Editorial Review

A tiny, ebullient Jew who started as America's leading liberal and ended as its most famous judicial conservative.A Klansman who became an absolutist advocate of free speech and civil rights.A backcountry lawyer who started off trying cases about cows and went on to conduct the most important international trial ever.A self-invented, tall-tale Westerner who narrowly missed the presidency but expanded individual freedom beyond what anyone before had dreamed.

Four more different men could hardly be imagined.Yet they had certain things in common.Each was a self-made man who came from humble beginnings on the edge of poverty.Each had driving ambition and a will to succeed.Each was, in his own way, a genius.

They began as close allies and friends of FDR, but the quest to shape a new Constitution led them to competition and sometimes outright warfare. SCORPIONStells the story of these four great justices: their relationship with Roosevelt, with each other, and with the turbulent world of the Great Depression, World War II, and the Cold War.It also serves as a history of the modern Constitution itself.

... Read more

Reviews

Court Battles
The author has cherry-picked the four most interesting Supreme Court justices from the eight men that President Rossevelt appointed to the high bench. This legal account really follows the tenure of Robert Jackson (1941-1954) as he interacts with fellow justices Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurther, and Wiliam Douglas. It is an arbitrary time period chosen by the author, but it is climaxed by the historic Brown vs. Board of Education decision and Justice Jackson's death. The narrative alternates between the constitutional theories of each of the justice's and between their brilliant but competitive minds. The book combines dueling legal arguments, New Deal politics and clashing personalities into an absorbing narrative of the World War Two era and beyond.

I doubt even the author realizes how good this book is - Finest book ever written about the Supreme Court !!!!


By way of disclosure I am a private scholar who has studied the interplay of power among different institutions and entities, whether it is government, corporations, or other power groups. I have been a member of the Supreme Court Historical Society for many of the last 30 years and I have been fortunate to have developed personal relationships with many associate justices and two Chief Justices. Having said that, I am simply amazed at the wonderfully expertly written, fascinating, and breathtaking book that Feldman has written.


His anecdotes and historical references are both brilliant and factual. He has truly captured the essence of the Supreme Court and its stormy relationship with FDR during a critical period of American history. This was during the 1930's and for the next thirty years. This is a book about 5 egos, four of them justices, and one President, and the interplay between them during 3 decades. The first part of the book is devoted to a fast sweeping biography of 4 associate justices all of whom were appointed by the patrician Franklin Roosevelt.


The Players in this book:


Felix Frankfurter

Brilliant beyond anyone's understanding, he was the product of a poor family living in the slums of New York. He went to the City College of New York, and although it is not mentioned in the book, City College at that time was considered better than Harvard because the Ivy League was limiting Jewish enrollment intentionally. This allowed City College at one point to have more Nobel Prize winners than Harvard.

After graduation, Frankfurter put together some money and went on to Harvard Law where he excelled. Ultimately he developed mentors like Henry Stimson, an absolutely legendary power broker in Washington who served several Presidents including FDR as Secretary of War. Frankfurter is without question one of the intellectually most gifted people to ever serve on the Court.


Robert Jackson

Jackson was born dirt poor, so poor in fact, he could not afford an undergraduate education, and so he apprenticed to be a lawyer with a Jamestown New York law office. While working, he decided to pursue a year of formal education at the Albany New York Law School. He was folksy, clever, with a fabulous speaking delivery, exercised common sense and made a fortune before risking it all on a bank during FDR's first days in office.


Hugo Black

Black did a 2 year program at the University Of Alabama School Of Law. He was self-guided, extremely well read and understood that in the 1920's, the power was with the Ku Klux Klan, and so he joined in 1923. It helped him with his rise to power in Alabama and then he abruptly left the organization. It haunted him the rest of his life. He joined the Supreme Court in 1937, and became one of the most outspoken proponents of freedom, and free speech during the century.


William O. Douglas

Raised on the West Coast in Washington, he became a Yale Law School professor in his 20's. Accepted at Harvard Law, he went to Columbia Law instead. This man also knew how to be mentored. He came under the guidance of Robert Maynard Hutchins who graduated Yale Law in 1925 and immediately became a professor of law. Two years later Hutchins becomes dean of the school at 28 years of age. He then brings Douglas to Yale to be right in the center of things. Douglas would then be mentored by Joe Kennedy, JFK's father. Joe Kennedy would introduce Douglas to FDR, and thus a rocket ship ascent began for the future associate justice.


You need to understand who these players were to determine if you want to read this book. What the author clearly demonstrates is how these four individuals who on and off for thirty years would be friends and enemies would go on to reshape our modern interpretation of the Constitution, and the laws under which we live. Every major law and judicial event of the 20th century came through their hands for interpretation and lawfulness.


Their joint influence is not exceeded by anyone including Presidents. Just look at a short list of some of the seminal events they were involved in:


* The concept of Judicial Restraint

* Clear and Present Danger Case

* Dennis v. United States - The right or non-right to advocate the overthrow of the United States

* Judgment at Nuremburg - The right of the world to judge the implementers of Hitler's final solution. Associate Justice Robert Jackson presided.

* Brown v. Board of Education - Outlawing the separate but equal doctrine created by the Plessy v. Ferguson decision. Justice Jackson went through four different drafts of this new interpretation. While very ill at the time, Justice Jackson found it excruciatingly difficult to render a unanimous opinion. He went directly to the Court from a hospital bed to render support for the earthshaking decision the Court published.

* The Rosenberg Case



What you will gain from reading this book:


You will understand our country, and more importantly the true genius of the founding fathers in creating an independent Supreme Court. You will be awed by the intellectual genius of some of America's greatest minds dedicated to an interpretation of our laws. Even when you disagree with them, you will be struck by the quality of their thinking.


This is not about liberal versus conservative, which is what we see today. I have known many of the great liberals as well as the conservatives on the Court, and I am impressed by both types. My own personal demand on sitting justices is that they are people of absolute integrity, and extraordinary intellects, and for the most part we have been blessed by both from the right and the left.


Author Noah Feldman has given us a rare glimpse into some of the most interesting personalities of the 20th century. You will also get to know Tommy the Cork Corcoran, one of the most powerful legal players in the 20th century. You will meet Abe Fortas, perhaps the most influential associate justice of the 20 century. This is a man who sat in Lyndon Johnson's cabinet meetings, not at the table, but back several feet by the window. He would take it all in, and then when alone with the President dissect the whole meeting, and tell President Johnson what to do. I doubt LBJ could have remained in office through 1968 without the solid advice rendered by Abe Fortas.


In summary, if you have any interest in the Supreme Court at all, or how government works, this book should be at the top of your list. I simply could not put it down, and thank you for reading this review.


Richard C. Stoyeck

Conflict on the FDR Supreme Court
There are a number of books and articles that discuss conflict between Supreme Court Justices, including the four Justices at the center of this fine study: Felix Frankfurter (1882-1965); Robert Jackson (1892-1954); Hugo Black (1886-1971); and William O. Douglas (1898-1975). Collectively, these Justices served between 1939 and 1975. However this book is unique in several ways that advance our understanding of the Court during this period. At about 500 pages, the author is able to paint a more complete picture of the Justices and their Court interaction than shorter studies. Each Justice is introduced, in terms both of his pre-Court career and his relationship with FDR. So by the time the author discusses their Court interaction, the reader has a particularly good feel for each Justice as an individual. Unlike most other studies, the author devotes probably most attention to Robert Jackson, an almost forgotten figure today who is soon to be the subject of a major biography by Professor John Q. Barrett. This focus on Jackson, former Attorney General, whom Justice Brandeis considered the finest Solicitor General he had seen, who later served as lead American prosecutor at Nuremberg, and who wrote some of the finest opinions in the Court's history, enhances the study enormously.

The book also sheds light on the other three Justices as well. The much criticized Frankfurter, who went from being the leading Court liberal to outright conservative, is assessed in ways that allow the reader to understand why the shift to an activist Court left Frankfurter behind, rather than a shift in his own judicial restrainist philosophy. A perceptive discussion of Black and the development of his incorporation and textual philosophy of interpretation helps fill out an understanding of this key Justice. Equally important as his revival of Jackson is the author's rehabilitative portrait of Douglas, driven by political ambitions until 1948, when he emerges as a "great justice" and theoretician of new constitutional rights (such as privacy) and opponent of the Vietnam war. As a corrective to the "Wild Bill" approach to Douglas, the author's analysis is most welcome. We are reminded of why Douglas was so vital a Justice during his tenure in dealing with issues such as the flag salute cases, Japanese relocation, the HCUA, and the Rosenbergs.

On top of all this, the book is a solid analysis of some of the leading cases in our constitutional history during this period. The discussions of "Brown," the Steel Seizure and "Dennis" cases are particularly perceptive. Another focus is the intellectual approach to judging each man employed. Some issues of judicial philosophy are raised, for example Jackson's pragmatic approach (promoting the effective functioning of the government) and Alexander Bickel's "counter-majoritarian difficulty." The bizarre Black-Jackson feud that erupts while Jackson is at Nuremberg is skillfully dissected and explained. There is much more of marked value in the book, supported by 46 pages of helpful endnotes, a 12 page bibliography, and some useful photographs. While one can quibble with the author's perhaps excessive opinions of Douglas and Jackson, and some of his other judgments, in the process one can learn a tremendous amount about these four unique individuals, the Court they made, and our constitutional history.

A Great Book about the mid-20th century Supreme Court
FDR appointed nine Supreme Court justices including the elevation of Harlan Fiske Stone to Chief Justice. The collection of individuals who orbited around FDR during the New Deal and World War II and those who appointed to the Court are an amazing list of influential, intelligent, and inspiring people who helped shape America. This book focuses on four of FDR's Supreme Court nominees: Hugo Black, an Alabama Senator; Felix Frankfurter, one of the nation's foremost authorities on the Court who knew FDR from the Wilson Administration; William Douglas, the SEc Chairman who could never truly end his love affair with presidential politics; Robert Jackson, the fast rising Solicitor General, Attorney General, and prosecutor and Nuremberg.

Noah Feldman traces the rise of FDR as well as these four individuals. The author tells us of their careers, beliefs, and interaction prior to their court confirmations and then their struggles once there. It is a political, constitutional, and personal history of the United States largely between the 1930s and 1960s. You will learn about the wheeling and dealing behind presidential and vice-presidential nominations, the constitutional history of many monumental Supreme Court decisions largely culminating in Brown v. Board of Education, and the personal friendships, rivalries, and outright conflicts at play.

In addition to the main cast of four justices and FDR, major players include political insider and New Dealer Tommy "The Cork" Corcoran, short term Supreme Court Justice James Byrnes, Attorney General Francis Biddle, Democratic insider Robert Hannegan, and many others who colored our country's history.

Despite having read a fair amount about the Supreme Court during these times and even some biographies of the nominees, I learned a great deal from reading this book. Unlike other treatments, the author really gives Douglas his due as an important thinker on the court. Many other books dismiss Frankfurter as a liberal who shifted right on the court, but that is really only a small part of his story told here. Jackson's pragmatism made him harder to pigeonhole and his ambition always left him wanting something else such as the position of Chief Justice or the presidency. Hugo Black invented modern day originalism, though of course he bent over backwards for certain decisions, such as Brown v. BOE, to meet it.

FDR's years as president were impactful enough. But Noah Feldman shows that they were even farther reaching than we thought, coloring the Warren Court, Justice Brennan's liberal jurisprudence, and many of the constitutional questions the Court is still dealing with today involving privacy and the Bill of Rights as it affects the states.

Spectacular Readable Legal History!
Feldman has written a spectacularly excellent history of the Supreme Court FDR made, the Supreme Court that transformed American jurisprudence and shaped it into what it is today. Feldman writes a kind of history that is all too rare -- addictively readable stories of real human beings who shape Constitutional doctrine and made history in the process. Frankfurter, Douglas, Black, and Jackson fought with one another, an opinion at a time, a personal affront at a time, and gave us all the Constitution that now protects free speech, the rights of minorities, and counts the Bill of Rights as the center of the Constitution rather than an appendage, the Constitution that grows, developes, is anything but static. Others will write in detail about the contents of this book, I won't. I will simply say that for anyone who is even mildly interested in Constitutional law in our time, this is a wonderful read for the lay person, the law student, or the skilled practitioner -- a wonderful reminder that although we say we are a nation of laws, not men, it is men who make the laws we live by, and fallible all too human men who interpret and apply it.

The origins of modern constitutional law
It seems as if there's a veritable slew of good books about Supreme Court justices this year. The latest, Noah Feldman's Scorpions: The Battles and Triumphs of FDR's Great Supreme Court Justices, focuses on four of Franklin Roosevelt's appointees: Felix Frankfurter, Hugo Black, Robert Jackson, and William O. Douglas.

