欧宝娱乐

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.

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.