be out of step with American sentiment, but the sentiment will eventually catch up as more liberal presidents select more liberal judges.
While I no longer have faith in our Supreme Court, I do have faith in our fundamental system of government. If we can overthrow the “Corporatacracy” that has developed, then we can be ‘the people’ again.
I just don’t know. I don’t think it looks good for my lifetime.
This book was a long, arduous but fruitful read for me. Now that I am finished, I will be able to spend my van ride writing instead of reading.
That was until the presidential election of 2000. I was disgusted by a strongly pro-state-rights court blatantly turning against their own principles and voting for federalist intervention. At that point I lost all hope in the system.
So, I recently read The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court by Jeffrey Toobin, in order to understand what happened and what was happening to the highest court in the land.
The Rehnquist court saw no changes in personnel for 11 years. This is the longest period for justices to work together in the history of the Supreme Court. In that time, Sandra Day 翱’颁辞苍苍辞谤 became the mediating voice. And while she was politically to the right of me, she had a solid thumb on the pulse of American politics. She consistently and thoughtfully voted the voice of the American people. This was correct and just. However, even she lost her head in Gore v. Bush.
This is what Toobin had to say about Gore v. Bush.
Random Chance—a freakishly close vote in the single decisive state—gave the Supreme Court the chance to resolve the 2000 presidential election. The character of the justices themselves turned that opportunity into one of the lowest moments in the Court’s history. The struggle following the election of 2000 took thirty-six days, and the Court was directly involved for twenty-one of them. Yet over this brief period, the justices displayed all of their worst traits—among them vanity, overconfidence, impatience, arrogance, and simple political partisanship. These three weeks taint an otherwise largely admirable legacy. The justices did almost everything wrong. They embarrassed themselves and the Supreme Court. –p.141.
This book was published last year, and that quote was only halfway through. He goes on to describe how that case affected the court. It, in fact, caused it to move to the left. An interesting and refreshing phenomenon (I always value people learning from their mistakes).
That of course, was before 翱’颁辞苍苍辞谤 quit and Rehnquist died. Now all bets are off. The religious right who has been loudly crying foul on ‘Activist Judges” have won in their attempts to place activist judges on the Supreme Court. With George Bush’s two appointments, the Highest Court in the land has taken a decided jump to the right.
I am saddened by this happening in my lifetime. However, I recognize that such phenomena move in waves with lag times. This court is to the right of center. I think (I hope, I pray, I dance) that the country is on a move to the left. The court will be out of step with American sentiment, but the sentiment will eventually catch up as more liberal presidents select more liberal judges.
While I no longer have faith in our Supreme Court, I do have faith in our fundamental system of government. If we can overthrow the “Corporatacracy” that has developed, then we can be ‘the people’ again.
I just don’t know. I don’t think it looks good for my lifetime.
This book was a long, arduous but fruitful read for me. Now that I am finished, I will be able to spend my van ride writing instead of reading.
December 2, 2012
You've got to love book group and you have to doubly love a non-fiction book group. If not for this group of wonderful people I might never have read The Nine. And I meant THE NINE... I'm mediocre when it comes to following our government. I'm not the worse when it comes to current events but I knew my reading group had it all over me. All the more fun as they had the background and could fill in questions that came up.
What I liked about The Nine was the way Jeffrey Toobin gave us snapshots of many of the associate justices and fuller portraits of some including a good fleshing out of Sandra Day O'Connor and her importance in often being the swing vote. I learned enough about the workings of the Supreme Court, the cases they've heard, and the role of their law clerks. It was interesting to see political and power shifts through the years and to also to consider what changes might be forthcoming if President Obama gets to nominate another justice. I was surprised to learn that the justices each have their own offices and rarely visit one another, either at the court or socially.
The group as a whole felt the statement that who gets to be one of these nine comes to down to politics, pure and simple. We all felt Toobin is a good writer and had an excellent handle on his subject.
I think I'd like to read something else he has written, perhaps his newest book,The Oath: The Obama White House and the Supreme Court. I'd also like to read another author's take on The Court to have a comparison of opinion.