Each of these justices is fascinating and could merit an individual biography (and there are biographies on each). By writing a joint biography, however, Feldman is really able to compare and contrast these men and their jurisprudence. Frankfurter was the activist law professor who was reluctant to exercise judicial review. Hugo Black, a former KKK member, became a noted civil libertarian and read the constitution literally. Robert Jackson, a small-town lawyer and later Nuremberg prosecutor, usually judged cases with an eye towards pragmatic policy solutions. William O. Douglas pined for political office but settled for preaching liberal values. Together, these men developed or promoted the modern constitutional doctrines of judicial restraint, originalism, pragmatism, and liberalism.

Outside the legal realm, these four justices often fought and bickered to a degree startling for four liberals appointed by the same president. Robert Jackson, who at law schools is portrayed as a reverential figure, got into a petty argument with Black over whether the latter should recuse himself in a case involving a former lawyer partner. Jackson even took his dispute public, sending cables from Nuremberg to impugn his colleague. Frankfurter viewed Black as an intellectual lightweight and relied on a network of mentees to conduct historical research against Black's legal philosophy. Douglas comes off as boorish, especially to his law clerks. However, there are some heartening moments too, such as when Frankfurter defends Jackson against the latter's former ungrateful law clerk, William Rehnquist.

I haven't been a fan of Feldman's past work, particularly the lightweight The Fall and Rise of the Islamic State (Council on Foreign Relations Book). However, I think he gets Scorpions: The Battles and Triumphs of FDR's Great Supreme Court Justices just about right. For law students like me, I can recognize some of the cases and legal debates to which the book refers. It certainly furthered my understanding of these cases. Perhaps best of all, having a passing familiarity with these justices, I was still genuinely shocked by some of the book's anecdotes (particularly the petty fueds). However, it's generally accessible enough for any reader interested in American history to understand and enjoy.

My only "criticism" of Scorpions is that it's not long enough to do the subject full justice. I know, that's a common faux criticism. The main narrative essentially ends with Jackson's death in 1954, after Brown v. Board. However, Feldman alludes to tantalizing hints of how the other justices behaved afterwards. For example, Black and Douglas, despite being ideological allies during the 1950s, stopped speaking to each other in the late 1960s. Yet, Feldman doesn't really explain why. I felt like the book could really have benefitted from just a few more pages.

Overall, I'd highly recommend this for readers interested in the Supreme Court in particular, or just U.S. history generally. I'd also recommend Jeff Shesol's Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. the Supreme Court, which covers FDR's court-packing scheme and acts as a nice prequel to Scorpions.

IMOPORTANT SUPREME COURT HISTORY
Harvard Professor Noah Feldman's book SCORPIONS maybe one of the best books available on the history of the Supreme Court. This amazing book deals with the backgrounds and histories of and the terms of four FDR appointees, brilliant men, Felix Frankfurter, Hugo Black, Robert JaCkson, and William O. Douglas. Any reader of legal studies, histories, or educated read would easily recognize these gentlemen as giants of the Court. The book is rich with history and legal issues done in detail yet easy to read. HIGHLY HIGHLY RECOMMENDED

Excellent Legal and Political History
Noah Feldman's Scorpions: The Battles and Triumphs of FDR's Great Supreme Court Justices is a superb piece of historical, political, and legal scholarship. I was made aware of the book by reviews in The Atlantic and The Economist, both of which praised the work. I concur wholeheartedly in their praise.

I've often wondered how human emotions and idiosyncrasies play into Supreme Court rulings. This book gives you examples from the mid twentieth century about how these impacted some of the most significant Supreme Court rulings in the history of the United States. That doesn't sound like a good thing on the surface, but the author explores how those emotions and idiosyncrasies opened the minds of these justices to create and compile some of the most significant theories of American constitutional law. These guys could be petty, vindictive, vengeful, rude, and maniacally egotistical, more often than not with each other, but they were also bright individuals who made positive contributions to American law and society. I don't always agree politically with all the contributions they made, but one cannot argue with the monumental impact of their decisions and opinions, even some of their dissents that did not ultimately become law.

If you have even a remote interest in America political history or American constitutional law, read this book. You will not be disappointed.

Keith ... Read more

Editorial Review

The Supreme Court is one of the most extraordinary institutions in our system of government. Charged with the responsibility of interpreting the Constitution, the nine unelected justices of the Court have the awesome power to strike down laws enacted by our elected representatives. Why does the public accept the Court’s decisions as legitimate and follow them, even when those decisions are highly unpopular? What must the Court do to maintain the public’s faith? How can the Court help make our democracy work? These are the questions that Justice Stephen Breyer tackles in this groundbreaking book.

Today we assume that when the Court rules, the public will obey. But Breyer declares that we cannot take the public’s confidence in the Court for granted. He reminds us that at various moments in our history, the Court’s decisions were disobeyed or ignored. And through investigations of past cases, concerning the Cherokee Indians, slavery, and Brown v. Board of Education, he brilliantly captures the steps—and the missteps—the Court took on the road to establishing its legitimacy as the guardian of the Constitution.

Justice Breyer discusses what the Court must do going forward to maintain that public confidence and argues for interpreting the Constitution in a way that works in practice. He forcefully rejects competing approaches that look exclusively to the Constitution’s text or to the eighteenth-century views of the framers. Instead, he advocates a pragmatic approach that applies unchanging constitutional values to ever-changing circumstances—an approach that will best demonstrate to the public that the Constitution continues to serve us well. The Court, he believes, must also respect the roles that other actors—such as the president, Congress, administrative agencies, and the states—play in our democracy, and he emphasizes the Court’s obligation to build cooperative relationships with them.

Finally, Justice Breyer examines the Court’s recent decisions concerning the detainees held at Guantánamo Bay, contrasting these decisions with rulings concerning the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. He uses these cases to show how the Court can promote workable government by respecting the roles of other constitutional actors without compromising constitutional principles.

Making Our Democracy Work is a tour de force of history and philosophy, offering an original approach to interpreting the Constitution that judges, lawyers, and scholars will look to for many years to come. And it further establishes Justice Breyer as one of the Court’s greatest intellectuals and a leading legal voice of our time. ... Read more

Reviews

Further Views on the Proper Role for the Supreme Court, September 21, 2010
This book is a continuation of the dialogue Justice Breyer began in his previous work "Active Liberty." There, he argued that the Court should implement greater participation of citizens in their government. Although he touched at points upon the originalist/literalist approach to interpretation favored by Justices Scalia and Thomas, in his typical polite and reasonable fashion he preferred to explain his approach rather than lob grenades at their dedication to text and originalism. This book too is polite and reasonable, but aims to look at a wider and more fundamental issue--how can the Court contribute to making a "workable democracy" by applying enduring constitutional values to ever-changing circumstances. The short answer in this pragmatic-oriented book, is for the Court to build productive relationships with other governing institutions, as it protects individual rights and searches for the values underlying the Constitution. In short, Breyer is again arguing for what might be termed a greater degree of "judicial modesty" which facilitates better governance.

Breyer first discusses the concept of judicial review, where it came from in Marbury v. Madison, and how history demonstrates (in the Cherokee removal, Dred Scott, and the Little Rock desegregation cases) how dependent the Court is upon ephemeral public support. Breyer is unique in his ability to explain historical and legal concepts in terms that the general reader can assimilate--a rare talent indeed. Basically, Bryer concludes, as long as the Court's opinions are "principled, reasoned, transparent and informative" it will hold public support. Once again, I was disappointed that his discussion of the Bush v. Gore case is highly polite and reasonable and does not, I am sure, reflect the intra-Court dynamics involved in that sad episode.

One of the most masterful sections of the book is where the Justice discusses why he thinks originalism, reliance upon text, and founders' history are not determinative in interpreting the Constitution or statutes. As usual, he is polite and positive, but he makes his point well. Rather, reliance upon purpose and consequences constitute a superior approach.

So, how should the Court proceed to build cooperative relationships? Breyer devotes individual chapters to answering this question as relates to Congress and statutes ("reasonable" interpretation), the executive branch and administrative agencies (recognize its greater expertise than courts), and the states and federalism (like Justice Brandeis, recognize the benefits of state and local experimentation and defer strongly). Two the best chapters in the book, for both the general reader and those better versed in the issues, address how the Court should deal with lower federal courts, and why precedent is important and when it should be followed (the current Court majority might find this discussion particularly illuminating).

The final section of the book deals with concepts such as permanent values, proportionality, "core elements," and "workable reality." These are somewhat intangible concepts, and Breyer's discussion may encourage some to embrace originalism, history and text as somewhat more substantial interpretative guidelines. He uses the Court's recent decisions in the Second Amendment and Guantanamo prison cases, as well as the 1940's Japanese relocation cases, to explore these concepts. It is quite interesting to peek into the mind of a sitting Justice (as it was with "Active Liberty") to see how he perceives the Court's role. This dimension is as helpful to the experienced student of the Court as it is to the average citizen.

The book runs some 254 pages including notes, and contains some illustrations and an appendix designed to quickly educate the general reader about the Court and how it works. Although sometimes Breyer seems to be "up in the clouds" as he tackles ephemeral concepts, there is no question that this is one of the rare books that really opens up the reader's mind to new concepts and considerations.

Enjoyable and insightful, September 24, 2010
I liked this book for many reasons, but two stand out. First, it is an interesting contextualization of the path our country has taken starting out from the basic "idea" of the role of the Supreme Court in the American political system as envisioned by the Founders, to the current manifestation of that role, replete with twists and turns along the way. Second, and very much in the intellectual spirit of his previous book (which I also really liked), it is a reminder that our government is only as good as we, its citizens, are: active, educated and engaged participants allow the engine to function as it should, with the Court serving in its role as, in Justice Breyer's words, the border patrol that makes sure nothing enacted by Congress violates the basic precepts forth by the framers. I enjoyed Justice Breyer's prose style and also found the individual cases he discusses, and his take on them, incredibly interesting in their own right. I would highly recommend this book to anyone, left right and center, who has a pulse and cares about our country ... how a series of ideas set forth a couple hundred years ago are being manifest in contemporary American society. An important book that I suspect history will look on kindly.

How government works, September 27, 2010
First, I think it's important to state that I don't think Breyer wrote this book to promote a political point of view. Quite the opposite: he shows remarkable restraint and a willingness to try and explain fairly the basis for differing opinions held on important cases.

His reason for writing this book was to educate U.S. citizens how government works and the principles that judges and justices try to follow in deciding cases. He explained his hope that, if we better understand these things, we'll have more confidence in our government and be actively interested in how our government works. Better citizens, in other words.

I'd say that there is one subject that gets Breyer up on his soapbox: he firmly believes that the courts can produce the best results in support of a workable democracy by applying a practical consideration of legislative intent, values, subsidiarity, specialization, appropriate deference to expertise and several other concepts. He makes a pretty good case for this approach. Each additional layer of guiding principles, taken by itself, seems reasonable enough, but when he guides the reader through the balancing act that judges have to go through in selecting and applying the relevant principles in appropriate proportion to a particular case, it really gave me an appreciation for how difficult and complex this can be.

I especially enjoyed his review of a number of landmark cases, including Marbury vs Madison, Dred Scott, Brown vs Board of Education, a couple of cases regarding Japanese internment during WWII and four cases involving Guantanamo detainees. Very informative.

Breyer's writing style is clear, easy to follow, and a pleasure to read. I highly recommend this book.

Aimed at non-lawyers, but lawyers who want to know how judges think will be fascinated., October 6, 2010
Any book by a Supreme Court justice is worth reading, this book is not an exception. The case discussions are at a law school constitutional law class level. In this sense, this part of the book is not new for lawyers, but non-lawyers will find it enlightening.

Where the book excels is the rich detail that surrounds cases. That detail helps to understand what justices who employed the pragmatic approach would have considered.

After reading sections such as the pragmatic approach vs. the originalism approach, I felt the book was incomplete; I needed to get a more complete view. The book's last paragraph suggests that was Justice Breyer's intent when it states "The stories this book sets forth are told from the point of view of one judge", "I hope they lead others to study and ponder their lessons about our constitutional history."

If the book gave a more balanced view, not necessitating further research on my part, I would have given it another star, perhaps I am being too grudging with the 5th star.

Suggestion for reading this book. Look over the appendices first, because:
* The text of the book doesn't mention there are photos in the back.
* The back contains a well written explanation of how the Supreme Court works.
* All the footnotes, really endnotes, are in the back of the book; in legal writing much can be gained by reading the footnotes.

A sober and thoughtful analysis of the role of the judiciary, October 4, 2010
The negative reviews of this book treat it as just another radical liberal screed. Those reviewers either have not read the book or have a huge political chip on their shoulders. Thoughtful, reasoned and sober are the adjectives that first come to my mind. If you are interested in an enlightened exposition of the proper balance between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government this is a great place to start.

An important book for our times, September 23, 2010
This book is a page turner and highlights the hallmarks of Justice Breyer: wisdom, insight, modesty and a deep belief in the US system of government.

The first part of the book highlights the Court's role in the suppression and later provision of Civil Rights for minorities in the US. Justice Breyer's storytelling is very moving and shows his depth of knowledge and understanding of the constitutional issues.

