Amazon.com
With its closed chambers and formal language, the Supreme Court tends to deflect drama away from its vastly powerful proceedings. But its mysteries hold plenty of intrigue for anyone with the access to uncover them. In Supreme Conflict, Jan Crawford Greenburg has that access, and then some. With high-placed sourcing that would make Bob Woodward proud, she tells the story of the Court's recent decades and of the often-thwarted attempts by three conservative presidents to remake the Court in their image. Among the revelations are the surprising influence of the most-maligned justice, Clarence Thomas, and the political impact of personal relations among these nine very human colleagues-for-life. Written for everyday readers rather than legal scholars, her account sidesteps theoretical subtleties for a compelling story of the personalities who breathe life into our laws. --Tom Nissley
Crawford graduated from the University of Chicago Law School, and was a legal affairs reporter for the Chicago Tribune and Supreme Court correspondent for PBS's NewsHour before becoming the legal correspondent for ABC News. We had the chance to ask her a few questions about Supreme Conflict:
Questions for Jan Crawford Greenburg
Amazon.com: How hard was it to get the access to justices and clerks that you had for this book? Does the culture of the Court promote that kind of openness about their deliberations?
Jan Crawford Greenburg: Hard! And let me tell you it took some time--they weren't flinging open the doors of their chambers for the first few years I was covering the Court. It takes awhile to build relationships and trust, and I was fortunate enough to do that during the dozen years I've been covering the Supreme Court. As for openness, I think the culture of the Court instead promotes anonymity and privacy. The justices aren't like the people across the street in Congress, or down Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House. They don't hold press conferences or solicit media coverage of their views. They speak through their opinions. I was fortunate that they also chose to speak with me for this important book about the direction of the Supreme Court and its role in our lives.
Amazon.com: Harry Blackmun's notes must be a treasure chest for Court historians. Could you describe what you found there?
Greenburg: A treasure chest is an understatement. Harry Blackmun took extraordinarily detailed notes--almost breathtaking in their scope and level of detail. (He would even write down what lawyers were wearing when they'd appear in Court to argue a case.) He recorded the justices' comments during their private conferences--when they discuss cases--and he took down their votes. And he kept all the key memos and letters that the justices would send back and forth when they were discussing a case. It was a tremendous window into the Court's inner sanctum, during some of the most pivotal years for the institution.
Amazon.com: One of the biggest revelations of your book is your characterization of Clarence Thomas as far more influential, even in his first year on the Court, than he's usually given credit for. Could you describe what his role on the Court has been?
Greenburg: Clarence Thomas has been the most maligned justice in modern history--and also the most misunderstood and mischaracterized. I found conclusive evidence that far from being Antonin Scalia's intellectual understudy, Thomas has had a substantial role in shaping the direction of the Court--from his very first week on the bench. The early storyline on Thomas was that he was just following Scalia's direction, or as one columnist at the time wrote, "Thomas Walks in Scalia's Shoes." That is patently false, as the documents and notes in the Blackmun papers unquestionably show. If any justice was changing his vote to join the other that first year, it was Scalia joining Thomas, not the other way around. But his clear and forceful views affected the Court in unexpected ways. Although he shored up conservative positions, his opinions also caused moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor to back away and join the justices on the Left.
Amazon.com: Not every Supreme Court confirmation is a battle, even when the Senate and the President are from different parties. What separates the candidates who sail through from the ones who get put through the wringer?
Greenburg: The recent appointment of Samuel Alito shows a justice with a clearly conservative record can get confirmed--and even pick up some votes from Democrats. Maybe the secret is developing a reputation as a fair and nonpartisan judge on a federal appeals court. At his hearings, liberal and conservative judges who had worked with him on the appeals court testified in his behalf, as did his law clerks--some of whom were self-identified liberals. Alito was the conservative counterpart to Clinton nominee Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She had been an outspoken advocate for liberal causes (including the ACLU), but she'd developed a reputation as a fair and thoughtful judge on the federal appeals court, garnering respect from both sides.
Amazon.com: How much do Americans know about how their federal courts work? What should they know?
Greenburg: Most Americans, understandably, think about trials and drama when the issue of the courts is raised. But the appeals courts--and the Supreme Court--remain mysterious, even though those courts have an enormous impact on American life. The judiciary is one of the three branches of government, but its decisions take on outsized importance at times. It can provide a vital check against abuse of individual rights by government--but it also can usurp the role of the people when it reaches out and takes on issues that more appropriately belong in the purview of the other branches.
Amazon.com: Even though you show how our expectations for where new members will take the Court are so often wrong, I'll ask you anyway: What do you expect in the next few years from the Roberts Court?
Greenburg: To be more conservative than the one led by Chief Justice William Rehnquist. John Roberts himself is a solid judicial conservative who believes the Court has too often taken on issues that belong in the realm of elected legislatures. He is advocating a more restrained approach, with greater consensus among the justices. In addition, Justice Alito replaced key swing-voter Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court's first female justice. O'Connor's vote often carried the day on the closely divided Court--and she typically sided with liberals on social issues like abortion, affirmative action, and religion. Alito is more conservative, and I expect to see the Court turn to the right on those and other issues.
Book Description
Drawing on unprecedented access to the Supreme Court justices and their inner circles, acclaimed ABC News legal correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg offers an explosive, newsbreaking account of one of the most momentous political watersheds in recent American history.
Over the past decade, the central front of America's bitter culture wars has been the titanic battle over the composition and direction of the United States Supreme Court. During that period, no journalist has been closer to the action on the ground-the ideas, the politics, the personalities, the gamesmanship-than ABC News correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg. Now, in Supreme Conflict, Greenburg draws on all of her formidable reportorial resources to give a brilliant, vivid, astonishingly unvarnished account of the struggle for the soul of the highest court in the land.
Greenburg picks up the plot with the Rehnquist Court, which, despite having seven Republican nominees, proved deeply disappointing to conservatives hoping to reverse decades of progressive rulings on key social issues. She reveals for the first time the real story behind a series of failed Republican nominations that enraged the American conservative movement and left it seething with frustration and resolve not to squander future opportunities. Enter: George W. Bush and the setting of the stage for a full-blown conservative counterrevolution. Supreme Conflict contains entirely fresh perspectives across the entire sweep of its story, from the conservative movement's early fumbles with the nominations of justices Anthony Kennedy and David Souter to its crowning successes with the appointments of justices Roberts and Alito. The book breaks news in its revelations about the effect of Chief Justice Rehnquist's illness on the process; on the truth behind Harriet Miers's disastrous nomination and how it was really scuttled; and on how decades of bruising battles led to the triumph of the conservative agenda with the appointment of two of its leading judicial exponents. Through the entire dramatic story, rich in character and conflict, Greenburg never loses sight of the gargantuan stakes in this struggle, the opposing ideological agendas at play.