What I liked about The Nine was the way Jeffrey Toobin gave us snapshots of many of the associate justices and fuller portraits of some including a good fleshing out of Sandra Day O'Connor and her importance in often being the swing vote. I learned enough about the workings of the Supreme Court, the cases they've heard, and the role of their law clerks. It was interesting to see political and power shifts through the years and to also to consider what changes might be forthcoming if President Obama gets to nominate another justice. I was surprised to learn that the justices each have their own offices and rarely visit one another, either at the court or socially.
The group as a whole felt the statement that who gets to be one of these nine comes to down to politics, pure and simple. We all felt Toobin is a good writer and had an excellent handle on his subject.
I think I'd like to read something else he has written, perhaps his newest book,The Oath: The Obama White House and the Supreme Court. I'd also like to read another author's take on The Court to have a comparison of opinion.
February 25, 2016
The Nine offers the reader a peek behind the curtains at the latter days of the Rehnquist court. The book is a good combination of pen portraits of the justices combined with explanations of the landmark cases they decided during this time, and often the legal sparring behind those decisions. The centerpiece is the most elucidating account of Bush v. Gore that I've read! This section elevates The Nine to one of the cornerstone books on the Supreme Court. It may feel dated now that many of the Justices mentioned have retired or died, but the issues Toobin outlines will be argued by the court for years to come!
June 6, 2018
This book sat on my nightstand for about two years. My husband recommended it highly, but I just couldn't dig in--until this week. And then I could hardly put it down. There was so much in this book I wanted and needed to know, and I am walking away from my read of it much better informed, not only about the Supreme Court but about the U.S.A., the balance of powers and tensions to keep those powers balanced, the individual struggles of people who find themselves members of the Supreme Court.... It's a not-to-be-missed read. I don't know why it was so hard for me to get started.
November 11, 2024
Author/ journalist/ attorney Toobin discussed the US
Supreme Court (herefter SCOTUS) & controversial
cases they decided related to race, gender (consensual
sodomy), religion, abortion, war powers, and so much
more. Race cases related mostly to the quality of edu-
cation or college/ grad school (medical or law school)
admission practices.
Most SCOTUS justices did not talk to each other in their
respective offices. They communicated via use of memos.
3 justices: Thomas, Breyer and Stevens felt comfortable
using email. Each SCOTUS justice was confirmed for a life-
long term. Some justices retired, some left due to illness.
A justice had to work 15 years in "the highest court of the
land" for a full pension.
Toobin noted personalities of some justices: sunny Breyer,
shy Ginsburg (small but mighty), dramatic Kennedy, pug-
nacious Scalia, cool/ unflappable Chief Justice Roberts, &
quiet Souter. Bachelor David Souter had roots in rural New
Hampshire. Peers tried to set him up with dates.
Toobin explored approaches or outcomes on interpreting the
US Constitution & a justice who represented each approach.
1) Originalists. Believed in following the original intent of
the framers. Justice Scalia.
2) Considered American public opinion, championed rights
of women & practical solutions to legal issues. Justice O'Connor.
3) Use of common law & precedent cases. Justice Souter.
4) Use of the Constitution as a vehicle for change IE greater
freedom for all. Justice Brennan.
A cert petition had to be sent to the SCOTUS, usually after a
lower federal court ruled against the plaintiff. The SCOTUS
voted 6-3 that yes they would hear the case that George W.
Bush brought to them RE the re-counting of Florida ballots.
Related to the 2000 election. Florida Supreme Court (FSC)
had Democrats in the majority & SCOTUS had Republicans.
Twice the FSC & SCOTUS became involved in this re-count
issue.
SCOTUS did not show its impartial best in the 7-2 ruling
on Bush VS Gore, handing the 2000 US Presidency to George
W. Bush. Interesting to read the rationales of the justices
on this vote. O'Connor voted with the majority, but later
considered George W. to be a "lawless" POTUS (IE warrant-
less wiretaps & email monitoring, mistreatment of "enemy
combatant" prisoners, abysmal treatment of Americans
displaced by Hurricane Katrina, the Iraq war (w/o true CMD
evidence) etc). The justices were surprised by the negative
feedback of the public on their 7-2 ruling and the rationale
behind it.