The rest of the book deals with the art of judging and duties and obligations of the Court.

This is a highly stimulating and well written book. More importantly, I believe it is an important book for our times. I highly recommend it.

Great for the laity, November 27, 2010
Justice Breyer lays out, in a clear and easy-to-follow yet convincing manner how and why "we the people" have come to regard the Supreme Court throughout the ages. By tracing the Court's origins in decisions like Marbury v. Madison all the way to the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Breyer shows us how the public's reaction to the court evolves over time and becomes the Court our forefathers envisioned.

Not only that, but he makes a compelling case for his methods of interpreting the Constitution and anyone, even those side more with Justice Scalia's methods, would be well advised to pick up this book if for no other reason than to get a better idea of his methodologies.

Thoughtful and interesting, November 5, 2010
In "Making our Democracy Work," Justice Breyer expands upon his treatise "Active Liberty" with several interesting examples of how the Judiciary established its role, and how it needs to act to maintain credibility as the guarantor of liberties established in the Constitution. Justice Breyer's uses counter examples, such as Dred Scott, showing the Court doesn't always get it right (and history may hold one of the negative reviews here correct with a couple more counter examples).

I had hoped this work would expand a bit more on the role of the citizen in making our democracy work, but Justice Breyer really only pays lip service to this in the Conclusion. Still, illuminating the role of the weakest branch of government through the lens of some of our history's most important and controversial cases provides a fascinating peek into the function of the court.

The thoughtfulness that goes into deciding cases should make us all thankful that the Founding Fathers had the foresight to implement independent checks and balances in the American form of government.

Making Our Democracy Work, October 19, 2010
Stephen Breyer presents a comprehensive history of the Constitution and beginning of our nation with the debates surrounding some of the elements of the Constitution by our founding fathers during the administration of President Washington through to today. He describes how the importance of the court system evolved over time, especially the unique role of the Supreme Court.

The areas of law that the Supreme Court reviews are outlined with different chapters discussing each area, provides examples and reasoning behind both the majority decision and dissenting viewpoint giving validity to both. It is highly readable with explanations provided in layman's terms. A must read for all who are interested or desire to learn the importance and workings of our highest court.

Trust, December 11, 2010
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer's new book, Making Our Democracy Work, presents a civics primer about how the court fits into our society and government. This practical book is accessible to all readers and can provide insight into the context in which the court operates, and the historical and current importance of securing and maintaining public trust. An ongoing question is whether or not the public will follow the court's decisions, and Breyer sees an important role of the court in helping laws work well in practice. He provides a perspective on past and current cases that is both readable and interesting for any citizen.

Rating: Three-star (Recommended)
... Read more

Editorial Review

In the years before World War II, Franklin Roosevelt's fiercest, most unyielding opponent was neither a foreign power nor "fear itself." It was the U.S. Supreme Court.

Beginning in 1935, in a series of devastating decisions, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority left much of FDR’s agenda in ruins. The pillars of the New Deal fell in short succession. It was not just the New Deal, but democracy itself, that stood on trial. In February 1937, Roosevelt struck back with an audacious plan to expand the Court to fifteen justices—and to “pack” the new seats with liberals who shared his belief in a “living” Constitution.

The ensuing fight was a firestorm that engulfed the White House, the Court, Congress, and the nation. The final verdict was a shock. It dealt FDR the biggest setback of his political life, split the Democratic party, and set the stage for a future era of Republican dominance. Yet the battle also transformed America’s political and constitutional landscape, hastening the nation’s march into the modern world.

This brilliant work of history unfolds like a thriller, with vivid characters and unexpected twists. Providing new evidence and fresh insight, Jeff Shesol shows why understanding the Court fight is essential to understanding the presidency, personality, and legacy of FDR—and to understanding America at a crossroads in its history.

Reviews

The Title Says It All, March 27, 2010
Mr. Shesol has created a wonderful and readable account of politics in the 1930's. Even the chapter titles are colorful and implies the high stakes involved in the political showdown between the liberal President and the conservative Supreme Court. The author does not begin his tale in 1937 (the year of the court-packing political battle), but in 1932 with Roosevelt's election in a time of economic turmoil. He clearly covers Roosevelt's first term with the New Deal programs that were overturned by the Supreme Court, the 1936 landslide victory by Roosevelt and then his political decision to deal with all the 5-4 and 6-3 court rulings that he lost. With 500+ pages of text and 100 pages of supporting documentation/index, this is an excellent work of political history.

FDR and the Supremes--Once Again, April 24, 2010
There are a number of excellent books on the battle over the 1937 Court packing plan put forward by President Roosevelt in 1937 by, for example, Marian C. McKenna, Burt Solomon, and William E. Leuchtenburg. Each book takes a slightly different approach from the others; combined they afford an expansive and thorough view of this fascinating episode. This most recent recounting of the tale stands high, in my opinion, even in this distinguished group. For one thing, the author keeps his primary focus at all times where it should be: on FDR, his Attorney General Homer Cummings, and the FDR intimate circle of advisors: Tommy the Cork, Harold Ickes, Ben Cohen, Warner Gardner, James Roosevelt and Felix Frankfurter. Moreover, the author labors hard to give us the most complete peek into what was going on inside the Court during this period. This involves extensive manuscript research, reviews of published letters and unpublished diaries, information drawn from judicial biographies, and extensive press research. By its very secret nature, we will never know as much as we would like about what was taking place within the Court, but this book offers us certainly the most complete picture to date. Another strong advantage of the book is that the author sequentially introduces each element (and character) of the story so that the reader is not overwhelmed with everything (and massive detail) occurring all at once. This makes it much easier to understand what is happening since the reader can build upon what has already been explained as each new development takes place.

I found the book particularly helpful in its depiction of the key players in the White House, Congress, among interest groups such as the Liberty League, and within the Court itself. Enough biographical background is given to help establish the context within which the key actors played their roles--Justices McReynolds, Hughes, Brandeis and Roberts; Senator Joe Robinson who led the fight; press lord Frank E. Gannett; and Senator Burt Wheeler who directed the opposition are a few examples. The author squarely lays the blame for the fiasco with the White House group, who bungled, delayed, miscalculated, misrepesented key facts, and refused to compromise when a partial victory could still have been claimed (maybe two additional justices rather than five). It is interesting that the author sees this battle as not so much between branches as rather being within factions of the Democratic Party. The portrait of FDR that emerges is one of personality weaknesses, overconfidence, and a love for the secret and dramatic. This examination of FDR under the microscope, I think, is one of the book's major contributions. Finally, probably the greatest virtue of the many demonstrated in this book is that the reader understands not only what happens but why. That is to say, the book explains and does not just recount facts.

The book takes around 600 pages (including notes) to deliver its analysis. The 66 pages of valuable notes attest to the diligence of the author's research in manuscript collections, published sources, interviews, and especially diaries held in various archives such as the Library of Congress and the University of Virginia. A twelve page bibliography and thorough index also are included. There is a reason so much has been written about this amazing episode since 1937. And all these fascinating elements are on display in this excellent study.

A masterpiece, May 26, 2010
In Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. the Supreme Court, Jeff Shesol manages to do something rare: combine excellent research and a gripping narrative. (For those familiar with Rick Perlstein's Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus, I think the writing style and amount of detail are similar). The book deals with Franklin D. Roosevelt's attempt to pack the Supreme Court with extra justices in 1937 - an attempt that ultimately failed and, unfortunately, few people remember today. Shesol brings this important episode in our history to life.

First of all, Shesol resists the temptation of many historians to make the past prologue. He doesn't recite the whole history of the U.S. Supreme Court, nor does he stretch historical analogies to draw "lessons" or "comparisons" for today. Rather, Supreme Power stays focused like a laser on the subject of the book, beginning in 1932 with FDR's election. This allows Shesol to really delve into detail, spending almost all of the book's 530 pages on FDR and the court. (Incidentally, if you know absolutely nothing about the Supreme Court or its history, you might want to scan wikipedia quickly before reading this book).

And the detail in the book is extraordinary. I studied FDR's court-packing scheme in law school and read the major cases discussed in the book, but I felt I learned much more reading Supreme Power than I did in 3 years of law school. For example, I had read the Schecter case, which invalidated important New Deal legislation, but I did not even know about the businessmen and activists who formed associations, such as the American Liberty League, to launch test cases like Schecter. It turns out the Schecter brothers even voted for FDR in the 1936 elections! Another fascinating trivia bit revealed early in the book is that the whole issue almost became moot because Justices Sutherland and Van Devanter almost retired in 1932 - but refused to do so when Congress lowered their pensions.

Shesol also strives - and for the most part achieves - the ideal of historical objectivity (pay the reviewer who claims Shesol is sympathetic to FDR no heed). He is quite willing to point out the flaws of the New Deal and the fact that it wasn't universally popular (raising concerns similar to Amity Shales' The Forgotten Man). He also seeks to uncover the ulterior motivations of men like Senator Burton K. Wheeler (against court-packing) and Joe Robinson (for).

However - and this I found remarkable - Shesol also tries to understand the logic and motivations behind the court-packing plan itself. All too often, historians deride the plan as a mistake or doomed to fail. Yet, Shesol shows that the plan did in fact have an organic history and genesis of its own. He discusses the longstanding concern that many observers, including former president and chief justice Taft, had regarding judges over the age of 70. In fact, FDR's chief foe on the Supreme Court, arch-conservative Justice McReynolds, proposed a similar plan during the Wilson administration. In short, Shesol shows readers the type of information bombarding the White House about elder judges, as well as how FDR and his advisors could convince themselves that adding additional judges for each over the age of 70 was a brilliant solution.

My one complaint - and it is a small one - is that Shesol does not seem to make much use of the political science literature about courts and judicial review. This is a shame. I think political science offers many compelling explanations about why elites would oppose limits on judicial review. For example, Tom Ginsburg's Judicial Review in New Democracies: Constitutional Courts in Asian Cases advances the theory that elites view judicial review as important to protect themselves if they ever become relegated to minority status (for example, Republicans becoming the minority party in Congress). Some of these theories can be found in some form in Supreme Power, but Shesol, who is primarily a historian, primarily credits the political dynamics of the 1930s for defeating FDR's plan rather than larger political and institutional forces.

Supreme Power will probably become the primary account of FDR's court-packing scheme for some time. Highly recommended for anybody interested in American history or the politics of courts.

A superb history of Franklin Roosevelt's confrontation with the Supreme Court, July 4, 2010
The effort by Franklin Roosevelt to "pack" the Supreme Court in 1937 is regarded today as one of the greatest political missteps ever made by a president. Devised in response to the Court's rejection of New Deal legislation, it galvanized a seemingly moribund conservative opposition and cost Roosevelt the enormous momentum he possessed coming out of his landslide 1936 reelection victory. Jeff Shesol does not dispute this conclusion, but instead seeks to explain the background to the plan and the course of the battle over it. In doing so, he has provided an absorbing account that illuminates many forgotten or overlooked aspects of the dispute.

Shesol traces the origins of the conflict to the very beginning of Roosevelt's presidency. From the first he and his administration were concerned about the fate of the New Deal when it was subjected to judicial review, both because of the dubious nature of much of the emergency legislation and because of the traditional role the Supreme Court had played in striking down economic regulation. Here the author does a good job of presenting the Court, showing how in spite of assumptions about its conservatism it nonetheless handed down a number of "liberal" decisions that gave many New Dealers cause for hope. The famous decision in the Schecter case ended causes for such hopes, and as the frustration over the Court mounted Roosevelt and his aides began to search for a solution to the Court's immovability.

Though numerous approaches were considered, ultimately Roosevelt settled on a plan to expand the number of justices on the Court in order to appoint more members sympathetic to the New Deal. The plan he endorsed was devised by Homer Cummings, Roosevelt's first Attorney General, and one of the strengths of Shesol's book is in elevating this often-overlooked figure to his rightful place in the history of the plan. Roosevelt deferred action until he was successfully reelected in 1936, during which he campaigned against conservative opposition to the New Deal but not explicitly against the Court - a decision that Shesol argues helped to avoid controversy that might have cost him votes but that also deprived him of any ability to use his victory to push the measure through Congress. Presented against a backdrop of increasing totalitarianism in Europe, the plan alienated many within even his own party, and it was they who soon emerged as its most prominent opponents. Yet Shesol argues that even after Owen Roberts's timely switch in the Parrish case and Willis Van Devanter's retirement in May 1937 deprived the plan's supporters of many of their arguments, a scaled-down version of the bill might have passed were it not for the death of Joseph Robinson, the Senate majority leader, in July. Without his leadership, the plan died quickly, dealing Roosevelt his first major political setback and leaving in its wake a strong conservative opposition to further extension of the New Deal.

Fluidly written and based on a considerable amount of research, Shesol's book is a superb history of Franklin Roosevelt and his confrontation with the Supreme Court. Not only is the author is a sure guide to the complex cases that defined the struggle, he also has an eye for the telling anecdote, which helps him to bring color to the greyest branch of the government. With the clarity of its prose and wealth of details, it will likely serve for some time as the definitive history of the issue, one that readers can read for enjoyment as well as enlightenment.