The story Jan Crawford Greenburg tells is that of the fulcrum event of our time, the massive coordinated campaign to move the Supreme Court in a very different direction, to a more limited and restrictive role in American government. A masterpiece of old-fashioned gumshoe reportage, rich storytelling, and penetrating analysis, Supreme Conflict will be the definitive account of the most consequential shift in the use of American judicial power in almost one hundred years.
Customer Reviews:
Tunnel Vision..........2007-10-14
Jan Greenburg does a good job of reporting the facts around the recent Supreme Court nominations but she avoids any challenge to the narrow views of those that controlled the conservative nominations.
The notion that Justice Kennedy is not a "true conservative" --never questioned by Greenburg---because 20% of his votes are not "in-line" is a bit absurd. It might have been worthwhile for Greenburg to consider what the true conservative position on Roe vs. Wade (one of Kennedy's "liberal" votes) might be. True conservatives value stare decisis and respect the fact that after thirty years many--the majority of the nation in fact-- now view Roe as a resolved matter. Several subsquent opinions, including Casey, affirmed its findings by using it as a precedent. Imagine if the court overturned it and then ten years from now a court with several Hillary Clinton appointees re-affirmed it. The Court would have been shown to be the mere pawn of the political powers that be. It would emerge less respected and less able to do its job. So, what's the true conservative position on Roe vs. Wade?
The reality that Greenburg never considers is that the White House values Scalia and Thomas not for their true conservativism, but for their right wing judicial activism. Greenburg never scrutinizes Justice Scalia's devotion to "original intent" when it goes against the outcome that he desires. She might want to glance at Gonzalez vs. Oregon, where Scalia's dissent claimed that the Justice Dept could block implementation of an assisted suicide act duly enacted by the popular will in a state initiative. So, where is the prohibition of assisted suicide in the Constitution? What happened to the great "Federalist"? The Drug Enforcement Act--the supposed basis of Scalia's decision--was not intended to outlaw or otherwise regulate assisted suicide and was enacted without any consideration of the subject. The Gonzalez v Oregon dissent (joined by Thomas and the new Chief) shows the bald faced hypocrisy of Scalia's "strict constructionism." Some questioning of "conservative" assumptions and a broader perspective would have made this a much more thoughtful and worthwhile book.
A terrible disappointment..........2007-10-08
I thought, considering the book's title and that this reporter touted her access to nine justices, that this would detail the inner dynamics and interpersonal relationships of the justices and their clerks, like The Brethren. Instead, it was a laborious and too-detailed factual account of process the Executive and Legislative Branches used to select this court.
I see strong bias on the part of the author, who as a reporter, hopes to keep "inside access." She veritably fawns over Alito, in an effort to ingratiate herself with him and his family while, in contrast, she trashes the reclusive Souter, and the presumably uncooperative Kennedy.
Only 20% of this book was worthwhile reading.
In A Class By Itself.......2007-09-30
In all respects -- writing, research, organization, balance -- this is the best book on the Supreme Court. To be sure, there'll be other (and perhaps better) books written on this always fascinating institution. For now, however, it positively towers over its competition. I've read (and enjoyed) them all -- Woodward/Armstrong's, Toobin's, Rosen's -- but Jan Crawford Greenburg's "Supreme Conflict" is, to reiterate my title, in a class by itself.
Highly recommended.
Decent book for non-lawyers.......2007-09-27
Most legal reporting in the mainstream media stinks. Either non-lawyers miss the point of cases, or lawyers fail to translate that point to a level where the average person can understand. "Supreme Conflict" is an exception. This book focuses more on the personalities and dynamics of the justices, and on the nomination and selection process, than on particular cases. The tales of how certain people are selected for the Court, and how they mesh with the other justices once they have arrived, are interesting glimpses into a world rarely seen by outsiders. Some reviewers point out, rightly, that "Supreme Conflict" does not hash out particular cases in detail. But that's not the kind of book this is.
Other reviewers contend "Supreme Conflict" is too sympathetic to the right. That leaves me scratching my head, given the account of how Bush Jr. picked Harriet Miers as a nominee. True to form, Bush Jr. got some kind of gut feeling and couldn't be talked out of it by reason, and you see what that got him. We also see the mechanism of how the great right-wing spin machine is deployed for, or against, particular nominees. None of this is particularly flattering for Republicans.
This is a good companion to "The Brethren," by Bob Woodward, a similarly-good popular level book about the Supreme Court of an earlier era. Most libraries will have this book, and it is worth checking out if you're interested in the Supreme Court but not so interested as to add "Supreme Conflict" to your permanent collection.
Fascinating.......2007-09-06
Do not start reading this book if you have to go to work or to school the next day. I read it in two evenings because it was so interesting.
Greenburg is to be congratulated for getting interviews with so many of the judges and for doing so much research and confirmation. The interest builds, and the final chapters on the Roberts, Miers, and Alito nominations are riveting, even though we know the final outcome. But what we didn't know is all the behind the scenes work.
I think Greenburg was fair to the justices and to those in the White House involved in the nomination process. She tells what they did well and what they did poorly. And some of the mistakes were monumental (Bush believing Sununu when he said that Souter was a conservative, for instance). Just from reading the book, it would be difficult to guess Greenburg's own political leanings.
Many things are surprising in this book. Justice O'Connor did not really know much about constitutional law when nominated. Clarence Thomas influenced Scalia's vote more than vice-versa during the first term. And liberal Democrats, more than anyone else, are responsible for Roberts and especially Alito, two conservative white males, being on the court.
Amazon.com
Conservative talk radio host, lawyer, and frequent National Review contributor Mark R. Levin comes out firing against the United States Supreme Court in Men in Black, accusing the institution of corrupting the ideals of America's founding fathers. The court, in Levin's estimation, pursues an ideology-based activist agenda that oversteps its authority within the government. Levin examines several decisions in the court's history to illustrate his point, beginning with the landmark Marbury v. Madison case, wherein the court granted itself the power to declare acts of the other branches of government unconstitutional. He devotes later chapters to other key cases culminating in modern issues such as same-sex marriage and the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. Like effective attorneys do, Levin packs in copious research material and delivers his points with tremendous vigor, excoriating the justices for instances where he feels strict constit utional constructivism gave way to biased interpretation. But Levin's definition of "activism" seems inconsistent. In the case of McCain-Feingold, the court declined to rule on a bill already passed by congress and signed by the president, but Levin, who thinks the bill violates the First Amendment, still accuses them of activism even when they were actually passive. To his talk-radio listeners, Levin's hard-charging style and dire warnings of the court's direction will strike a resonant tone of alarm, though the hyperbole may be a bit off-putting to the uninitiated. As an attack on the vagaries of decisions rendered by the Supreme Court and on some current justices, Men in Black scores points and will likely lead sympathetic juries to conviction. --John Moe
Book Description
Mark Levin throws the book at our own judicial system--in particular, American judges who ignore the Constitution and dismantle the rights of American citizens in everyday court proceedings. He shares jaw-dropping examples of judicial power grabs and liberal power plays by judges.