Some surprises. SCOTUS members were permitted to accept
gift items, including travel, as long as not R/T any party or
case SCOTUS would hear. SCOTUS had no formal rules on
when or how a member must recuse himself/ herself from
a case. Terry Schiavo lived in Florida. She was brain-dead
and the local court approved when her spouse petitioned to
remove her from life support. Her parents disagreed on this.
It caught the nation's attn (SCOTUS declined to hear the
case), activists criticized judges who were then threatened.
Each SCOTUS justice received home-made cookies laced with
poison! They caught/ prosecuted the guilty party. Chief Just.
Roberts advocated with Congress to raise salaries of judges
in lower federal courts.
Yrs ago SCOTUS had 7 justices only. I'm unclear on the
rationale for this change.
Revised.
Supreme Court (herefter SCOTUS) & controversial
cases they decided related to race, gender (consensual
sodomy), religion, abortion, war powers, and so much
more. Race cases related mostly to the quality of edu-
cation or college/ grad school (medical or law school)
admission practices.
Most SCOTUS justices did not talk to each other in their
respective offices. They communicated via use of memos.
3 justices: Thomas, Breyer and Stevens felt comfortable
using email. Each SCOTUS justice was confirmed for a life-
long term. Some justices retired, some left due to illness.
A justice had to work 15 years in "the highest court of the
land" for a full pension.
Toobin noted personalities of some justices: sunny Breyer,
shy Ginsburg (small but mighty), dramatic Kennedy, pug-
nacious Scalia, cool/ unflappable Chief Justice Roberts, &
quiet Souter. Bachelor David Souter had roots in rural New
Hampshire. Peers tried to set him up with dates.
Toobin explored approaches or outcomes on interpreting the
US Constitution & a justice who represented each approach.
1) Originalists. Believed in following the original intent of
the framers. Justice Scalia.
2) Considered American public opinion, championed rights
of women & practical solutions to legal issues. Justice O'Connor.
3) Use of common law & precedent cases. Justice Souter.
4) Use of the Constitution as a vehicle for change IE greater
freedom for all. Justice Brennan.
A cert petition had to be sent to the SCOTUS, usually after a
lower federal court ruled against the plaintiff. The SCOTUS
voted 6-3 that yes they would hear the case that George W.
Bush brought to them RE the re-counting of Florida ballots.
Related to the 2000 election. Florida Supreme Court (FSC)
had Democrats in the majority & SCOTUS had Republicans.
Twice the FSC & SCOTUS became involved in this re-count
issue.
SCOTUS did not show its impartial best in the 7-2 ruling
on Bush VS Gore, handing the 2000 US Presidency to George
W. Bush. Interesting to read the rationales of the justices
on this vote. O'Connor voted with the majority, but later
considered George W. to be a "lawless" POTUS (IE warrant-
less wiretaps & email monitoring, mistreatment of "enemy
combatant" prisoners, abysmal treatment of Americans
displaced by Hurricane Katrina, the Iraq war (w/o true CMD
evidence) etc). The justices were surprised by the negative
feedback of the public on their 7-2 ruling and the rationale
behind it.
Some surprises. SCOTUS members were permitted to accept
gift items, including travel, as long as not R/T any party or
case SCOTUS would hear. SCOTUS had no formal rules on
when or how a member must recuse himself/ herself from
a case. Terry Schiavo lived in Florida. She was brain-dead
and the local court approved when her spouse petitioned to
remove her from life support. Her parents disagreed on this.
It caught the nation's attn (SCOTUS declined to hear the
case), activists criticized judges who were then threatened.
Each SCOTUS justice received home-made cookies laced with
poison! They caught/ prosecuted the guilty party. Chief Just.
Roberts advocated with Congress to raise salaries of judges
in lower federal courts.
Yrs ago SCOTUS had 7 justices only. I'm unclear on the
rationale for this change.