Nine Old Men vs. FDR, July 12, 2010
FDR versus the Supreme Court - this is one of the least understood aspects of FDR's presidency: his plan to pack the court so that his New Deal would survive legal challenges. This power struggle between the President, Congress and the Supreme Court would divide the institutions of power for months. Jeff Shesol brings together in-depth information and background on the major and minor characters to paint a picture of a country in flux, changing ideas of what the federal government was capable of accomplishing, practically and legally. Powerful forces were at play - from the justices on the Supreme Court, both liberal and conservative, to the President who wanted to appoint his own judges, to a Congress which refused to serve as a rubber stamp.

The writing is engaging, and this is a quick read because the events and the characters just grab your attention and will not let go. Mr. Shesol goes in depth on the justices, their life stories and their views of the Constitution. He even gives us the stories of other players involved, mainly on the conservative side. It does get a little dry - he really goes in depth with the court-packing plan and the daily progress of events - still, an excellent work.

Reviewed by Kevin Winter

Full court press, May 3, 2010
It's hard to imagine anything like a plan to pack the Supreme Court seeing the light of day currently (although many of us might want to do just that with the current SC make-up) but in 1937 it was a hard reality and Jeff Shesol's excellent book about that plan explores the history and politics behind it. One wonders how the court would have changed if it had been implemented.

As with any good historical drama there is a cast of characters composed of heroes and villains...the good and the bad depending on which side you were on, of course. At the center are President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, each man sharing some of the temporary triumphs and downfalls of the months when the court packing plan was under consideration. Supporting the president were men like Homer Cummings, FDR's Attorney General, who largely took credit for conceiving the idea of court packing and Senate Majority Leader Joseph Robinson of Arkansas, whose end-of-career hopes would be the very Supreme Court position which FDR might have opened up for him had the plan gone through. Opposing the president were Senator Burton Wheeler of Montana, the Liberty League and a host of newspapers around the country dedicated to giving FDR a very rough time on the matter.

Shesol leads up to the "180 Days" with a riveting account of FDR's election and his first years in office delivering up New Deal goodies. FDR's overwhelming re-election in 1936 set the stage for the court fight and it was a grand one, indeed. The author relates the main story through an ongoing timeline, giving a background of the personalities of the SC justices and the cases they were hearing. It's informative and told well. The color of "Supreme Power", however, really lies with Congress and its outsized personalities. The court plan, which began largely in secret, created a parallel to today's "tea parties", in a sense...the outrage of mob mentality gone awry. What makes the tale so gripping is that either side had a chance to win, and Shesol is at his best explaining why one side would rise and fall...only to rise and fall again.

In the end, the court packing plan was defeated, but FDR got somewhat of a sweet revenge that by 1942 he had appointed all but two of the judges on the bench. Shesol leaves some room for his own conclusions, giving more speculation than answers sometimes, but that is the mark of a good historian. "Supreme Power" is a terrific book and I highly recommend it.

Reads like great fiction--but it's all true!, August 11, 2010
Even if you're not a history buff you won't want to miss this wonderful book. It's not only a thrilling story, incredibly well-told, but it's amazing how similar the problems facing FDR were to those tormenting Obama these days. There was even an earlier (and smarter) version of the Tea Party. Terrific characters and the most important national issues make this a vital story that's totally fun to read.

The more things change, the more they stay the same, May 24, 2010
Imagine a time in American history in which Wall Street collapsed under the weight of its own machinations, the right wing press regularly accused the president of implementing communism and socialism, the Supreme Court undermined reform acts of congress in favor of big business and phony populist movements were established by the wealthy. Is this America under Obama? No it is the United States under FDR.

Jeff Shesol, as a former member of the Clinton speech-writing team charts the conflict between FDR and the court. And what a story this is! Anyone who believes that there was once a time in which power politics were never upper most in people's should stay away from this book since it will shake this world view to its foundations.

Roosevelt came into office during a time when most institutions had fallen into disrepute. The only way Herbert Hoover's reputation could have been worse would have been had he bungled a war or two somewhere beyond the boundaries of the United States. The times demanded new leadership and new solutions, and with that in mind, Roosevelt was elected to the presidency.

The problems that the 32nd president faced were monumental and truth be told despite an unparalleled period of legislative accomplishment, the 100 Days, not every law passed by congress and signed into law was conceived under optimal conditions. Two of the first hallmarks of Roosevelt's first term, the AAA and NRA were rushed through an obedient congress. The flaws of both would make them among the most controversial measures of the day.

These programs also set the administration in conflict with the Supreme Court. Congress did something else to help create an unfavorable environment by cutting the pensions for federal judges. This minor economy ensured that none of the justices had any incentive to retire and quite a number of reasons to stay on. Some like the reactionary McReynolds stayed on out of sheer dislike for the FDR and a desire to outlast him.

Roosevelt's primary opponent was Chief Justice Hughes, himself another former governor of New York, and also an unsuccessful candidate for president in 1916 (it came down to a few thousand votes in California). Hughes proved himself a master politician largely by pretending not to be. As the public face of the Supreme Court, Hughes understood the significance of less is more.

Shesol shows just how important perceptions are in politics. During 1935, many people viewed Roosevelt as vulnerable, not really understanding the volatility of public opinion. During this time, the Liberty League (a sort of precursor of the Tea Party Movement) was founded and underwritten largely by the Dupont family and staffed by disappointed former Democrats like Al Smith and Jouett Shouse who with Roosevelt's election, lost all influence in the party. Then as now patronage usually trumps principles.

The Supreme Court rather blindly managed to restore Roosevelt's fortunes by eliminating both the NRA and AAA, measures dear to the New Dealers, but disliked by the public at large and dismissed as failed experiments by FDR himself. With these potential drains on FDR's popularity ruled as unconstitutional, FDR was able to triumph on 1936 over a Republican Party which was beholding to the Liberty League for funds and an agenda.

The battle over the court consumed much of the political life of the country from February 1937 to August of that year. Hughes proved to be surprising supple on controversial issues like Social Security and Collective Bargaining. This former candidate for the presidency knew how to read and election return. Roosevelt who usually was a political mastermind was defeated largely though his own inability to know when to give up the fight to expand the court from nine justices to fifteen. In the process he established the basis of the socially conservative Southern and pro-big business alliance that has defined the Republican Party since the Civil Rights era. In the short term, Roosevelt may have lost the battle, but won the war. The judicial activism that favored business interests that characterized the court in Roosevelt's term was gone. Progressive legislation could stand constitutional muster. Roosevelt unfortunately would not really recover his relationship with congress until WWII.

This is an excellent book and well worth savoring since Shesol has peppered his narrative with many interesting period details concerning the main players in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the government in the 1930s.

Think You Know About Court Packing, May 2, 2010
Think you know about the Court Packing plan? You probably do not, as evidenced by this detailed and smooth flowing account that provides context, facts, and analysis that any student of 20th Century American History and political science will welcome. In addition, the book helps readers understand the relationship between FDR, Congress, the press and the people which has been lost over time to a new generation of readers. And, if inter-party battles, political grandstanding, stubbornness of the executive branch, entrenched conservatism, court politics, judicial arrogance and self-righteousness, and manipulation of the media seem new phenomena, this book will explain why history teaches us that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Obama Redux?, April 24, 2010
My first and indelible impression is how much this book echoes current affairs to a certain extent. A president is elected in the midst of a financial crisis of great magnitude. Seemingly radical in his liberalism, he forces through a series of laws through Congress that are staggering in size and cost in the attempt to get the country back on track. The Judicial branch is a study in conservatism. The laws enacted tumble like poorly stacked dominoes when they are revoked after judicial review and found to be unconstitutional. The sitting president is re-elected in part to a rise in his own popularity due to the effectiveness of his actions which seemingly have spurred some economic recovery. In order to continue along his current path, the president realizes that he needs to continue on unincumbered and sees the most viable path to take is to change the balance of the Supreme Court and pack it with members who have similar philosophies to his own. Can I now use the cliche that 'history repeats itself'?
As someone whose American history classes in school never seemed to get through the coursework beyond WWI, I am always wide eyed and in awe of the audacity of these new (for me) revelations. This book is another instance where it has been shown that not everything is a new one for the books. When I read TEAM OF RIVALS I marvelled at how Lincoln managed to pull it together and get the great minds of his time to work in unison in an arranged and some time at odds strange yet functional marriage. Little did I realize that this concept would be recycled as would others in regard to the makeup of the Supreme Court which invariably seems to be a constant issue.
It should come as no surprise to me that there was a precedent for what we've seen in the news lately as this book thoroughly outlines that precedent.
I liked this book very much. It was well-written and documented the attempts by FDR's White House to populate the Supreme Court with justices who echoed FDR's views and would facilitate them in the future. It detailed the going ons in Washington with constitutional law and governmental checks and balances. Sometimes maybe too much in awe of FDR's powerful personality and boldness, it still managed to hit the mark in explaining one aspect of FDR's tactics in influencing the law and public policy.
This is a wonderful read for anyone interested in the US Constitution, 20th century American politics, US history, the Supreme Court or constitutional law and wants to learn more or ponder on what they already know. ... Read more

Editorial Review

Editorial Review

Sit back and enjoy a collection of verbatim exchanges from the halls of justice, where defendants and plaintiffs, lawyers and witnesses, juries and judges, collide to produce memorably insane comedy. ... Read more

Reviews

A great read and very funny too!, January 19, 2000
When I decide to review a book, I try to pick subject that interest me and law is one of those subjects. This book has very little to with the practice of law and very much to do with the lighter side of the law. It will entertain you for hours as you read through the pages.

In just over 250 pages you will find some of the funniest things ever said in a courtroom. You'll read what lawyers; witnesses, jurors, judges, defendants and plaintiffs have said if you pay attention you'll find yourself on the ground laughing.

A book that took just one hour to complete from cover to cover has provided a very bright start to the New Year. The sidesplitting questions and answers are sure to make everyone laugh. A certain must have for everyone in the legal field.

Written by a practicing lawyer and taken from actual court transcripts you'll get a first hand look at not so serious side of the system of jurisprudence. Congratulations on a job well done! This book makes a great gift for those hard to buy people as well.

Goofy Things Said in Court, December 4, 2006
The book is a collection of things people actually said in court, word for word, taken down by court reporters. It must be tough to record some of these exchanges without laughing out loud. Fun reading for anyone, but if you have a friend who's a lawyer or a judge, it might be the perfect gift for them.

Here are some samples from the book:

ATTORNEY: What is your date of birth?
WITNESS: July 18th.
ATTORNEY: What year?
WITNESS: Every year.
_____________________________________

ATTORNEY: How old is your son, the one living with you?
WITNESS: Thirty-eight or thirty-five, I can't remember which.
ATTORNEY: How long has he lived with you?
WITNESS: Forty-five years.
_____________________________________
ATTORNEY: What was the first thing your husband
said to you that morning?
WITNESS: He said, "Where am I, Cathy?"
ATTORNEY: And why did that upset you?
WITNESS: My name is Susan.
______________________________________
ATTORNEY: Now doctor, isn't it true that when a
person dies in his sleep, he doesn't know about it until the next morning?
WITNESS: Did you actually pass the bar exam?
____________________________________
ATTORNEY: The youngest son, the twenty-one-year-old, how old is he?
WITNESS: Uh, he's twenty-one
________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Were you present when your picture was taken?
WITNESS: Would you repeat the question?
______________________________________
ATTORNEY: So the date of conception (of the baby)
was August 8th?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And what were you doing at that time?
WITNESS: Uh....
______________________________________
ATTORNEY: She had three children, right?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: How many were boys?
WITNESS: None.
ATTORNEY: Were there any girls?
______________________________________
ATTORNEY: How was your first marriage terminated?
WITNESS: By death.
ATTORNEY: And by whose death was it terminated?

Disorder in the Review, April 30, 2003
The 2nd book of 2 by Charles M. Sevilla that takes a humorous look at the goings on in courtrooms around the country. I'm sure that a lot of you have gotten the e-mail with excerpts from this book (which is what prompted me to buy the book and the 1st "Disorderly Conduct"). I enjoyed this book and got some chuckles out loud. Anyone in or around the legal professions should find this book amusing. Amusing illustrations illuminate some of the quotes. There are bits of this book that are more amusing than others, but what I find amusing you may not. I still feel that there is enough in this book to make everyone smile (if not chuckle). An interesting addition to this book are the names and cities of the people who submitted the quotes to Mr. Sevilla (there was even one from my home town of West Chester). Which I guess now would be a good time to add - the author originally wrote a column that used this type of humor (and quotes) prompting people from around the country to start sending him their additions. After a while he had enough for 2 books. Over all this is a good book. It would be great for the beach - pick it up, put it down and pick it up again, no worrying about loosing your place in the story.

