Customer Rating:  
Summary: WARNING: CONSERVATIVE BIAS; but still an informative read.
Comment: I'm a second-year JD/MBA student at one of the nation's best law and business schools, and I picked up on the conservative bias in the book by about 50 pages in.
I have three reasons so far for saying the book is biased in favor of the right. The book sets out to portray the court's shift rightward, first of all, and focuses on conservative justices, sources of information, and issues.
Second, liberals are usually not mentioned for long, and Greenburg takes care to point out personality flaws in the liberals more than the conservatives. Blackmun, for example, is described as "touchy" at one point for no reason, without it being relevant to the topic, and without Greenburg providing a supporting quotation or evidence. She also spends a lot of time on how big of a disappointment justices like Kennedy, Souter, Blackmun, etc. turned out to be, and even talks about Rehnquist failing to turn the Court sufficiently rightward. Greenburg is supposedly an impartial journalist, but her bias is revealed because of the book's heavy reliance on conservative sources of information.
Thirdly, the book casts Kennedy and O'Connor as "moderates," when both were/have been/are solid conservative votes, except for some high-profile cases on social issues. If you don't believe me, just look up vote counts and see how often Kennedy and O'Connor vote and voted with Rehnquist and company. The only people who would try to label O'Connor and Kennedy moderates would be staunch conservatives, in order to shift the perceived spectrum of American politics rightwards.
This is a book by what I figured must have been a conservative, and my research corroborates it. I'm not saying the book is bad or anything; it still provides a lot of insight into conservative thinking. For example, it gives insightful looks into the workings of the Justice Department in aiding nomination processes.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Interesting stories spoiled by partisan slant
Comment: The stories of how the Justices were selected, who else was considered, who made the decisions and how are fascinating. In particular the story of John Roberts is something anyone can relate to if you've had a 'dream job' that you've been close to getting.
The author clearly has much better connections with Republicans than Democrats, as evidenced by the thin coverage of Clinton's appointments. She repays her Republican assistants by employing terminology used only by the most extreme anti-abortion zealots, and by praising Justices like Scalia and Thomas as defenders of the Constitution, then vilifying Justices like Ginsburg or Souter for their adherence to the Constitution's first and fourth ammendments.
Still a great read, and I wish I could read another version of it with a leftward bias to balance this one out.
Customer Rating:
Summary: The Politics Of Justice
Comment: As my first read on the topic, I found this book extremely captivating, enjoyable to read, and leaving me with wanting more knowledge on the Supreme Court and Constitutional Law, particularly the opinions on some of the more noted cases of the last century. The author seemed to be rather fair and balanced but certainly the focus was more on the conservative nominations and justices. I would have liked to learn more about Ginsburg and Souter's personal and professional lives. The final notes make mention that this work is based on over one hundred interviews including nine supreme court justices, many of their law clerks, and high ranking officials from the White House to federal appeals court judges. Crawford also noted that the book relied heavily on the papers of Justices Marshall and Blackmun. Along with this extensive research and the authors academic and professional background, I believe that this book is a credible source of information. While the focus is on the struggles and conficts surrounding the nominations of the Supreme Court Justices over the past 25 years, the book particularly keys in to the nominations, hearing, and backgrounds of the more conservative justices and most recently, the important nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito that may prove pivotal in changing the direction of the Supreme Court to a more limited role of interpreting law rather than creating it. The political and ideological battles that surround the nominations is quite interesting as the expectations and the stakes involved have become politically and ideologically crucial. Further, the fear and skepticism that a supreme court justice will change his/her opinions once sworn in has become a relevant factor worth vetting the candidates for in a more extreme and embattled fashion than ever. All this makes for extremely good reading.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Extremely well balanced and very readable
Comment: This book is excellent. I wish all books that touch upon political matters were written so objectively. Sadly, one can often determine an authors political affiliations (and, perhaps, agenda) when reading a book but that is not the case with Ms Greenburg's book on the Supreme Court. She presents a fair story that is very readable. The 'inside' information gleened from interviews and the writings of the Justices makes the book especially interesting. It really adds a warm and human element to the history. I'd strongly recommend this book to anyone with an interest in the history and workings of the Court.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Supreme Court Easy Reading Review
Comment: Although Ms. Greenburg is repetitious in many instances, she presents the reader an easy, informative and historically correct read. Will be excellent Supreme Court research treatist for many years to come.
|