Customer Reviews:
Are we simply sheep being led astray?.......2007-09-19
The first thing I would suggest doing before reading this book or any other political book is to actually read the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights. It can be found for free on the internet.
When discussing one of my favorite issues of our time, the interaction of government and religion, invariably the phrase of "Separation of Church and State" is put forth. My simple retort is to then challenge the individual to find that phrase in the U.S. Constitution. It's my belief that if you asked the entire population of the United States, 80 - 90% of the people would say that phrase could be found in the Constitution. But alas, those words can be found nowhere in the Constitution or the first amendment specifically. It isn't all that surprising that people hold that belief based on the fact that the phrase is uttered ad nauseam through the media, politicians and judges. This simple fact alone leads me to suggest actually reading the entire document before moving on to books regarding the Constitution.
The above being said, whether you are a middle of the roader, left wing loony or a right wing nut job like me I think Mr. Levin's Men in Black is a valuable read. It gives accounts on how the judiciary has usurped power that isn't specifically given it in the Constitution.
For people that applaud judicial activism such as Roe v. Wade, rulings against religious activities, etc. they should take pause and consider that someday the result may be widespread judicial activism from the right. Neither being a good thing. Legislating belongs in Congress where politicians are accountable to the people by election. To me Mr. Levin shows the danger of when judges take power not given them in the Constitution and use it to get their personally desired results enacted.
The book is specifically broken out in chapters that discuss specific topics, such as role of religion, rights to privacy, social policy enacted from the bench as well as several others. While I felt the arguments could have at times been better developed, I do believe this is a valuable book to read to gain a better understanding of our current judiciary climate and how we got to this stage.
Courts out of control .......2007-09-13
The constitution, federal law, and American culture dictate in the most extreme manner that the power of the government belongs to the people through their elected ombudsmen in Congress.
The US Supreme Court took it upon themselves to state what the law says, and where the power is to be held, which is not what the founders or the constitution clearly states. In fact it is up to the court to police themselves and define where their power is and where it is not, just look at Marbury vs. Madison.
The power of government belongs to the citizens of the United States through the honestly elected congressionals, not to a bunch of elitist left wing thugs who have the OVER privilege to sit on the bench and decide how we the people should live.
Court decisions like Roe vs. Wade were completely unconstitutional where the court erroneously cited the right to privacy where the Constitution itself says nothing about abortion and thus the document left the issue and other social issues to be independently decided by state governments and state voters, not some liberal elitist thugs in Washington.
American power belongs to the people themselves through direct voter participation, elected congressional figures, and the honorably elected executive in the White House when it comes to issues of Terrorism and national emergency in the 21st century.
Issues such as Miranda rights, Map Verses Ohio, Roe vs. Wade, and other unjust rulings should be decided by state voters, state legislatures, and sovereign state governments not a bunch of elites in the Federal government.
The states have a large amount of power, and should have that power over numerous social and legal issues; Federal power is granted through the consent of the states, not the other way around.
The jaws of the American Supreme Court must be defanged, their power must be checked, and judges on all levels of the law should be held accountable to the people.
The law serves the people; the people do not serve the left wing elitist snobs who took it upon themselves to declare that they are the law.
America must remain democratic, constitutionally republican, and free for all time.
God bless the USA.
Finally the TRUE story of what has been going on in the Supreme Court.......2007-08-28
I was shocked to read the real story of what has been going on in the Supreme Court all these years. Thanks to Mark Levin to bring it out in the open.
This made the best sellers list?.......2007-08-19
Wow. I guess the way to the best sellers list is to: 1. ignore logical consistency; 2. ignore competing arguments; 3. distort history; 4. bash your opponents with heat, but no light. What a formula. For those interested in a serious work about the same themes, take a look at Kermit Roosevelt's book on Judicial Activism.
Supreme Court is SUPREME POWER....scary...........2007-05-31
The antics of the Supreme Court (Supreme God ?) were quite eye opening, and who better to tell the story.....
Our population needs to start marching in front of the court building and making our opinions known.
This book points out the problems when people are appointed for life and then have NO ACCOUNTABILITY.
The detail about the cases cited and researched is amazing....the facts are scary, but important for everyone in America to understand that the Court can and does regularly take away in some way every liberty we think we posess.
A must reading......I highly recommend it.
Book Description
For the first time, a sitting judge blows the whistle on America’s out-of-control courts.
A judge for more than twenty years, Robert Dierker has enjoyed a distinguished legal career. But now that career may be on the line. Why? Because he is breaking the code of silence that has long kept judges from speaking out to present a withering account of how radical liberals run roughshod over the Constitution, waging war on the laws of nature, the laws of reason, and the law of God.
Even those outraged by America’s courts will be shocked by Judge Dierker’s story of activist judges, deep-pocketed special interest groups, pandering politicians, and others who claim to stand for tolerance, equal rights, and social justice, but actually stand for something quite different—something closer to totalitarianism.
Citing not only Judge Dierker’s own experiences but dozens of other recent court cases,
The Tyranny of Tolerance shows how the courts enable left-wing activists to ram their dangerous agenda down the throats of the American people. Consider:
• Why do the courts claim the power to tax us?
• Why is a Christian fired when he voices opposition to his employer’s favoring homosexuals?
• Why are airline pilots sued and sent to “diversity training” for recommending that suspicious-looking people of Middle Eastern appearance be kept off planes?
• Why does a judge who defends a monument to the Ten Commandments in a courthouse lose his job?
• Why are speech codes imposed on employers, university students, lawyers (and judges!), while “artistic” indecency is protected from even the mildest regulation?
• Why are peaceful abortion protesters thrown in jail, their right to free speech crushed?
• Why are white and Asian students denied admission to colleges and universities in the name of “diversity”?
• Why is an enemy fighter captured in Afghanistan granted access to U.S. federal courts, overturning judicial precedent safeguarding the president’s wartime powers—to say nothing of common sense?