The snippets I've seen sound good, October 11, 1999
Haven't read the whole thing. But some quotes from the book are circulating on the net. Samples:

Q: Do you know if your daughter has ever been involved in the voodoo A: We both do. Q: Voodoo? A: We do. Q: You do? A: Yes, voodoo.

Q: You were not shot in the fracas? A: No, I was shot midway between the fracas and the navel.

Hilarious, March 25, 2007
My cousin, who is an attorney, loves this book. She said that she can't put it down. Makes her look forward to her job. Great.

A good little book., January 10, 2007
What a great book for carrying with you on visits and reading it to a shut-in or sharing it with a bunch of friends to perk things up on a cold winter's evening.

Taking a poke at Lawyers - my favorite kind of jokes, April 14, 2009
So there I was peacefully sitting out on my mother's veranda when I decided that some reading was in order. I had just received my copy of "Disorder in the Court" and settled down. As expected there were moments of great mirth and just good old fashioned belly laughs. I soon had to be reading the entire book to my mother who laughed until "her laughing bag buss" ( a Jamaican terminology)and speedily depleted my cell phone credit calling friends to read jokes to them.

There were a few flat moments - but you can't have everything. An excellent compilation nonetheless

Great Fractured (WITH DEEP FISSURES!!!) Moments In Courtroom History, March 19, 2009
This book is GREAT!!! Not only in content, but in construction!~!~! It is NOT one where you have to sit and continue through the whole thing at one time. Just bits and pieces at a time are great because some people don't have the time to consume the entire book! You don't loose anything reading it that way. . . . Waiting on the sequel!

Reasonable Prudent Person Standard does not apply!, December 6, 2008
While reading the excerpts you will be in shock and awe. When that state subsides, you will likely realize how smart you look and sound in comparison! This one is worth lots of laughs and unforgettable scenarios!

Norman Cousins should've used this book for therapy!, April 5, 2008
My husband is eighty-seven and faced with many physical problems... AND depression. A friend sent an e-mail containing excerpts from this book. Laurits laughed like he hadn't in months, so I located this book and bought it for him. He's read it over and over.
A great book for a person who's down in the dumps... or your favorite lawyer! It makes a nice little gift for ANYONE! ... Read more

Editorial Review

Editorial Review

The story of the Lakota Sioux's loss of their spiritual homelands and their remarkable legal battle to regain it

The Lakota Indians counted among their number some of the most famous Native Americans, including Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse. Their homeland was in the magnificent Black Hills in South Dakota, where they found plentiful game and held religious ceremonies at charged locations like Devil's Tower. Bullied by settlers and the U. S. Army, they refused to relinquish the land without a fight, most famously bringing down Custer at Little Bighorn. In 1876, though, on the brink of starvation, the Lakotas surrendered the Hills.

But the story does not end there. Over the next hundred years, the Lakotas waged a remarkable campaign to recover the Black Hills, this time using the weapons of the law. In The Lakotas and the Black Hills, the latest addition to the Penguin Library of American Indian History, Jeffrey Ostler moves with ease from battlefields to reservations to the Supreme Court, capturing the enduring spiritual strength that bore the Lakotas through the worst times and kept alive the dream of reclaiming their cherished homeland. ... Read more

Reviews

Interesting book about the quest for the return of the Black Hills, July 30, 2010
Jeffrey Ostler, the author, does an excellent job of presenting a very balanced analysis of the question of ownership of the Black Hills, home of Mount Rushmore. It takes a great deal of effort to avoid sounding judgmental, and Ostler is largely able to do so successfully. He presents the Lakota and federal government "sides of the story" and leaves it to the reader to decide what the result should be. Justice would seem to lean in favor of the Lakota people, but history has leaned the other way all too often. Ostler makes the people in this book come alive, and their stories have a personal quality to them. It is easy to see that Ostler had the advantage of first-hand research among the Lakota people, hearing their stories and oral histories. In that regard, and as a scholar of Native American politics and history, I am jealous of him. This is a relatively short book, only 191 pages in the hard cover edition, and easy to read in a short period of time. I learned quite a few things about a story I thought I knew pretty well, so that is another mark of a good book. If you are interested in Native American history, or the relations between the federal government and the tribes, or the idea of justice and history, then this is a good book for you to read. Enjoy.

Two part book, Compact History of the Lakotas and the Legal Battle for the Black Hills, August 12, 2010
Ostler, who is very familiar with Lakota from previous book reflecting their history since Lewis and Clark, writes a two part history of the Lakota (preferred over Sioux). The first is a very well detailed history that surprisingly covers a lot of ground from the Lakotas early known periods in the Black Hills, there movement west from their eastern tribal associations virtually to present time. Ostler covers the major events such as their difficult contacts with Lewis and Clark, their dealings with the manifest destiny travel through their lands, the Fort Laramie treaty that becomes the basis for their later court battles, the ridiculous Gratten affair over an aged cow, Red Clouds War, the Black Hills expedition, the Little Big Horn, creation of reservations, the reservation problems, attempts to semi-assimilate the tribes and of course wounded knee. The telling of Red Clouds successful war and the emergence of Spotted Tail, Sitting Bull, Gall and Crazy Horse is captured very well. The manipulation of treaties, the complex detail only understood by whites the erosion of their land, manipulation of supplies for tribal agreements, the failure to provide quality food stuffs, the elimination of the buffalo and attempts to educate the Lakota children while stripping hem of their heritage is a depressing story but accurately depicts the Lakotas plight. The second half of the book focuses on the Lakotas' battle initially to be properly compensated for their loss of Paha Sapa (Black Hills). Until the very early 1900s, many of the famous chiefs were still involved; however, legal obstacles constantly block the tribes abilities to achieve redress. Ostler weaves through the many complicated attempts made by the Lakota to receive a judgement. The exhaustion attempts include representation by one attorney for almost 40 years without much success. During much later attempts by a new team, Ostler provides a picture of tribal fractionallsm, the arrival of AIM, the conflicts between Dick Wilson and the more traditionalists, the occupation of Wounded Knee, the occupation of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and he brings you up to date o their current legal status. The major break through occurs in 1980 with a major legal victory but a change of direction by the Lakota to not just settle for compensation but regaining the Black Hills that is given life through the Bradley Bill. As Ostler explains, the Lakota continue their fight and have not given up even today. A unique book that goes beyond the history that most know before Wounded Knee and he provides a modern history update that tells of the 130 year battle with the U.S. government that has gained traction.

A historical and legal story all in one., September 19, 2010
Jeffrey Ostler writes a very well researched history of the Lakota people entitled The Lakotas and the Black Hills: The Struggle for Sacred Ground. At a mere 256 pages, Ostler manages to include virtually every major and some minor events of the Lakota people in their dealings with the Europeans. Quite virtually, this slim volume says it all. The Lakotas and the Black Hills is really two books in one. The first part of the book is a history of the tribe and a good one at that. The second part looks at their battle to retain title to the Black Hills in South Dakota through the courts.

The legal battle has been going on for more than a century and in some ways represents as great an effort that the tribe expended on the battlefields of the west. What is more amazing to me than anything else is that just when it looked as though the Lakota would be compensated by the U. S. government for their lands, they changed their minds. The amount of the settlement? $106 million. But taking the money would mean the loss of the Black Hills and so the settlement money is locked away, quietly earning interest. According to Ostler, the present stash is up to $800 million.

The Black Hills is the most sacred land in the Lakota universe. Held dear above all else the land is considered to be magic and the spring source of the nation (Lakota). Much of that land today is in government hands, either the state of South Dakota or Wyoming or the U. S. Government. Some of the land is held by private interests as well. It is also the location of Mount Rushmore and therefore the attraction of more than a million tourists each year.

Will the Lakota ever regain control of the Black Hills? Only time will tell, but the strength of their legal argument seems to be strong.

If you have an interest in American history then The Lakotas and the Black Hills should be a book you'll want to read. The book is well written and will be worth your while.

I highly recommend.

Concise, Fair and Surprisingly Fun to Read, September 4, 2010
I read this book soon after finishing Nathaniel Philbrick's gripping "The Last Stand" (on the Battle of Little Bighorn), so on opening the book I anticipated a comparatively dry read. I'm happy to say I had no reason to worry.

Ostler's book may not be an up-all-night page-turner, but it interlaces history and anecdotes, scholarly points of contention and the author's own analysis in a very engaging way. Covering roughly three centuries (or 2.5 billion years, if you include the geological background!) in 190 pages, Ostler crafts concise summaries of key happenings in Lakota and broader Native American history--such as the Fetterman Massacre, Ghost Dance, and emergence of the American Indian Movement. He seems to very judiciously choose which details deserve more lengthy discussion--such as a lucid description of key articles of the very consequential (and contentious) 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty.

For me, not knowing anything of the twentieth century battle for the Black Hills, I found the narration of the legal proceedings to be surprisingly engrossing. I mean, how can you not get riled up by a story full of spineless politicians, tone-deaf courts, and decades-long waits for court decisions? And there is some satisfaction as the courts (and country) start to come to their senses in the 70's and 80's. But of course the story can't end on a triumphant note and Ostler does a good job of assessing just what one can hope for at present.

Finally, I'll echo previous reviewers as to Ostler's fair assessment of the sources. After reading the book you can probably guess where his sympathies rest on most points of debate he mentions, but he takes care not to denigrate any side of an argument. If anything, he made me want to more fully engage in the debates at hand, and better understand the intricacies of the issue--which is I guess another reason to recommend the book!

Understanding our Indian history, September 26, 2010
A book best read after touring Mt Rushmore, Yellowstone and the upper midwest. Explains many but not all of the native american claims. What stands out are the issues not yet settled. ... Read more

Editorial Review

Autumn 1945 saw the start of the Nuremberg trials, in which high ranking representatives of the Nazi government were called to account for their war crimes. In a curious yet fascinating twist, witnesses for the prosecution and the defense were housed together in a villa on the outskirts of town. In this so-called Witness House, perpetrators and victims confronted each other in a microcosm that reflected the events of the high court. Presiding over the affair was the beautiful Countess Ingeborg K�lnoky (a woman so blond and enticing that she was described as a Jean Harlowe look-alike) who took great pride in her ability to keep the household civil and the communal dinners pleasant.� A comedy of manners arose among the guests as the urge to continue battle was checked by a sudden and uncomfortable return to civilized life.
���The trial atmosphere extends to the small group in the villa.� Agitated victims confront and avoid perpetrators and sympathizers, and high-ranking officers in the German armed forces struggle to keep their composure. This highly explosive mixture is seasoned with vivid, often humorous, anecdotes of those who had basked in the glory of the inner circles of power. Christiane Kohl focuses on the guilty, the sympathizers, the undecided, and those who always manage to make themselves fit in. �The Witness House reveals the social structures that allowed a cruel and unjust regime to flourish and serves as a symbol of the blurred boundaries between accuser and accused that would come to form the basis of postwar Germany. ... Read more

Editorial Review

Aphrodite Jones uses the court transcripts and photo evidence never before seen by the public to tell the real story behind the salacious headlines-- and what went on inside -- and outside -- Michael Jackson's highly sensationalized 2005 criminal trial. Turns out, inside the courtroom, there was no proof offered of Michael Jackson as a sinister character, and no proof that he committed a single crime. In their efforts to win ratings, Jones proves,the media completely missed the truth. Back then, Jackson was the pop icon everyone loved to hate. Now, with Michael Jackson Conspiracy, he may be restored to the pop icon everyone loves to love. ... Read more

Reviews

Innocence is not always a good quality., July 22, 2009
I don't know if you're like me, but ever since Michael Jackson passed away, I have been really curious to know the truth.

I don't think there has ever been anyone more misrepresented in human history than Michael Jackson. He said in an interview that '99.9% of what's written about me is not true.' He said this long before he ever went on trial.

After he was found 'not guilty' of the 10 charges, he was still treated as if he was guilty by the media. Forced to leave the country, to go to Bahrain, like a bird tossed out of its nest, never to return to Neverland again.

I wondered: 'well if he's innocent of the trial charges, what about the 1993 case where there was a settlement..'

When Aphrodite Jones went to numerous publishers, nobody wanted to publish a pro Jackson book, a book that would tell the truth about the trial. She actually had to self publish.

"In this world there are facts, and there are opinions. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, not to their own facts." Senator Patrick Moynihan.

I cannot tell you what a relief it is to read a truthful book about Michael Jackson. The further you get into this book, the more you realise how Michael was not only not guilty but truly had the innocence and nature of a 10 year old child.

This naivete made him easy prey for a predatory reporter such as Bashir, who got a career making opportunity to film a documentary for free only to taint it with his own duplicity, sinister interpretation and innuendo. He reputedly sold the documentary to ABC for $7 million, and got a job as anchor, destroying MJ in the process without a second thought. After all, would a pedophile invite a camera crew into his home, and admit to sharing a bedroom with 10 year old kids. If children were abused, would there not be an immediate change in their behavior. Would their parents also staying at the house not notice this?

No.. Pedophiles act out of compulsion, cannot control themselves, and usually have many victims.