Revised.
November 28, 2023
In The Nine, Jeffrey Toobin basically runs through the changing panel of justices and long list of major cases before the Supreme Court from the mid-1980s to mid-2000s. In theory, this is an era of conservative creep on the court as the Federalist Society and their ilk push Republican presidents to assign ever more right-wing justices to the court. But it's fun to read a book like this almost 20 years after publication, if only because you can sadly nod at all the ways history repeats itself.
The main case throughlines in The Nine are Abortion and Affirmative Action, both of which were just recently struck down (sigh). It's darkly fascinating to watch the justices from the recent past tangle with abortion and affirmative action cases for almost thirty years, particularly as a reader in the future who knows what's to come. I guess it's a reminder that what seems like the end of the world in the moment will be an odd historical artifact in twenty years when there will be a fresh end of the world moment.
Aside from these depressing realizations, The Nine is a fun, light read. The pacing is superb - despite the fact that the topic (law, politics, old white men) can often be dull, Toobin's writing style keeps the kettle at a low boil, regardless of whether he's discussing Bush v. Gore or a much more minor case. I always looked forward to picking the audiobook back up to see what old piece of 80s/90s/00s history Toobin would dredge up next (Remember Terry Schiavo? Yikes). It must be said that Toobin has a definite liberal lean to his writing, but I didn't mind - most of the book felt pretty even-keeled, and I certainly agreed with some of his stronger lefty assertions.
I see that he's written a follow-up about the justices during the Obama administration, so I suppose I'll be picking that up next. If he'd like to go back and write books for the previous 200 years of Supreme Court history, that'd be cool too.
The main case throughlines in The Nine are Abortion and Affirmative Action, both of which were just recently struck down (sigh). It's darkly fascinating to watch the justices from the recent past tangle with abortion and affirmative action cases for almost thirty years, particularly as a reader in the future who knows what's to come. I guess it's a reminder that what seems like the end of the world in the moment will be an odd historical artifact in twenty years when there will be a fresh end of the world moment.
Aside from these depressing realizations, The Nine is a fun, light read. The pacing is superb - despite the fact that the topic (law, politics, old white men) can often be dull, Toobin's writing style keeps the kettle at a low boil, regardless of whether he's discussing Bush v. Gore or a much more minor case. I always looked forward to picking the audiobook back up to see what old piece of 80s/90s/00s history Toobin would dredge up next (Remember Terry Schiavo? Yikes). It must be said that Toobin has a definite liberal lean to his writing, but I didn't mind - most of the book felt pretty even-keeled, and I certainly agreed with some of his stronger lefty assertions.
I see that he's written a follow-up about the justices during the Obama administration, so I suppose I'll be picking that up next. If he'd like to go back and write books for the previous 200 years of Supreme Court history, that'd be cool too.
July 22, 2010
some editing and additions 7/22/10
Toobin does a great job in detailing the personalities of the justices and how they shape the court. Thomas is the most interesting, perhaps. A man obviously bitter about the cards he has been dealt, he holds grudges seemingly forever, even disdaining Yale Law School, his alma mater; yet, he is very well liked and has lots of friends on and off the court. (Scalia, asked once for the difference between himself and Thomas, replied, "I am an originalist; he's a nut.) Thomas would overturn piles of precedent on principle -- he's a huge fan of Ayn Rand -- and a proponent of limiting the power of federal law, but contradictorily sponsoring law clerks who went on to provide legal justification for presidential power expansion under Bush. Go figure.
One concern I had about Thomas was the large number of gifts he accepted from very conservative organizations and people. He got the largest book deal of any justice, 1.5 million from book he wrote from Rupert Murdoch and he makes huge amounts of money in speaking engagements before conservative audiences (he refuses to speak to any audience that might be remotely unfriendly.) Breyer, on the other hand, accepts no gifts or travel from anyone. You can't tell me that getting all that money and travel from a particular political spectrum has no effect.