With this passionate insider’s account, Judge Dierker reminds Americans what’s at stake in the battle for the courts: the Constitution, the success of the war on terrorism, the freedom to worship God, the ability to keep our families safe, the institution of marriage, and much more.
Fortunately, Judge Dierker shows how we can defeat the radical liberals’ tyranny of tolerance. By wresting back control of the courts and restoring the legal, moral, and religious principles embedded in the Constitution, we can ultimately reclaim the republic the Founders bequeathed to us.
Customer Reviews:
Don't waste your money.......2007-08-18
This makes Levin's Men in Black look like a scholarly book. Tyranny of Tolerance makes no attempt at considering the complexities of some of the questions that the author discusses. In fact, loaded with inconsistencies and incoherence, it is at best a rant. A simple example should suffice: he insists that judges should follow the intent of the Constitution and its plain meaning. If that is the case, he should argue that the narrow purpose of the 14th amendment was not to announce a broad principle of equal treatment, but a specific protection for black Americans. The Congress that wrote the amendment enacted affirmative action laws favoring blacks. Instead, like the judges he criticizes, Dieker "morphs" the amendment into a rule that he favors. Readers serious about understanding judging and the Supreme Court ought to read Kermit Roosevelt's book about Judicial Activism.
A Needle of Truth out of the Haystack of Judicial Deception .......2007-05-27
Political Correctness is a passive aggressive form of tyranny but one of the most dangerous tyrannies nonetheless. It is passive because it is subtle and has the power to make its victims feel guilty for opposing it and thus easier to subjugate. It is dangerous because by the time we get fed up with it and decide to stand up to it most of the damage has already been done.
The Judicial code of silence is just such an example of this damage. How can sitting judges, with more job security than most Americans can dream of, be bludgeoned into silence so easily? Nothing more perfectly demonstrates the tyranny of political correctness, masquerading as "tolerance."
Judge Dierker as written a good book. He is bold and courageous for doing it and will no doubt suffer career ostracism, if not death threats, for it. He reminds me of the scientists who break their own code of silence to speak out on the hoax of anthropogenic global warming. The machinations of both of these elements of political correctness have the goal of transferring more control over the personal lives and finances of ordinary Americans to a government in the hands of the enemies of truth, justice and the oh-so-politically incorrect "American way."
If you are one of those who is fed up with being pushed around and dictated to by mad power hungry moonbats this book is for you. It affirms that you are not alone.
The Code Exposed.......2007-05-27
"Tolerance" is one of those words that have a positive connotation so it is no surprise that the Democratic Party has co-opted it as one of its watchwords. However, in THE TYRANNY OF TOLERANCE, judge Robert Dierker insists that the drive to achieve tolerance has reached such a manic level that the word now implies tolerance for some is a zero sum game that inevitably results in intolerance for others. Such a wish to force tolerance on those whom the tolerant deem intolerant is now reflective in a broad swath that cuts across all sectors of America. Those who see themselves as dispensers of tolerance call themselves liberals, but Dierker more correctly terms illiberal liberals. As a circuit judge of the Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit of Missouri, Dierker, over a twenty year career on the bench has seen it all, and during those two decades has seen a negative transformation in the basic legal framework of his court and by extension, the United States. At the core of this metamorphosis is the evolving view held by the Left of the Constitution. Originally, seen as the cornerstone of our republic, it has slowly been eroded away from meaning what it says to what a leftist judiciary says it means. Now, the illiberal liberals use it to force an agenda on the very fabric of our society, one that includes filing "lawsuits to kick the Boy Scouts out of public parks, to get sodomy into a constitutional right, to throw peaceful abortion protestors in jail, to allow abortionists to pull babies three-quarters out of the way of the womb and kill them, to crush pro-lifers' rights of speech and assembly, to nullify the reproductive rights and parental rights of men, to bankrupt the firearms industry as a means of disarming a free people, to impose racial quotas on employment, and to eliminate God from the Pledge of Allegiance." (Page 3)
It is pretty clear that Dierker is a conservative judge who takes a view of society that includes a refusal to expect a guaranteed level playing field of wealth and justice. The Left, in his view, wishes a society that is based on a Marxist redistribution of wealth and a utopian guarantee of justice for all to be achieved by legislative fiat. Historically, whenever any society is instituted under Marxist rules of wealth redistribution and socialist guarantees of employment and institutionalized multiculturalism, the result has inevitably been economic collapse as with the Soviet Union or social dysfunction as with most of multicultural Western Europe. These calamities Dierker is determined to avoid. In an overly brief coda, he notes how a concerned citizenry can reverse this decades long slide toward collapse and dysfunction. He writes that voters can demand judges who will decide issues based on what the Constitution says, and not on what agenda they would prefer it contain. Congress must be persuaded to curtail runaway judges by explicitly abolishing corrosive and divisive policies like affirmative action. And finally, Presidents must be chosen at least partly on their willingness to defy power-hungry supreme courts as Lincoln did when he authorized suspension of habeas corpus in Maryland in 1863. Dierker exhorts us to realize that it is not too late to wish to be intolerant of the perverted brand of tolerance now bandied about by the illiberal liberals.
Book review.......2007-04-10
This book is very importent to any who are concerned about the current fact the liberal judiciay is out of control and taking us down the road to complete judicial autocracy.
Wow! The Truth about the Legal Thought Police Pogrom.......2007-03-20
WOW!! This Book is a Rare Find - and a Very Important One.
Using Clear and Unambiguous language to explain in straightforward terms the current state of Constitutional Law and the Judiciary in modern Weimar Amerika - Judge Dierker has both produced a Masterwork of American Letters, and Turned Over the Rock on the Ugly underside to the attack on our Country by Radicals within the alleged `Legal Profession' using the pretext of `Tolerance' as a platform for a Draconian Political Thought Policing attack on Society and the Constitution.
For those thinking of attending Law School (or already there) - this book is Vital, particularly as it covers Basic Issues that are Now Censored by Law Schools and Constitutional Law Texts (like Justice Scalia's Dissent in Romer v. Evans - where he discussed Homosex Bias in Legal Education - and was Censored from the Cohen & Varat Text Book for it) - and does so in a refreshingly candid manner.
In fact, this book is so complete and yet concise, that if one supplements this book with the Cases it Cites (available on the Net for free) - it would serve as a Far Better Constitutional Law Text than most of those on the market. I say this as a Constitutional Law Scholar / First Amendment advocate who graduated with Distinction from the McGeorge Law School - and was threatened with extreme physical violence by a Professor (Myers) while a student in retaliation for daring to support Justice Scalia's (censored - but not forgotten) dissents in class.