This naivete made him easy prey for the Arvizos who did the round of other celebrities such as Chris Tucker, George Lopez, and even Jay Leno looking for a handout. These guys got wiser sooner.

Among the many revelations in this book: The Arvizos deny on four separate occasions after the Bashir documentary that any molestation ever took place, on audio tape, on a rebuttal video, to DCFS workers, and to Gavin Arvizo's school principal.

Only after visiting the same civil attorney used in the 1993 case, after all this did Arvizo make a final return to Neverland. It is then he alleges the incident happened. Under cross examination, it is established that if Arvizo got a criminal conviction, he could sue MJ in a civil action until he was 18.

In the trial, the 1993 evidence was introduced. Jordan Chandler refused to testify against Michael Jackson. His mother did appear as a witness and surprisingly said she never had any qualms about her son being around Michael Jackson.

Janet Arvizo gave wild and wacky testimony, alleging that MJ conspired to keep her family captive at Neverland, and that he planned to abduct her son. Meanwhile she charges thousands of dollars for beauty treatments on the Neverland account in a local town, gets dental treatment for her soon paid by Jackson, alleges MJ made her fly to Miami to give a rebuttal interview. The truth is she found out MJ was in Miami and had Chris Tucker charter a jet for her to fly out with her children.

Janet Arvizo previously alleged sexual assault against JC Penney when her son was arrested for shoplifting. She claimed a security guard tweaked her nipple 25 times. She won a large settlement. Mesereau exposed glaring inconsistencies in the evidence in that case, particularly her claims that she had been assaulted yet the police photos taken shortly after showed no signs of assault, or even a need for medical attention, yet days later she turns up to an attorney with fresh color photos with bruises. She lied to a newspaper about having not having medical insurance, and lied about the cost of treatment to get them to raise money for her family.

What will amaze you as you read this book, is how many viewed Michael Jackson as a meal ticket for life. Disgruntled former employees who had lost multi million dollar lawsuits made the most outrageous allegations, which were skilfully dismantled and disproven by the incisive cross examination of Tom Mesereau.

About the 1993 agreement, Jackson said on the Prime Time Diane Sawyer interview, that the only reason he was sitting there giving the interview was that the photographs taken of his parts did not match up with the description of the accuser. There are many more surprises waiting between the covers of this book.

If you are filled with a burning curiosity to know the truth, you can feel confident that this book is true. If you are curious to explore even further I may post some links in the comment section below.

I hope you find this helpful.

Update: As of August 30,2009, I have now reviewed Michael Jackson: The Magic and the Madness.
The 2005 actual trial coverage only runs to 17 pages out of 700 odd, with 40 pages about the events leading up to it. It's nowhere near as detailed as Aphrodite Jones book, yet it's interesting to read a different account, and he uncovers interesting facts about the JC Penney case. He also lays down a precise timeline before the trial happened, which could make you wonder why this case ever went to trial. The 2009 edition adds the trial and the final years, to the previous edition written before the 2005 trial. Very little duplication between these two books.

Update Nov 3, 2009: If you have not already seen This Is It, I highly recommend it. Considering it is a rehearsal, the standard of filming the sequences is very high, Michael's voice still has it's magic, it features new complete video with MJ being chased by Humphrey Bogart, and new video to go with other classic songs such as Thriller. Truly some magical moments, and interesting to see the level of detail that goes into this type of production. A masterful job by Director Kenny Ortega, and a fitting tribute to Michael Jackson.

Michael Jackson Conspiracy is a must read., June 28, 2007
When District Attorney Tom Sneddon smugly announced that Michael Jackson was to be criminally charged, and that Neverland was being raided, he was so blinded by greed, jealousy and vengeance that he could not see that the degenerate family he had sided with, the Arvizo family, in order to try and take Michael Jackson's freedom from him, and ruin his reputation, all so that Sneddon could bask in glory, would actually bring Sneddon the ultimate humiliation. Sneddon's case against Michael Jackson was built on lies, and was created by liars, and Sneddon got exactly what he deserved, failure!!!



When Michael Jackson was put on trial, accused of having molested Gavin Arvizo -- who had learnt from his family how to extort people -- the media refused to tell the truth. The media refused to acknowledge, or discuss, what was actually going on in the courtroom that was favorable to Michael Jackson. The testimony that pointed to Michael Jackson's innocence, the success Michael Jackson's attorneys had in exposing the prosecution case for what it was, sham, was ignored by the media, the media refused to tell the truth.



When prosecution witnesses who desired to fill their pockets with Michael Jackson's money, who hoped to become rich by selling false stories, who falsely accused Michael Jackson, and who made up as many lies as possible, as horrible as possible, to extort as much money as possible from Michael Jackson, were exposed, it was ignored by the media, the media refused to tell the truth.



When the accuser, Gavin Arvizo, and his family, mother Janet Arvizo, and siblings Star Arvizo and Davellin Arvizo, stumbled over their lies, contradicted themselves continually, became argumentative when presented with facts that proved they were liars and extortionists, it was ignored by the media, the media refused to tell the truth.



When Michael Jackson's young cousin testified that the accuser, Gavin Arvizo, and Gavin's brother Star tried to get him to masturbate in their presence, it was ignored by the media, the media refused to tell the truth.



When it was revealed that Michael Jackson's former employees only claimed to have seen inappropriate behavior by Michael Jackson AFTER THEY WERE OFFERED MONEY AND PAID BY TABLOIDS/THE MEDIA, it was ignored by the media, the media refused to tell the truth. (Michael Jackson successfully sued these former employees many years ago, they still owe him money.)



When Michael Jackson's current employees testified that the accuser, Gavin Arvizo, and his family slept in guesthouses at Neverland (and not in Michael Jackson's bedroom), that they caused a great deal of trouble at Neverland, left a huge mess at Neverland, damaged and defaced property at Neverland, attacked the animals at Neverland, pulled knives on Neverland employees, stole from Neverland employees, stole from Michael Jackson, extorted Neverland employees by lying about their financial circumstances, extorted the government by lying about their financial circumstances, extorted other celebrities by lying to them and falsely accusing them, caused trouble wherever they went, and to whoever was unlucky enough to befriend them, overall having been shown to be users, liars, thieves, troublemakers and criminals, it was ignored by the media, the media refused to tell the truth..... until now.



Aphrodite Jones, a reporter, ashamed of her behavior during Michael Jackson's trial, having realized that she was wrong, has written this book - "Michael Jackson Conspiracy" - which is pretty much a compact version of Michael Jackson's trial. It details exactly what happened in the courtroom at Michael Jackson's trial (using actual trial testimony), the facts that were revealed and exposed, the witnesses and what they stated, how Michael Jackson's defense team managed to successfully destroy prosecution theories and witnesses on a daily basis, how the media did not want to report anything that was favorable to Michael Jackson or his defense team, how some media reporters had already secured deals to have access to Michael Jackson if he was to be found guilty and imprisoned (which is disgusting, because this behavior implies that these jerks preferred that a child had been molested so that they could profit), and how Michael Jackson was found NOT GUILTY by a jury that saw right through the lies, right through the Arvizo family, right through District Attorney Tom Sneddon and his sham case, and right through the media garbage that has been circulating for years about Michael Jackson.



So, if you want the truth about Michael Jackson, how he has become a target for liars who want to become instant millionaires, and the victim of a media that promotes and prefers lies, read "Michael Jackson Conspiracy".

Great overview of the trial!, June 21, 2007
During Michael Jackson's trial in 2005, the media did not report anything positive about Michael and were completely unfavorable toward him. For them, reporting anything negative and salacious was the way to go in order to sell their stories, and in return, gain viewers, readers, and more advertising dollars.

Fortunately for Michael, the jury was forced to listen to the facts of the case, not the biased media coverage. Aphrodite Jones has done a wonderful job of focusing almost solely on the facts of the case and the testimony and evidence presented during the trial. It is because of those reasons that the book is highly riveting and eye-opening. All of her trial quotes are taken from court transcripts, and give the reader a "fly on the wall" approach, as if the trial was being relived. As a person who attended the trial whenever I possibly could, Ms. Jones' account of the proceedings are spot-on, and she should be commended for presenting the trial in a fair and objective manner.

The vast majority of the public was misled by a biased media, and I highly recommend that this is THE book to read to gain true insight into not only the trial, but what went on around Michael Jackson before and during the trial. I think many people would be shocked to discover how badly the accuser and his family were caught in so many lies and contradictions. Simply put, the prosecution had no case whatsoever, and this is the ONLY conclusion anyone can come to after reading this book.

Thank you Ms. Jones, for laying it all out for the world to see.

Brave book, July 16, 2007
This is a fascinating read, not just because of its subject matter but because the author herself was, like most other members of the media, predisposed to think that Jackson was guilty of at least some of the charges brought against him. She admits to being prejudiced and reveals just how she came to realise that this time the media got it very wrong indeed.
Ms Jones has thoroughly researched the book examining witnesses' testimonies, court transcripts, etc, and she reveals how the jury, onlookers and Jackson himself reacted throughout. Yes, you do feel that you are in the courtroom.
The disparity between what actually went on in there and what the media reported is astonishing. And there's some interesting information about British journalist/interviewer Martin Bashir too.
The background information about Neverland itself was all new to me. For example, it is only through reading this book that I realised that Michael Jackson's bedroom was not at all like the type of bedroom most of us have, i.e, just one room. Jackson's was a huge two storey, mezzanine construction - more like a flat than a room. I'm not saying Jackson was wise to have boys staying in his room (nor in his bed) but once you realise just how big this space was it kind puts a different perspective on these sleepovers.
Aphrodite Jones also reveals that Jackson himself was not at Neverland for much of the time; it was his home but it was more a social experiment, an escape for children who were sick or poor. It's such a shame it didn't work out. If he had lived elsewhere but just run the place as a separate entity/charity things might have turned out differently. Or if only he'd only have stuck to surrounding himself with animals rather than other peoples' children he'd be viewed by the majority as eccentric rather than potentially dangerous or evil.
I found the photographs of Neverland are startling. Everywhere is so cluttered - like a teenage boy's room. In fact, Jackson comes across as naive, vulnerable, lonely, somewhat deluded and while extraordianrily generous, lacking in emotional intelligence and 'street' savvy when it came to handling people who had their own agendas.
My only criticisms of the book are that Ms Jones' text concentrates on peoples' appearances a little too much; I felt she almost implied that when it xcame to witnesses beauty equals truth. I'd have welcomed more indepth analysis by Aphrodite Jones on the whole affair and its aftermath.
But a brave book. Buy it!

Amazing read--A MUST if you want to know the truth!, July 21, 2009
A LONG REVIEW BUT PLEASE READ AS I TRIED TO BE HELPFUL! :)

ETA 9/7/09 at 1:30AM: Michael Jackson fans, if you would like to read the actual day to day transcripts of the 2005 case against Michael Jackson here is a website:
[...] Ms. Jones' book is good but these are AMAZING! (Court Transcripts are in notepad format and can be downloaded)

Aphrodite Jones' book is superb. My sister and I read it aloud in two days because it was THAT interesting.

When Michael was on trial in 2005 I was a sophomore-soon-to-be-a-junior in high school. I never really followed MJ's music, to be honest, and I saw the Martin Bashir documentary. Basically, my earlier notions of MJ were as negative as the media would want them to be. I believed he was probably guilty of the 1993 allegations, though I was too young to have even cared then (I was 4 and just wanted to marry MJ then!), thinking that whatever had went on was at the most benign exploration with a like-minded peer. (So WRONG was I! ): )

Back to Jones' book: it made me see clearly. I was greatly saddened by MJ's death and the way he was slowly being character assissinated by tools in the media machine so I bought this book wanting to feel some sort of comfort.

I'm SO glad I did! Jones presents in this piece excellent research into the Arvizo allegations. She UNEQUIVOCALLY proves that MJ was framed and that the media was too hellbent on a witch hunt to even highlight that fact (this makes me sick to my stomach!).

The Arvizos were liars. The mother and father basically used their children (esp. Gavin, the alleged victim) as leverage to gain sympathy with those to which they came into contact who happened to have money! Do you remember the corporate media tools ever acknowledging the FACT that the Arvizos swindled Chris Tucker and George Lopez, and attempted to swindle Jay Leno? Yeah, I, too, don't remeber any of that being exposed...

The best part of Jones' book is that she presents MJ's trial as if you were there watching the action without the big-bad media's filter. For example, instead of hearing about Macaulay Culkin sharing a bed with MJ, you experience Culkin's testimony: he says he shared a bed with MJ AND NOTHING EVER HAPPENED! Other boys testified saying the SAME THING!

Most heartbreaking was Jones' detailing of the outtakes of the Martin Bashir interview. Let me say, Bashir is a disgusting human being, a malignant narcissist who was more interested in fulfilling the disgusting corporate media machine's desires to humiliate MJ than to be a fair-minded journalist. As someone who went to school (I was in the 8th grade) and talked with friends about the Bashir doc, I remembered that hatchet job called an interview. We laughed about it and said MJ looked CRAZEE.
The outtakes, however, reveal MJ to be a beautifully, candid human being, so sweet and kind that you wished you got to go to Neverland.