One of my favorite anecdotes was the inside look at the nomination of Harriet Miers in 2005 for the O'Connor seat. Bush had laid down the law against any kind of leaks. Unfortunately, as Toobin points out, leaks can often serve as a very useful way to flush out any likely problems that might arise from a decision before a commitment is made to that decision. Bush and his primary advisors, Rove, Cheney, and Card, had little idea what a Supreme Court Justice does every day. (Steven Breyer once told his son that justices spend their days reading and writing. "If you like and are good at doing homework, you'll enjoy the Supreme Cour because you'll be doing homework the rest of your life." [paraphrased quote, listened to this as an audiobook:] So they didn't expect nor look for any kind of written trail from Meiers. (Rove can be excused if he seemed a little distracted as there was a very real possibility he might be indicted in the Valerie Plume case.) Rove's first call to get approval was to James Dobson since they knew that mainstream media approval was irrelevant. It was the evangelical constituency that might make troub le. Ironically, it had been Harry Reid who had suggested Meiers and noted that her nomination would breeze through with little chance of a filibuster. Meiers had been a long friend of Bush as well as his personal attorney, she was a strong evangelical, and in any case the Bush team was looking for someone with good judgment and instincts; analysis was less important.
So they were all totally taken by surprise when the vicious attacks from the right began as soon as she had finished her acceptance of the nomination. "The president has made perhaps the most unqualified choice since Abe Fortas," was the response of one conservative. She was dismissed as a "taut, anxious, personality," wrote David Frumm. She had no judicial experience. Despite pressure from the right-wing "pro-family" groups arguing her conservative bona fides and that she would overturn Roe v Wade, and her ex-boyfriend Judge Heck's rambling denials of anything more than friendship, it soon became clear she had no ideas at all with regard to constitutional law. Her total experience had been as personal lawyers to Bush and others. Bush assumed that the Senate would fall into line behind his nomination, not realizing that by 2005 Katrina and Iraq had crippled his influence. "Trust me," was no longer enough. Conservatives wanted appellate judges with a proven written agenda. White, Powell, Warren, and Rehnquist, to name but a few, ad little judicial experience, so her lack thereof should not have been a disqualifier. As with the torrent of abuse against Gonzales a few months earlier, facts became irrelevant and some conservatives even charged she and Gonzales were closet liberals despite all evidence to the contrary. The Democrats loved every minute of it.
Meiers seemed to be on the way to confirmation even as conservative antipathy grew, when Charles Krauthammer came up with a "breathtakingly cynical" mechanism to have her exit. The Senate should demand to see privileged documents from her White House tenure. The Senate could refuse to begin confirmation hearings until they received them; the White House could refuse to produce the documents based on its privilege and Meiers could withdraw claiming she did not want to cause a violation of either the White House or Senate's privileges. Meiers, putting her client's (the president) interests first as any good lawyer would, withdrew claiming precisely what Krauthammer had suggested, that she could not afford to let Senators ask her about her work at the White House which might have viollated executive privilege. The seat went to Alito, who, ironically, had been Meiers first choice to replace O'Connor. (O'Connor herself considered the Alito choice as a direct affront.)
Fascinating.
Toobin does a great job in detailing the personalities of the justices and how they shape the court. Thomas is the most interesting, perhaps. A man obviously bitter about the cards he has been dealt, he holds grudges seemingly forever, even disdaining Yale Law School, his alma mater; yet, he is very well liked and has lots of friends on and off the court. (Scalia, asked once for the difference between himself and Thomas, replied, "I am an originalist; he's a nut.) Thomas would overturn piles of precedent on principle -- he's a huge fan of Ayn Rand -- and a proponent of limiting the power of federal law, but contradictorily sponsoring law clerks who went on to provide legal justification for presidential power expansion under Bush. Go figure.
One concern I had about Thomas was the large number of gifts he accepted from very conservative organizations and people. He got the largest book deal of any justice, 1.5 million from book he wrote from Rupert Murdoch and he makes huge amounts of money in speaking engagements before conservative audiences (he refuses to speak to any audience that might be remotely unfriendly.) Breyer, on the other hand, accepts no gifts or travel from anyone. You can't tell me that getting all that money and travel from a particular political spectrum has no effect.