For those who are Not Lawyers - Read This Book!! In barely 200 Pages Judge Dierker lays out the Major Cases and Players and Scams that are the stock in trade of the Radical Gender Feminist / Homosex Attack on Society. He does so in an easily understandable and lucid manner, that allows Citizens (and not just the self anointed `legal elite') to understand what is really going on, and how the scam is being run. For many the legal system and Supreme Court is a mystery beyond comprehension - but in the Tyranny of Tolerance the system is dissected in a manner understandable by all.
This Book truly lays bare the inner workings of the Legal System - and Identifies the Strategies and Tactics that have been used to turn it in to the Enemy of the People, and a tool for the self anointed power elites to enforce their Pander or Perish agenda - BAMN (By Any Means Necessary) through the Tyranny of the `Tolerance' police.
One of the BEST READS I have Ever Found - Worth the Time for Any Citizen. 5 Stars!
Book Description
rom 1970 to 1994, Justice Harry A. Blackmun (1908-1999) wrote numerous landmark Supreme Court decisions, including Roe v. Wade, and participated in the most contentious debates of his era-all behind closed doors. In Becoming Justice Blackmun, Linda Greenhouse of The New York Times draws back the curtain on America's most private branch of government and reveals the backstage story of the Supreme Court through the eyes and writings of this extraordinary justice. Greenhouse was the first print reporter to have access to Blackmun's extensive archive and his private and public papers. From this trove she has crafted a compelling narrative of Blackmun's years on the Court, showing how he never lost sight of the human beings behind the legal cases and how he was not afraid to question his own views on such controversial issues as abortion, the death penalty, and sex discrimination. Greenhouse also tells the story of how Blackmun's lifelong friendship with Chief Justice Warren E. Burger withered in the crucible of life on the nation's highest court, revealing how political differences became personal, even for the country's most respected jurists.
Customer Reviews:
It's No The Brethren.......2007-01-25
I was really excited for this book. It did not fulfill. If you haven't read Bob Woodward's The Brethren, or if you for some reason wholly disagreed with it, then you might like Becoming Justice Blackmun. But if you did, you might find this book disappointing. Greenhouse almost completely ignores the negative qualities about Blackmun, especially the incredible amount of time it took him to get his briefs out, and the lack of quality in his first drafts (weaknesses that annoyed many of the other Justices). And what I really wanted to learn more about, the falling apart of Burger and Blackmun, really didn't get the attention that it deserved. They wrote to each other less? What a revelation.
My other problem with this book was the format that the last third of the book takes: quasi-topical/chronological. You can tell that Greenhouse wants to switch to completely topical (which is probably natural for a reporter), but it's a biography, it needs to be strictly chronological. It's hard to keep track of Greenhouse as early in one chapter Ginsburg is a Justice and White isn't, and then all of a sudeen White's on the bench and Ginsburg is arguing in front of it?
This book is good, don't get me wrong. But it belongs nowhere near the upper eschelon of Supreme Court accounts. Read The Brethren. Read Supreme Conflict. Read the 3 biographies on Earl Warren or almost any of the biographies of the justices on his court or on Burger's. To think that Greenhouse had first access to Blackmun's limitless notes, one just expects something that we didn't already know.
Intriguing Book; Disappointing Justice.......2007-01-08
I'm hesitant to review Becoming Justice Blackmun because I think my distaste for the book comes from its main character -- Justice Blackmun -- rather than the book itself. To begin, the book is not so much a biography of Blackmun as it is a book that offers various insights into his character and judicial philosophy (or lack thereof). What emerges is not pretty. Blackmun was devoid of any consistently applied judicial philosophy and rather appeared to decide cases based on his gut. Unfortunately, usually his "gut" was guided by his thin skin and petty disposition. The utter lack of critical thinking that the book shows went into Roe v. Wade, one of the most significant Supreme Court cases to this day, as well as its progeny, is particularly disheartening. Nevertheless, the book is certainly worthwhile in understanding the thinking (or lack thereof) behind the case. It will truly make the critical reader - rather than the knee-jerk liberal - question what our Supreme Court has become.
Very enjoyable, not boring at all.......2006-11-25
I had bought this book on a whim. I remembered one of my professors had recommended to me one semester. The author's style of writing was excellent. Not boring, kept the story moving, focused in on specific court rulings that were controversal.
Blackmun's Papers.......2006-09-15
Please be aware before you pick up this book that it is based almost solely on the personal and professional papers of Justice Blackmun, which he left to the U.S. archives for analysis five years after his death.
That said, this is a smooth and informative read for someone who is interested in how the Court works, as well as a first person account of the Court in the 70s/80s/90s. As expected, special attention is placed on Roe vs. Wade, which Blackmun ended up most famous for. However, the book also does a good job of covering other important decisions during Blackmun's tenure. Worth a buy!
Not so much a Biography...........2006-09-01
What Greenhouse has done with this book is taken a Lifetime Justice Blackmun's papers and condensed it into the "Best of" highlights.
A substantial porition of this book covers Roe v. Wade: Events leading up to it, his role in writing the majority opinion, and then the "preserving Roe" cases and decisions that came to the Court afterwards.
Thus, often times I felt like I was reading about legal meanderings of the Roe v. Wade decision then a biography of Superme Court Justice. The behind the scenes life of being on the Court are often potrayed in the context of deciding abortion related issues.
Yes, there is his story about his beginnings, and his relationship with Justice Warren Burger and how their professional differences resulted in them growing distant. Yes, other cases he are addressed. However, the reader is essentially hampered by the authors decision as to what she finds the most important and what the documents reveal.
If she interivewed any of the 103 law clerks and innumerable other people who knew him during his 21 terms, not to mention his family, it would have made a far more interesting biography. As written one gets an overview of how conservative person ended up being the author of the Roe. v. Wade opinion and its subsequent defense in years thereafter.
Definitely a good starting point but the definitive biography of this Justice has yet to be written.
Customer Reviews:
(RAW Rating: 4.5) - What is happening to black men?.......2007-08-04
Demico Boothe has explored the reasons so many black men are indeed in prison in, WHY ARE SO MANY BLACK MEN IN PRISON? He begins with his own story of a shaky upbringing and his subsequent dabbling in drug dealing. He was caught with a few grams of crack cocaine but because it was the dreaded crack, he was given 10 years in prison. When he left prison after serving his time, he was actually railroaded back into prison by a crooked justice system. He delves deeply into our justice system and the motives behind all the new prisons that are being built. He gives succinct and reasonable views of exactly what is happening now in the United States and how the past has played a role in the present. He uses persuasive statistics regarding the number of black men in prison as compared to the number of white men who are incarcerated.