Aphrodite Jones wrote a winner. Period. I so urge you to buy this book and read it because their is no bias, no BSing--just the TRUTH. And if you are unmoved by what you read then you have been too brainwashed by the corporate media machine!

Michael Jackson was obviously innocent (since 1993, by the way, as well) and I was left utterly dumbfounded at the fact that the media neglected to tell the more interesting story of a kind-hearted, charitable celebrity being swindled by a family of sociopathic greedy monsters. That is much more interesting than a bunch of obviously trumped up charges brought by a bloodthirsty, fame hungry DA Tom Sneddon.

I will never call my mother "Michael Jackson" again just because she *loves* babies and children so much. How callous and cruel of me. I am ashamed because that is exactly how the media wants you to think.

Michael, I'm SO sorry! I should have never, EVER believed such ugly things that unenlightened people still want to hold on to so tightly. Please, no hard feelings? You are an amazing person... :)

One of the Best Books I've read this year, July 14, 2009
Michael Jackson Conspiracy is probably the least sensationalistic thing that has ever been written about Michael Jackson. During the 2005 court case, the media continued a long standing hatred and bias toward Michael Jackson to such a grotesque extreme, that they successfully convicted him in the court of public opinion with salacious slanted news reporting.

Jackson was the freaky/creepy/weird eccentric guy that isn't wanted in the neighborhood, that people think they can bring down and judge as evil just because he's different. People fear what they don't understand and this has never been more true than in the case of Michael Jackson.

We get the warm fuzzies over movies like Edward Scissorhands and the message to not prejudge people based on superficiality or things we don't have all the details on, and yet when confronted with a true Edward Scissorhands, it's all about the torches and the pitchforks.

Michael Jackson Conspiracy pulls from and quotes the actual court transcripts to give you a bird's eye view of the case and what really went on.

Despite the defense arguing against it, the Prosecution was allowed to bring up past accusers. In hindsight this is good because it allows the reader to see that it wasn't only the 2005 charges that were without merit, but the ENTIRE thing as far back as 1993.

While the boy from 1993 left the country to avoid the possibility of being called to testify in the case, his mother took the stand. Now one would think that the mother of an allegedly molested boy would be a great witness for the prosecution, but as it turns out, she was a better witness for the defense. She went on and on about what a great and loving man MJ was. How kind and generous he was. She stated many times over and over that it was her husband and not her that was responsible for the civil suit. (She also signed the civil suit though, but here she is testifying in criminal court about it, which completely blows away theories that the civil suit PREVENTED the family from testifying... no, just no one wanted to. Because they had their money. I think perhaps the mother of the Chandler boy had guilt weighing on her for years and felt compelled to testify and help MJ out some.)

Of course we see the testimony of three adult men who were children at the time of the original allegations who state emphatically that though they slept over, MJ never touched them inappropriately. Macaulay Culkin was one of these kids and he continued a friendship with MJ and was the godfather of two of his kids, hardly the mark of an abused child.

Several celebrities such as Jay Leno, Chris Tucker, and George Lopez testified in court to show a pattern of the Arvizo family's con-artistry.

The cherry on the sundae and the most entertaining part of the case is Janet Arvizo, the mother of the accuser. Just to give you some highlights of this woman's insanity... She had married a guy with the last name Jackson and wanted to be referred to as: "Janet Jackson" in the trial.

She also claimed that MJ had held her and her family hostage at Neverland Ranch (a place that isn't fenced in btw), and that she had plans to escape by hot air balloon. (Which made the court room burst out laughing.) During her "captivity" she was taken to other towns for shopping excursions where she spent thousands of dollars of MJ's money and couldn't be bothered to call anyone for help to rescue her from this "dire" situation of mooching off a pop star. Yep, that's some captivity.

One thing you find as you dig into this case is... unlike cases like the OJ Simpson case, there was NO evidence against MJ. This isn't an exaggeration, or a fan's overzealousness. There was not a single shred of evidence. Despite Tom Sneddon spending millions of dollars both in 1993 and again in 2005, and devoting so much manpower to the case, there was not ONE shred of physical evidence.

The ONLY "evidence" in the case was witness testimony. i.e. kind of like a witch hunt where all you really have is accusation.

The people who testified against MJ all turned out to be criminals and con-artists and disgruntled ex-employees who were also criminal. No one of decent moral character had the first negative thing to say about MJ. Every witness for the prosecution crumbled and turned into a win for the defense upon cross-examination.

So if you're interested in knowing what went on in the 2005 case and you want a good summary of the situation, this is the book.

Surprising and depressing in equal measure, July 1, 2009
I was a fan of MJ back before those dark days in the summer of 1993, when he was truly God-like, and didn't really know what to think or do during the 2005 trial. It all brought very painful memories back for me, which i'm still dealing with. You very rarely heard a positive word said about Michael in those days, it was all expose's that basically Michael Jackson is not like us. Big surprise.

This book's title intrigued me, as I've long thought that Michael had one big obvious weak spot when it came to his love for the children of the world and despite the acts of charity, it wasn't going to be long before this naivette would land him in the hottest water imaginable.

I was pleasantly surprised by it to be honest, and it displayed a level-headedness and impartiality that is usually lacking in the modern media, which seemed almost scorned when their decades of negative reporting failed to guarantee a conviction on him as if the opinion of the ccountry and of all right-thinking people is formed by them. As is contained in the book, the people whose job it was to weigh the evidence and make a decision acquitted him on all charges. I remember being shocked at the time because from all the coverage I had read it looked like the poor man would be facing jail. Looking back, I'm glad that the jury had the intelligence and presence of mind to call it how they saw it and not kick an innocent man when he's down.

The Best Book About The Jackson Allegations, February 21, 2009
This is the best book about the Michael Jackson allegations that I have read. The author makes as much sense of the allegations and the District Attorney's case against Michael Jackson as a rational person possible can. In other words, the case is exposed as a ridiculous, incoherent mess that should never have gone as far as it did. However, the book is not just about the Michael Jackson trial, but also about the media and the author as a member of the media. It gives just a glimpse into the world of journalism - especially the shortcomings of the covering of events like the Jackson trial. The majority of the media was clearly invested in a guilty verdict right from the start and had plans for all kinds of disturbing specials concerning Jackson's struggles in prison - it was going to be milked for all it was worth and the process had already started long before the trail. I saw specials about what kind of medical treatment/plastic surgery Jackson would have had access to in prison - this kind of thing was grossly inappropriate and immature and was going to continue after the expected guilty verdict. When it didn't come, the shocked journalists moved onto the next big story without giving any real thought into where and why they went wrong with their opinions, information and covering. The media built public expectations of guilt which were not fulfilled, so instead of being properly informed about the case against Jackson, the public remains convinced that he is guilty and "got away with it." Aphrodite Jones has been one of the few journalists to explore how she and others became sucked into that kind of mentality and approach towards a subject they should have treated fairly. She should be applauded for that, for going against the grain in writing this book and promoting it despite being shunned by certain sections of the media.

Michael Jackson Conspiracy, September 9, 2009
Aphrodite Jones was hired by Fox to report about the trial. She also intended to parlay her experiences and information into a book. She repeatedly stated that she thought he was guilty--including after the trial! She was interviewed for E!'s THS after the trial and still had nothing good to say about MJ. However, in a supposed change of heart, she claims that when the evidence came out in Court, it demonstrated MJ's innocence, but the media reported it in such a way to make him appear guilty. I think that after meeting the legions of loyal fans in Santa Maria, who traveled from all over the world, she realized that she had a ready-made audience of people who would purchase a book about Michael's innocence.
You only have to read her foreword, where she goes into detail about why she "changed" her mind and wrote the book to realize how disingenuous it was. Of the hundreds of news reporters that were on site, Aphrodite Jones was on a short list of the most hated reporters by MJ fans who were actually in Santa Maria. In fact, one of the most outspoken fans that I know who was actually there in Santa Maria has not read the book and also refuses to support Ms. Jones.
In addition, the book is very poorly written. Again, it portrays Michael in a positive light, but is loaded with typographical errors and omits important facts. While she uses some of the actual trial testimony, a lot of what she does is describe what was testified to and places her own spin. She should have just provided the testimony and allowed readers to reach their own conclusions.
Also, there are errors that appear to be the result of sloppy researching. In one of the more ridiculous ones, she "justifies" the 1993 $20,000,000 (actually, it was $15,332,250) settlement with Jordie Chandler by explaining that this was a drop in the bucket for someone as wealthy as Michael Jackson. However, the settlement money did not come from Michael Jackson. Rather, it came from his insurance company who was footing the legal bill and made the decision to settle the case. Michael Jackson had no control over the settlement and repeatedly refused, as did his personal counsel, to settle the case. His insurance company did not need his consent to settle the Jordie Chandler allegations. Many of these facts were revealed in Court documents in 2005, so she should have known them as part of her research.
She also characterizes testimony without explaining the source. For example, Jay Leno testified before the Grand Jury that Gavin Arvizo asked him for money and that during the phone conversation in which money was requested, it sounded as though his mother or some other adult female was in the background coaching him. However, when Leno testified, he attempted to recant his Grand Jury testimony to make Michael Jackson appear guilty. Tom Mesereau was forced to impeach Leno by using the Grand Jury testimony to show that Leno was now lying under oath--or at least--had changed his testimony.
It is so blatantly obvious that Michael Jackson was blackmailed and subjected to molestation charges because he spent so much time with children and paid so much attention to children's charities that little needs to be written on the subject. However, the public should be corrected about the numerous salacious details erroneously reported by the media. To this end, Ms. Jones has started to own up to the media's malicious conduct in the downfall of a God fearing, generous man. For this, she should be commended.

Fair and Accurate account of the trial, July 11, 2009
I didn't follow the trial in 2005, and as was most everyone else, limited to what was reported in the media. Once MJ died two weeks or so ago, his life and everything in it was again brought into the spotlight, as it has been for this man since he was a child. As I was watching sound bites on different cable shows, I was again reminded of both charges and the 2005 molestation trial.
Now I have never met MJ, never went to any of his concerts (I loved "Thriller" as a child, I was 7 when it was released, I was completely enamored by his natural talent, like most were) and knew in my heart that he wouldn't ever hurt a child in that most heinous way. This book confirmed what I always knew to be true about the charges, the allegations and what really happened- and what the media, whose sole purpose is to get the most sensational headlines and the most money didn't report. One of the few things that I felt that MJ was guilty of was being too giving and kind to those in 'need' (I use that term loosely) and his character being forever tarnished for greed or a 'great' headline. Rest in Peace MJ. ... Read more

Editorial Review

Editorial Review

Cruel and Usual Punishment is a wake up call to the Western world.

Nonie Darwish presents an insider's look at Sharia and examines how radical Muslim laws are destroying the Western world from within. Living under Sharia law for the first thirty years of her life,a virtual slave to Islamic law, Darwish never questioned or challenged her rights--or dared to even think about the validity of Sharia laws. She didn't try to examine what Sharia was, how it came about or why she followed it. "This is Allah's law," she was told, and she knew what awaited those who questioned Allah's law.

But she doesn't believe the lies anymore, and now she wants to share her experiences with the Western world. Cruel and Usual Punishment is an insider's look at how Muslims sacrifice their basic human rights to�obey the archaic and brutal laws handed down to their prophet centuries ago.

Heed this warning: Sharia Law is attempting to infiltrate Western culture and destroy democracy.

Reviews

Now I understand, January 26, 2009
Darwish's unique background enables her to clearly explain Islam to the Western reader. Although I read a few books on Islam after 9/11, this was the first description that enabled me to understand why there was not more outrage from moderate Muslims and religious leaders when thousands of American civilians were murdered in Islam's name.

An important part of the understanding began with Darwish's explanation that Islam is not just a religion -- It is also a political and legal system. Darwish supports this assertion with scriptural statistics as well as concrete examples. Identifying political Islam helped this reader to consider it more objectively. Like many others, it is difficult for me to criticize another's religion (even silently in my own mind), but it is not hard to criticize a political or legal system that oppresses people. Thus, I could not reconcile 9/11 or dehumanization with religious Islam, but I can easily see how political Islam encourages such abuses.

Darwish spent her first thirty years in Egypt and understands that "Most Muslims judge Islam by their kind, tolerant Muslim grandparents who prayed five times every day." But this did not prevent her from seeing extreme human rights abuses enforced through Sharia - which is now declared by forty-five Muslim countries to override the United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

She points out that while Westerners generally assume all religions encourage a respect for the dignity of each individual, Islamic law (Sharia) teaches that non-Muslims should be subjugated or killed in this world. Peace and prosperity for one's children is not as important as assuring that Islamic law rules everywhere in the Middle East and eventually in the world.

While Westerners tend to think that all religions encourage some form of the golden rule, Sharia teaches two systems of ethics - one for Muslims and another for non-Muslims. Building on tribal practices of the seventh century, Sharia encourages the side of humanity that wants to take from and subjugate others.