One of my favorite anecdotes was the inside look at the nomination of Harriet Miers in 2005 for the O'Connor seat. Bush had laid down the law against any kind of leaks. Unfortunately, as Toobin points out, leaks can often serve as a very useful way to flush out any likely problems that might arise from a decision before a commitment is made to that decision. Bush and his primary advisors, Rove, Cheney, and Card, had little idea what a Supreme Court Justice does every day. (Steven Breyer once told his son that justices spend their days reading and writing. "If you like and are good at doing homework, you'll enjoy the Supreme Cour because you'll be doing homework the rest of your life." [paraphrased quote, listened to this as an audiobook:] So they didn't expect nor look for any kind of written trail from Meiers. (Rove can be excused if he seemed a little distracted as there was a very real possibility he might be indicted in the Valerie Plume case.) Rove's first call to get approval was to James Dobson since they knew that mainstream media approval was irrelevant. It was the evangelical constituency that might make troub le. Ironically, it had been Harry Reid who had suggested Meiers and noted that her nomination would breeze through with little chance of a filibuster. Meiers had been a long friend of Bush as well as his personal attorney, she was a strong evangelical, and in any case the Bush team was looking for someone with good judgment and instincts; analysis was less important.
So they were all totally taken by surprise when the vicious attacks from the right began as soon as she had finished her acceptance of the nomination. "The president has made perhaps the most unqualified choice since Abe Fortas," was the response of one conservative. She was dismissed as a "taut, anxious, personality," wrote David Frumm. She had no judicial experience. Despite pressure from the right-wing "pro-family" groups arguing her conservative bona fides and that she would overturn Roe v Wade, and her ex-boyfriend Judge Heck's rambling denials of anything more than friendship, it soon became clear she had no ideas at all with regard to constitutional law. Her total experience had been as personal lawyers to Bush and others. Bush assumed that the Senate would fall into line behind his nomination, not realizing that by 2005 Katrina and Iraq had crippled his influence. "Trust me," was no longer enough. Conservatives wanted appellate judges with a proven written agenda. White, Powell, Warren, and Rehnquist, to name but a few, ad little judicial experience, so her lack thereof should not have been a disqualifier. As with the torrent of abuse against Gonzales a few months earlier, facts became irrelevant and some conservatives even charged she and Gonzales were closet liberals despite all evidence to the contrary. The Democrats loved every minute of it.
Meiers seemed to be on the way to confirmation even as conservative antipathy grew, when Charles Krauthammer came up with a "breathtakingly cynical" mechanism to have her exit. The Senate should demand to see privileged documents from her White House tenure. The Senate could refuse to begin confirmation hearings until they received them; the White House could refuse to produce the documents based on its privilege and Meiers could withdraw claiming she did not want to cause a violation of either the White House or Senate's privileges. Meiers, putting her client's (the president) interests first as any good lawyer would, withdrew claiming precisely what Krauthammer had suggested, that she could not afford to let Senators ask her about her work at the White House which might have viollated executive privilege. The seat went to Alito, who, ironically, had been Meiers first choice to replace O'Connor. (O'Connor herself considered the Alito choice as a direct affront.)
Fascinating.
April 29, 2013
Sadly not the trashy gossip fest I was in the mood for. I wanted either another hundred pages discussing the court's role in the political system and propounding a new theory of case analysis, or I wanted some juicy judicial sexploits. Sadly, I got neither. The "revelations" in this book are nothing new if you pay a little attention to the court – Scalia and Ginsburg were besties, Thomas has a bizarre and alarming worldview, etc.
Still, the lay reader would probably enjoy this as a portrait of personalities, and for the capsule histories of momentous cases from the Reagan years to about 2006. (Though this book did lead me to discover that I can still recite footnote 4 of carolene Products from memory, which, honestly, I'd be happier not knowing that about myself).