Demico Boothe has done an excellent job of researching his subject and it is a plus, if unfortunate for him, that he has actually experienced first hand what he's talking about. I knew I was hearing the real story rather than just statistics from an intellectual who had no real idea of what the prison system is really like. I would have liked for Boothe to search a little deeper into the Haiti, Aristide and USA question, maybe even reading Randall Robinson's take on the situation, and then he might see it a bit differently. Otherwise, it is a good book and one every one in America should read. We indeed, have a crisis going on.
Reviewed by Alice Holman
of The RAWSISTAZ Reviewers
Why Are So Many Black Men In Prison? A Comprehensive Account Of How And Why The Prison Industry Has Become A Predatory Entity In.......2007-06-09
The book was very interesting. I learned soooo much about the government and the prison industry. I did some searching independantly to check on the things reported in the book and they are very true. Great Read!! Buy the book.
A Must Read.......2007-05-25
Mr. Demico's book is a must-read for anyone concerned about young African American men. Although I did not agree with every conclusion he reached, Demico's main premises are convincing. As a white woman who teaches mainly students of color, I am always impressed, and often in awe, of those young men who reach college with so much going against them. Demico's books lays bare not only the horrible inequalities of our society, but also the racist attitudes of our political system - - Democrats, Republicans, and most everyone in between.
Why are so many Black Men in Prison?.......2007-05-13
I is a well put together book. He really goes into a lot of detail of how our society is really set up.
Why are so many blacks in prison?.......2007-05-12
I found this book very interesting. As a white devil myself, I had no idea that I was responsible for forcing blacks into committing crimes and then subsequently clogging up the whole "Prison Industrial Complex"(tm). I will try to stop causing this, as I am sure it is creating a LOT of trouble for everyone! Sorry!
It is probably also my fault that young black men dressed in XXXXL clothes overtly threaten me and my family members routinely. Can anyone tell me what I should do to make this not happen?
I imagine it's also my fault that black on white violent crime is WAY higher than white on black violent crime, even though blacks constitute about 12.5% of the population, and whites are about 70%. But since it is impossible for a black to commit a hate crime according to our criminal justice system (since blacks are not under any circumstances racist), statistically, there are more white on black hate crimes. Boothe notes a statistic regarding hate crimes, but he skips the one about interracial violence in general.
In sum, Boothe notes that just about everything blacks do is actually MY fault, because my skin is white. Boothe, I've got a word for you.
Introspection.
Book Description
In Crafting Law on the Supreme Court, Maltzman, Spriggs, and Wahlbeck use material gleaned from internal memos circulated among justices on the U.S. Supreme Court to systematically account for the building of majority opinions. The authors argue that at the heart of this process are justices whose decisions are constrained by the choices made by the other justices. The portrait of the Supreme Court that emerges stands in sharp contrast to the conventional portrait where justices act solely on the basis of the law or their personal policy preferences. This book provides a fascinating glimpse of how the Court crafts the law.
Book Description
This eye-opening dispatch on the culture war traces the dangerous influence of overreaching courts around the world.
Customer Reviews:
This book should be in every law school accross the country........2005-09-16
Judge Bork is of the caliber to be a Cheif Justice. He succinctly dissects every possible facet of the liberal/collectivist argument of each controversial issue. I personally challenge anyone to debate Bork. I respect the man and this book taught much about history and about our political and judicial systems today. A must read, particulary as a balance for widespread liberal press coverage. Very educational and concise and short book.
Ignore the rating, this is a balancing act.......2005-07-08
I haven't read the book yet but I feel compelled to balance out "a reader" who offers only one star and asserts that "misinformation abounds" by stating that Bork "misstates the legal issue surrounding the case".
Do you know what "abounds" means? One example in 176 pages hardly counts.
I might add the reviewer never actually says what Bork has got wrong. I trust that most prospective readers are smart enough to ignore this kind of drivel from an obviously partisan individual and make their own minds up.
Dogmatic Ideology at its Best...or Worst.......2005-04-02
Whether or not one agrees with Robert Bork's opinions (I do as they are in the Goldwater libertarian vein) he has never been one to opine without an intellectual basis. The book uses a phrase that aptly describes the situation: lifestyle socialism. This is not legislating morality from the bench. Instead, it is forcing upon society, through judicial fiat, minority ideas that would never succeed in the proper law-making body (Congress). A long list comes to mind: Banning the Scouts, burning the flag, the war against religious references and symbols, abortion on demand, busing for enforced equality (an oxymoron), prisoner's rights (quote unquote), suing for lack of responsibility such as smoking or overeating.
He explains persuasively that this did not occur overnight but was a result of several factors - the monolithic leftism of academia, the one-world view of the major media and how one case of activism encourages others. Bork also explains not only the decisions but also the motives behind these decisions. As he has written and stated, frequently these are not conscious decisions but instead are responses to an anticipated reaction. Judges, like all people, respond to praise and comdemnation. They win accolades from society's elite - academia, NPR, CNN, Wash Post, Times, Hollywood - if they rule a certain way. They are also aware of the consequences of displeasing these groups. Once the Left realized its agenda would not advance in the legislature they turned to the courts.
The scariest part, and one that he alludes to, is what happens when people draw the line, when they say "that's enought"? We always been a nation of laws but paradoxically the relentless assault from the bench by those who legislate rather than judge will ultimately lead to a reduction of their power. Israel and Canada, two examples in his book, are close to reaching that point. He is not optimistic but not a complete pessimist. The book is not weightt, an easy read for the knowledgable layman.
A good read.......2004-07-16
Bork's conservative politics are readily apparent in his writing, but his legal arguments are logical and apolitical. Hopefully this book will remind conservatives and liberals alike of the importance of proper legislative process. Bork argues that constitutional and international laws have become political tools with which judges impose "new class" political outcomes. Judges in different countries, interpreting different constitutions (or no constitution at all) signed and ratified at different times, representing different political and legal cultures, come to the same conclusion: the law requires judges to implement liberal political outcomes. Bork's case is pretty airtight.
The best chapter is on international law as it pertains to military affairs. His argument is devastating, and changed the way I look at the UN and other internationl bodies.
Bork is too pessimistic.......2004-07-11
I believe it was Nietzsche who said that the moment of total victory marks the beginning of the end. Bork didn't delve deeply enough into the OPERATIONAL foundations of the Constitution; therefore his pessimism -- that we are powerless before the balck-robed usurpers -- is flawed. The antidote is for us to get clear about how the Constitutional machinery operates (bear with me, little children, Uncle Tyrant-Killer will walk you through it): (1) All cases of Constitutional interpretation divide into Judicial-type and Political-type; (2) which type a given case falls into is NOT decided by any theory of judges [see Madison's Notes on the Convention of 1787] but by operation of mutual checks and balances; that is, (3) EITHER the Supreme Court (on appeal) OR the Court of Impeachment (the Senate) have jurisdiction over [right to judge] every person accused of wrongdoing; the jurisdictions are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE, meaning (5) unless the Senate strip it away, every holder of a Constitution-created office (Presidents & Congressmen) ALWAYS enjoys "Sovereign Immunity" from judges, so that they may be judged guilty by the Supreme Court ["SCourt"] for NONE of their official acts, although the SCourt MAY nullify some [see below]; therefore (6) the SCourt's ruling is a nullity in Marbury v. Madison, where John Marshall, claiming power to arbitrate the other two Branches' powers, pretended to operational supremacism over his co-equal and co-ordinate ("equal-ranking") fellow Branches. (7) Judicial activists rant that without Marbury the SCourt cannot defend liberty against the other Branches, which ignores that (a) the SCourt may itself jeopardize liberty; (b) the Framers DESIGNED the SCourt to be (in their own words) the "weakest" Branch, NOT the strongest as supremacism necessitates; and (c) Common Law already gives judges, States and people collectively sufficient means of defending liberty against the Executive and Legislative. To prove (c) let's get clear how the Framers designed the Constitution to OPERATE to vindicate the liberty of persons lacking Federal Sovereign Immunity (i.e. States and people): (8) LIBERTY EQUALS INNOCENCE -- persons found guilty may legitimately have their life, liberty and/or property taken away; therefore, liberty depends on SOMEONE in authority finding you innocent. (9) The Framers granted (or left intact) to each Branch UNILATERAL powers to find innocence, to wit: (a) the Presidential PARDON nullifies both SCourt rulings and Acts of Congress [see Jefferson's blanket pardon of persons convicted under the Alien & Sedition Acts ruled Constitutional by John Marshall's SCourt]; (b) common-law judges' invocation of HABEAS CORPUS may nullify both Legislative enactments and Executive prosecutions; and (c) Congress may immunize persons retroactively against both Executive prosecution and Judicial conviction with a BILL OF INDEMNITY -- a prerogative of Parliament left intact by Madison's affirmation that the Constitution incorporates Common Law. It follows that (10) the Framers made guilt OPERATIONALLY more difficult to find than innocence, meaning illiberty more difficult to arrange than liberty: -- Federal defendants can't be guilty unless ALL THREE Branches agree; the same defendants are innocent if ANY ONE Branch disagrees. Necessarily implied is that (11) the SCourt has NO POWER TO OVERRIDE PRESIDENTIAL OR CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS OF INNOCENCE -- including the innocence of States -- Marbury notwithstanding. How then to scotch judicial activism and supremacism? Simple: (12) single-handedly the President can (a) PARDON THE STATES whose laws were made guilty ("struck down") by the SCourt, restoring into force (i) Texas's sodomy law or (ii) Washington State's term-limit law, but not necessarily (iii) Alabama's segregation laws IF HE AGREES on Alabama's guilt [he'll lose re-election if he doesn't]; (b) announce he will SIMPLY IGNORE all past, present and future SCourt rulings arbitrating his or Congress's powers, proceeding to enforce (i) the Legislative Veto Act and (ii) the Line-Item Veto Act, for examples, both of which are settlements between Congress and President like the War Powers Act, and none of the SCourt's business. NEVERTHELESS, (13) the SCourt may nullify as many Executive and Legislative acts as it pleases, so long as its nullifications consist of FINDING THE FEDERAL DEFENDANT INNOCENT, otherwise the SCourt has NO power to nullify anything. (Think, you stupid wrong-wingers, THINK: a Line-Item Veto and a Legislative Veto find nobody guilty, they check and balance the legislative process, either neutrally -- a Line-Item Veto nullifies spending, -- or else IN FAVOR OF INNOCENCE -- a Legislative Veto finds States and people innocent whom unelected Federal bureaucrats would have found guilty.) So what happens if a Branch plays "hard ball"? -- the SCourt orders the President's arrest? or the President defies a writ of habeas corpus and keeps a man jailed? The Framers did not make the contest equal if carried to an extreme: the President can send in the Marines and shoot the SCourt. He ought to shoot the Federal Marshalls: it's unconstitutional for the SCourt to wield ANY Executive power, because (14) enforcement of SCourt rulings was DESIGNED to hinge operationally on the President's agreement. The Framers provided that President and Congress may suspend habeas corpus, too. The SCourt's weakness, which the Framers designed, entails by design that (15) the States and people must have a hand in saying what the Constitution means, by electing and un-electing Presidents and Congressmen, or by taking up arms against usurpations. It follows (16) the Constitution's meaning was designed to be THE issue in every Federal election. Some people say the Constitution should be kept away from that Great Evil, "politics". The same brain-dead flatliners, too stupid to perceive their own contradiction, worship "democracy" as the Great Good! They should be forced to break rocks in the Gulag until they disprove this: (a) "Man is the political animal" [Aristotle]; therefore, (b) if politics is bad, then man is bad. Judicial supremacist usurpation has become so brazen that today THE ONLY social force supporting it is a monopolistic, viciously partisan media, and their mind-slaves those Democrats who are also Fascist wrong-wingers. Their demise is only a matter of time.
Book Description
In Confirmation Wars, Washington Post editorial writer Benjamin Wittes examines the degradation of the judicial nominations process over the past fifty years. Drawing on years of reporting on judicial nominations, including numerous interviews with nominees and sitting judges, he explains how the process has changed and how these changes threaten the independence of the courts. Getting beyond the partisan blame game that dominates most discussion of nominations, he argues that the process has changed as an institutional response by Congress to modern judicial power and urges basic reforms to better insulate the judiciary from the nastiness of contemporary politics.
Customer Reviews:
Confirmed - analysis of confirmation process.......2007-04-11
Excellent treatment, in the context of an historical narrative, of the controversial subject of the selection of Justices on the US Supreme Court. Book lays out the political priorities of key senators and the "mutual hypocrisy" of both Republicans andDemocrats.