Anyway, this didn't change my opinions of anyone. You don't catch me agreeing with Scalia very often, but I am in complete sympathy with his opinion of Kennedy. I remember when I was putting together my constitutional law notes – I had this beautiful 70 page outline with case holdings and capsule dissents, and at the end of every statement of a Kennedy holding I wrote, whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean. My feelings on O'connor are complicated, and I suspect Toobin would say the same, so those sections worked well for me. And of course my opinions on Roberts and Alito were formed realtime – I actually worked on a team that vetted the short list of nominees that leaked that summer for a civil rights organization, which sounds roughly a billionty times sexier than it actually was.
So this was well researched and diverting, but ultimately inconsequential for me.
Still, the lay reader would probably enjoy this as a portrait of personalities, and for the capsule histories of momentous cases from the Reagan years to about 2006. (Though this book did lead me to discover that I can still recite footnote 4 of carolene Products from memory, which, honestly, I'd be happier not knowing that about myself).
Anyway, this didn't change my opinions of anyone. You don't catch me agreeing with Scalia very often, but I am in complete sympathy with his opinion of Kennedy. I remember when I was putting together my constitutional law notes – I had this beautiful 70 page outline with case holdings and capsule dissents, and at the end of every statement of a Kennedy holding I wrote, whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean. My feelings on O'connor are complicated, and I suspect Toobin would say the same, so those sections worked well for me. And of course my opinions on Roberts and Alito were formed realtime – I actually worked on a team that vetted the short list of nominees that leaked that summer for a civil rights organization, which sounds roughly a billionty times sexier than it actually was.
So this was well researched and diverting, but ultimately inconsequential for me.
January 25, 2008
This is an excellent book. Toobin exhibits all the qualities one could want in a guide to the Supreme Court: he is smart, knowledgeable, engaging, witty, and writes clearly and fluidly.
This is a well-organized, well-written book on a fascinating and important subject. Remarkably, it is never dull - parts I found particularly notable were his account of the Court's role in the 2000 election debacle, and his explanation of how Sandra Day O' Connor became the most influential justice on the court.
This book should serve as excellent background material to help track the evolution of the court in 2008 and beyond, as Bush's appointees begin to exert greater influence.
Highly recommended. For all citizens and residents of the U.S.
This is a well-organized, well-written book on a fascinating and important subject. Remarkably, it is never dull - parts I found particularly notable were his account of the Court's role in the 2000 election debacle, and his explanation of how Sandra Day O' Connor became the most influential justice on the court.
This book should serve as excellent background material to help track the evolution of the court in 2008 and beyond, as Bush's appointees begin to exert greater influence.
Highly recommended. For all citizens and residents of the U.S.
July 26, 2016
I guess I was expecting this to be more journalistic and less dramatic. While very interesting and well written you cannot say that this is an objective view of the Supreme Court, its members, or its role in our government. Written during the George W. Bush presidency, with hindsight it is humorous that the author was so concerned that the SCOTUS was becoming too conservative - ha!
December 14, 2016
This book is everything Supreme Court, primarily its members and their decisions on numerous supreme court hearings. It's a fascinating peek behind the headlines and it shows how liberal and conservative views have played out over the years. If you have an interest in the factors that came to play in such decisions, the intellect and even politics, you'll enjoy it.
May 21, 2022
Really enjoyed this one. A fascinating read to anyone wanting to understand better the work of the Supreme Court. Did not expect it to be such a page turner but at the same time it wasn’t sensationalistic at all. Really educative about landmark cases, the process of nominating justices, and of course the personalities of the nine individuals occupying the seats.
November 30, 2018
My education has huge gaps around the area of the Supreme Court so I have been looking at various books to give me some of the information that I need to fill some of those gaps. I'm starting with this one because I have heard good things. I'm really glad that I started here because Jeffrey Toobin does a really good job of giving an overview of the Court as well as bringing the reader up to date on what's been happening for the last 30 years. And it was illuminating ... and a bit frightening. I'd kind of always kept the Supreme Court on a bit of a pedestal for some reason. The highest court of the land and all of that. I think this really gave me more information about how the court has changed over the last 30 years and I feel a little more understanding of what I am reading in the news and able to understand the implications of things I'm seeing in our country today. I think this is a good place to start if someone is interested in learning more. I plan to read Bob Woodward's book about the Supreme Court next as I feel like I need to go deeper. I recommend this one. I felt it was balanced (politically speaking) as well as informative.