An Interesting Book With Good Information, But One Key Flaw.......2007-04-09
I liked this book. The detailed events, perspective, and clear thinking that it promotes on this topic are, in my view, pretty original. The author uses a great deal of scholarship by Stephen Carter and John Lott. He always notes where he does this though, expresses where he agrees and disagrees, and produces a thought-provoking bound essay which is appropriately and extensively footnoted. Ok, so I like the book and the information... why only 3 stars? We'll, as background, my first experience watching SCOTUS confirmation hearings was in 1987 during my last semester of college. I was taking only 3 or 4 classes and had time on my hands to watch Robert Bork's confirmation hearings. I was apolitical at the time and found the nominee had so clearly out performed his inquisitors that he had to get approved, right? Well, no. Chairman Biden (D-Delaware) had closing remarks that praised the brilliant nominee to such a degree that I thought it possible that Bork had convinced him to buck the pressure and vote to confirm him. Maybe in a perfect world, but not this one. As far as the 3 star rating goes, Biden and his ilk are the reason the central proposal of the book falls flat on its face; that is, the proposal to ban personal testimony of SCOTUS nominees as had been done more often than not in the past. In subsequent hearings for other nominees I've seen Biden and others so clearly in love with the sound of their own voice on television that he/they take up the majority of allotted time ASKING simple questions and apparently caring little what the nominee says. Too darn bad. TV sunk Nixon vs. JFK (not all bad) and in subsequent years has made the otherwise entirely reasonable thesis of this essay laughable in terms of practicality. Other than that, it was a great book with a lot of information and insight that I appreciated.
Finally a balanced discussion of the Judicial Confirmation Process.......2007-02-20
Published Sunday, January 28, 2007, in New York Post
DEMOCRATS now paint Republicans as evil for appointing reactionary judges and for trying to kill all Democratic nominees to the bench; Republicans pillory Democrats for acting similarly at the opposite extreme. In "Confirmation Wars," Benjamin Wittes shows that both sides have blood on their hands, though I don't think that his proposed cure will work.
Wittes offers a terrific history of Supreme Court nominations - showing convincingly that confirmations could be tough long before the modern battles over William Rehnquist and Robert Bork. For example, he cites Louis Brandeis and Thurgood Marshall, who both faced rough confirmations - as did several nominees after the court delivered its Brown v. Board of Education ruling. But in denying that something fundamental has changed since those battles, Wittes is simply wrong.
The confirmation process is getting more bitter and drawn out with every passing Congress, whether Republicans or Democrats control the White House or the Senate. Yes, Wittes rightly notes that confirmations were taking longer even before senators started threatening filibusters, indeed hearings have long been used to produce political attacks, rather than insights into a nominee's thinking.
But the trends are clear. Consider the 47 appointments to the Supreme Court from 1901 through 1977: 39 were confirmed in a month or less, and 20 within 10 days - nine of those within three days. Since 1986, however, bitterness has reached an historical high, with the average confirmation taking 79 days. . . .
I wish Wittes was right that this bitterness could be reined in by ending confirmation hearings. But I fear such hearings are more a symptom than a cause of the problem. Unless the role of the courts is reined in - something that liberals will not seriously discuss - neither side dares to disarm.
An Interesting Look at a Complicated Issue.......2006-12-19
Everybody acknowledges that the confirmation process for Supreme Court Justices (and increasingly Court of Appeals judges as well) has evolved into a large mess. Many books have been written on this topic in the last several years; this one is quite interesting and designed for the general reader, and even comes equipped with a fascinating proposed solution. The author is an editorial writer for the "Washington Post" here in town. And although the book is published in conjunction with the conservative Hoover Institution at Stanford, it is fairly well balanced in casting brickbacks at both parties for their miserable conduct in connection with confirmation hearings. The author first sums up the various positions asserted in the debate about the current mess--i.e., who/what is responsible and why. Next he traces -- in probably the book's best chapter -- how the confirmation process has unfortunately evolved over time. How the present system might result in a threat to judicial independence is addressed in a separate chapter. The most fascinating element of the book is the author's proposal: let's just abolish confirmation hearings and work out some other alternative to assessing the qualifications and values of nominees. While this not likely to happen, and an argument can be made that the Senate is abdicating its responsibilities if it does not hold hearing to probe nominees, it is nonetheless a proposal deserving of serious consideration. The author's style is easy to read and the book moves along (it is only about 150 pages), supported by some good notes, but alas lacking a bibliography. It will be interesting to see if the book will spark a serious discussion about adopting his proposed solution.
Book Description
This book examines both the constitutional jurisprudence of Supreme Court justice Louis D. Brandeis and one of his most famous and controversial opinions, Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938). This landmark decision led to a significant relocation of power from federal to state courts, and, says the author, it provides a window on the legal, political, and ideological battles over the federal courts in the New Deal era and after.
Book Description
This classic reader has been a best selling component of the Judicial Process/Judicial Politics/American Legal System course for years. The sixth edition has been thoroughly updated while retaining the features that made it attractive for so long: its effective structure, thorough coverage, narrative voice, choice of excerpts, and teaching flexibility.
Books:
- The Best American Science and Nature Writing 2004 (The Best American Series)
- The Best American Science Writing 2003 (Best American Science Writing)
- The Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal: A Life in the Balance (Open Media Pamphlet Series)
- The Challenge of Democracy: Government in America
- The Cigarette Century: The Rise, Fall, and Deadly Persistence of the Product That Defined America
- The Contact Has Begun: The True Story of a Journalist's Encounter with Alien Beings
- The Deadly Bet: LBJ, Vietnam, and the 1968 Election (Vietnam. America in the War Years)
- The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time
- The Imperial Presidency
- The Intellectual Foundation of Information Organization (Digital Libraries and Electronic Publishing)
Books Index
Books Home
Recommended Books
- Beating the Dow with Bonds : A High-Return, Low-Risk Strategy for Outperforming the Pros Even When S
- The Complete Houseplant Survival Manual: Essential Gardening Know-How for Keeping
- Queer Cowboys: And Other Erotic Male Friendships in Nineteenth-Century American Literature
- Lonely Planet South Africa, Lesotho & Swaziland
- Shadows in Bronze
- The Scribner Anthology of Contemporary Short Fiction: Fifty North American American Stories Since 19
- Shasta and the Shebang Machine
- Testing Applications on the Web: Test Planning for Mobile and Internet-Based Systems, Second Edition
- Granite Bay, Inc. Level One CD-ROM Practice Set
- Babylon Sisters: A Novel
Legal History
| Perspectives on Law
| Law
| Subjects
| Books
The Supreme Court: The Personalities and Rivalries That Defined America
The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court
My Grandfather's Son: A Memoir
Supreme Discomfort: The Divided Soul of Clarence Thomas
The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court