March 8, 2021
I've been appreciating lately books that help me better understand recent history. I realize that while I lived through the period of time in question, I missed a hell of a lot. The Great Believers was one and Jeffrey Toobin's The Nine, published in 2007, is another.
Through interviews with law clerks and justices, Toobin offers an intimate portrait* of the Rehnquist court, which enjoyed one of the longest stretches of stability in modern times. Featured prominently are Sandra Day O'Conner and Anthony Kennedy, the swing votes who judicial philosophies guided the court during these years, but he provides interesting back stories for all the rest, including Samuel Alito and John Roberts Jr., who replaced Rehnquist.
I was struck by how quickly the Supreme Court moved on gay rights, and Toobin argues that a major factor was that at last a few of the justices' views changed when they realized how many of their own law clerks were gay. It was a sign of their own insularity, surely, but also of the transformative power of gay men and women living more openly in society.
He provides a lot of insight into the Bush v Gore case in 20oo, which he makes a strong argument for being one of the low points in the Supreme Court's history, as well as for these particular justices.
Toobin also spends a lot of time detailing the birth and growth of The Federalist Society and other conservative movements' successful efforts to take control of the federal judiciary. The recent selection of Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett were the result of a decades-long campaign.
Which is to say, we could very well see an equally quick shift in the years ahead against minorities, for law enforcement, for more religion in the public sphere, and for executive power.
* Not to be confused with the intimate and unfortunate portrait of himself he offered on a Zoom call that got him fired from The New Yorker.
Through interviews with law clerks and justices, Toobin offers an intimate portrait* of the Rehnquist court, which enjoyed one of the longest stretches of stability in modern times. Featured prominently are Sandra Day O'Conner and Anthony Kennedy, the swing votes who judicial philosophies guided the court during these years, but he provides interesting back stories for all the rest, including Samuel Alito and John Roberts Jr., who replaced Rehnquist.
I was struck by how quickly the Supreme Court moved on gay rights, and Toobin argues that a major factor was that at last a few of the justices' views changed when they realized how many of their own law clerks were gay. It was a sign of their own insularity, surely, but also of the transformative power of gay men and women living more openly in society.
He provides a lot of insight into the Bush v Gore case in 20oo, which he makes a strong argument for being one of the low points in the Supreme Court's history, as well as for these particular justices.
Toobin also spends a lot of time detailing the birth and growth of The Federalist Society and other conservative movements' successful efforts to take control of the federal judiciary. The recent selection of Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett were the result of a decades-long campaign.
Which is to say, we could very well see an equally quick shift in the years ahead against minorities, for law enforcement, for more religion in the public sphere, and for executive power.
* Not to be confused with the intimate and unfortunate portrait of himself he offered on a Zoom call that got him fired from The New Yorker.
June 21, 2022
Really surreal to listen to this 15 years later; to see the genesis of some of today’s issues but also how some things “never change,” are cyclical, etc. Super interesting to read things like this when they are again in the news. Makes me want to go back and read Woodward’s The Brethren to really get the long view/context. -LPC
September 27, 2023
Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! All persons having business before the Honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States, are admonished to draw near and give their attention, for the Court is now sitting. God save the United States and this Honorable Court!”
June 20, 2020
Chronicles the years 1990-2005, the longest consistent 9 person court in history. By tracing their relationships, decisions, and confirmation processes, it gives more an overall FEEL for the Supreme Court - how it decides, what the process looks like, and why judges act the way they do. It’s been a real fun book! I learned TONS - it’s really helped me to even understand the two decisions this week in a legal context.
July 24, 2020
Was a little concerned at first whether this book would seem dated since it was published in 2007/2008—but it was amazing how timely this book often felt. Lots of parallels to recent Court decisions, and gave interesting background info on the more senior justices.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 2,350 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.