While Westerners tend to think in terms of religious people developing a personal understanding of and relationship with God, Sharia advocates executing people who ask difficult questions that could be interpreted as criticism. It's hard to imagine, that in this day and age, Islamic scholars agree that those who criticize Islam or choose to stop being Muslim should be executed. Sadly, while talk of an Islamic reformation is common and even assumed by many in the West, such murmurings in the Middle East are silenced through intimidation.

While Westerners are accustomed to an increase in religious tolerance over time, Darwish explains how petrodollars are being used to grow an extremely intolerant form of political Islam in her native Egypt and elsewhere. The statistics she cites are chilling.

In addition to describing Sharia, Darwish warns of the threat to the west and offers policy prescriptions for political leaders and voters. Nonie Darwish is clearly an immigrant whose unusual perspective enriches our culture. This reader is grateful that she risks her life to publicly speak in defense of her adopted country.

Epiphany, January 8, 2009
The sympathy and genuine love that Ms. Darwish possesses for her people of origin, drives her to expose how they have been shackled by a 7th century religious zealotry which may ultimately lead to their own demise and that of the entire civilized world. Ms. Darwish, with much scholarly research, applies the yeoman's work to expose Islam as a skewed ideology which advocates pedophilia , slavery, subjugation of women, murder of homosexuals, and mayhem upon all infidels; fear, loathing and hate are sown and cultivated in the Koran, Hadith and Sharia, containing over 35,200 calls for death, decapitation, murder, and perpetrating fear and chaos upon non-Muslims.

The intolerable supremacist nature of Islam must be universally acknowledged both in the Muslim world as well as the Western world. No one will be safe until there is a total revolution calling for the absolute reformation of Islam. It is imperative for the victims who live under the ummah of Islam (women, children, dhimmis, homosexuals, and slaves) as well as the entire world and until such time there can be no conceivable way to transcend the violence that pursues the destruction of all beliefs outside of Islam.

Sharia Law and its horrific impact clearly spelled out, January 9, 2009
I finally understood what Sharia Islamic law is and its horrific impact in oppressing human rights, especially women. Darwish connected the dots between the Laws of Islam, jihad and the disconnect between Muslim and non-Muslim society. An easy to read book that is a warning to the West. A must read.

A Wake Up Call to the West!, January 16, 2009
This is not a politically correct book, it is not a feel good book, it is a wake up book.
The author spent thirty years as a "virtual slave" to Sharia law. The book explains in detail what Sharia is and also does an excellent job of describing Islam, its roots, its founder and its current purpose.
A quote from the author does far better job of describing this book and why you should read it than I can:
"" The purpose of this book is not to spread hatred of a people, but to tell the truth about the wickedness of Islamic Sharia law. Islam is at the gates. Western democracies are underestimating a major threat that will push their futures to the point of no return. The West must either wake up to the danger today or submit unconditionally tomorrow.""

DRAMATIC AND PERSUASIVE FIRST HAND ACCOUNT OF ISLAM!, April 1, 2009
Nonie Darwish's rhapsody of truth entitled "Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law" is the most ardent explanation of Sharia law, and its horrors, that I have read yet. What a brave soul Ms. Darwish must be: to know so very well from her own life experiences as a Muslim, what a hostile and difficult road she has placed herself. But the attacks on her only exemplify her message of dire concern to the western world. That to orthodox Muslims, criticism of Islam is unacceptable; that questioning Sharia cannot be tolerated; that being different, gay, feminist, progressive, or simply tolerant of other faiths is punishable by imprisonment or death.

I don't know that I have ever read a book and highlighted information on every single page...but this was exactly the case with "Cruel and Usual Punishment". From the preface... "About 60 million Christians, 80 million Hindus and 10 million Buddhists were killed during the jihad conquest." to the last chapter (Getting Away with Murder)..."If Muslim governments and citizens have access to build mosques in America, then they must give the U.S. government and citizens the same access in their countries." there is not one page that didn't have a point worth marking. Although, as is the case with that last quote, hell will freeze over before Muslim countries ruled by Sharia Law will tolerate such nonsense as accepting any measure of equality. They would, in fact, have to break their own law by exhibiting such tolerance. Sharia, by definition, demands complete intolerance of any other socio-religious system and Nonie Darwish does a masterful and heartfelt job of proving it.

After comparing 30 of the many books currently out on the subject of Islam, "Cruel and Usual Punishment" stands as the most poignant in everyday cultural terms, "America Alone" has the best global/demographic perspective and "Bleeding for Allah, Why Islam will Conquer the Free World" is the most informative from a historical and Biblical/Koranic scripture standpoint.

Several readers have left reviews saying that Ms. Darwish is not reflecting the truth of the Koran. I have read the Koran several times and Ms. Darwish does not stray from its violent and intolerant message. She is completely on the mark. The misinformation campaign by Islamists is ceaseless....

Compelling Interview of the Author, January 8, 2009
A friend with a doctorate in Islamic studies (from Oxford, no less) sent a link to an interview of author Nonie Darwish. Since the book was just released, I have not yet read it, but I certainly intend to. Her background is fascinating, and perfect for authoring a book on this subject. You can find it here:
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.2207/pub_detail.asp

In the interview, Darwish says: "My book is the first book ever to explain Shariah. Shariah books themselves are rarely translated into English and very few people want to go into the legal terminologies. I studied for one year to be able to explain Shariah in a way that it is understandable. I did a lot of quotations from Shariah and explained them. It is all documented. The West must wake up and start understanding because Shariah law says that for Muslims it is obligatory to lie if the purpose of the lie is the furtherance of Islam. Many Muslims don't even know what Shariah law is exactly. They have lived under it for so many years." That's a pretty compelling argument to buy and read this book.

A vitally important read, June 23, 2009
Nonie Darwish knows a fair amount about Islam. She was an Egyptian Muslim for the first 30 years of her life. Then she fled to America and she is now a Christian. She has told her story earlier, in her 2007 volume, Now They Call Me Infidel: Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel, and the War on Terror.

In this book she continues her important story, but she does so by highlighting two crucial themes: what sharia law means, and how women are treated in Islam. In 270 pages she spells out in chilling detail what the implications are of Islamic law, and how the West must be very careful indeed about the spread of sharia.

The first half of this important book looks at how women are treated in the world of sharia. The treatment of women in Islam alone should serve as a warning for anyone who thinks sharia is compatible with Western democracy and freedom.

Consider marriage. Muslim women are prohibited under sharia from marrying non-Muslim men. But Muslim men can marry Christian or Jewish women. And the sharia marriage contract "is essentially a document granting sexual intercourse rights to the male and giving him total control over his four wives".

There are even temporary marriages purely for the purposes of sexual pleasure for the male, called mutaa, or pleasure marriage. This "marriage" can last as little as an hour. Then there is misyar, or traveller's marriage, which is "designed to accommodate the male sexual appetite while travelling".

Divorce is of course also all one way traffic in Islam. Men can divorce their wives instantly, simply by saying "I divorce you" three times. A Muslim woman cannot initiate a divorce. In custody cases, children after the age of seven (or sometimes nine) belong to the father.

And a male can beat his wife and sexually abandon her. Under sharia a husband deserves total submission and gratitude. As one revered Muslim scholar, Imam Ghazali has said, "Marriage is a form of slavery. The woman is man's slave, and her duty therefore is absolute obedience".

Polygamy is also the right of Muslim men. But even more abhorrent is the practice of sexual gratification with children. There is no legal age for marriage under sharia. Thus the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini, for example, said in an official statement, "A man can quench his sexual lusts with a child as young as a baby."

Of course Muhammad himself had a six-year-old wife, whom he consummated relations with when she was just nine. And Islamic leaders argue that his life serves as an example and pattern for all Muslims. This is all codified in surah 65:4 in the Koran.

There are plenty of other misogynist elements to sharia law. Women adulterers are to be stoned to death; girls who fornicate are to be flogged; a woman's testimony in a court of law is only worth half that of a man's; women cannot be in the company of men who are not her relatives; female genital mutilation is rife; a Muslim wife needs her husband's permission to travel; and so on.

Then there is the issue of honour killing. While there is no sharia law that expressly gives men the right to kill their women to protect their family honour, there are existing laws which protect men who do commit such killings. Indeed, sharia states that a killer of an apostate, a robber or an adulterer cannot be punished for murder.

In the rest of the book Darwish looks at life "behind the Muslim curtain" - what life is like for non-Muslims under sharia law. Non-Muslims are treated almost as poorly as women in Muslim-majority countries. Jews and Christians are under dhimmitude, or second-class citizenship. Darwish chronicles the many ways in which non-Muslims are oppressed, discriminated against, and denied basic human rights.

And ordinary Muslims who dare to think independently of sharia are also subject to tremendous opposition and oppression. Criticism of Islam is of course punishable by death. Muhammad himself ordered the killing of those who dared to criticise him.

All the various schools of Islam agree that blasphemy or criticism of Islam is a capital offence. And Muslim imams do not expect to be questioned or challenged in any way. In such a world there is "no intellectual honesty, no dialogue, and no respect".

Muslim preachers regard Westerners and Jews as the embodiment of evil, the personification of Satan. Therefore they can be cursed, deceived and killed. Indeed, according to sharia, lying and deception are obligatory at times when dealing with the enemies of Islam. This is part of the overall jihad being waged against infidels.

After reading so much detail about what sharia teaches and commands, one is left overwhelmed. As Darwish says, "The West should be clear on the nature of Sharia. It is nothing more than legal tyranny, a terminal disease that destroys the healthy functioning of society where everything is sacrificed for the sake of total control".

Indeed, say Darwish, Islam is not really a religion as much as it is a system of complete control and social order. It is an intolerant worldview which allows no opposition or questioning. Thus the West should resolutely oppose what she calls "Islamo-Facism". We should not tolerate intolerance.

She concludes her book with practical suggestions for the West, including keeping sharia illegal, restricting immigration, and monitoring Muslim clerics on what they are preaching and teaching. And the West must rediscover and celebrate its Judeo-Christian heritage and values, and resist the inroads of secularism.

If it does not, the vacuum caused by secularism will be quickly filled by a totalising Islam which seeks absolute control and the global extension of sharia. The aims of the Islamists are the very opposite of those who champion freedom and democracy. We must choose which system we wish to live under.

Darwish has nicely laid out the implications of life under sharia. It is up to us how we respond.

Helps Understand Muslimism, February 22, 2009
Darwish points out that the goal of radical Islam is to bring Sharia law to the entire world. According to Sharia, women can be beaten for talking to men who are not their relatives and flogged for not wearing a headdress, daughters, sisters, and wives can be legally killed by the men in their family, and non-Muslims can be beheaded and their Muslim killers not penalized. While men fare far better than women, they risk having their hands chopped off for stealing, being whipped for not growing a sufficient beard, etc. Then there's the ban on movies, alcohol, TV, yoga, education for females, etc.

Don't doubt the intensity of Muslim religious proponents - about 60 million Christians, 80 million Hindus, and 10 million Buddhists have been killed in prior jihads. Africa has especially suffered - 120 million deaths. For Muslims, the wages of reformation is death - thus, don't wait for it to mellow.

There are four Sharia sects. Most Muslims follow Hanafi law, the most liberal. Hanbali law is the strictest version, and followed only by Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately, Saudi Arabia provides most of the funds for "growing" the Muslim religion.

One criticism: Darwish focuses on the extreme form of Muslimism, however, and little explanation of the mildest form is provided.

This book will answer ALL your questions, May 2, 2009
I had a chance to talk to Nonie during a dinner in which she was the guest speaker at an event in Bakersfield CA. Not only is she a wonderful person and great communicator, her perspective regarding global jihad, radical Islam and Sharia Law needs to be taken extremely seriously by all who read this book. Coming from Egyptian background and being raised as a Muslim, Nonie know what she is talking about. Sharia Law has and is enslaving millions of people, while creating an environment that fosters extreme hatred towards non-Muslims. Nonie covers just about any topic you've ever wondered about, from honor killings, the beating of wives, brainwashing of children, Islamic victimization and much much more. She takes you on a journey that reveals the history of Islam and the Bedouin culture that gave birth to this religion. Once you open this book, you will be hard pressed to put it down.

The Naked Truth about Sharia Law, March 13, 2009
I just found the time to sit, read and be with Nonie Darwish's second master piece Cruel and Usual Punishment on Sharia Law. I can't thank her enough for writing it. She is one of the few who introduces us to Shafi'i Islam a most conservative Sharia and one embraced by Somalis which is hard for Americans to understand its implications.

Most importantly Nonie conceptualizes the ramifications of the young boy's identification with their victim mother which is of huge importance as this is a key source of all the rage and violence.

Although I am quite knowledgeable on the subject, I learned many more things and when I first picked it up, I wondered how was Nonie going to outdo her first book. Beyond a shadow of a
doubt, she have now written two classics. A five star book. ... Read more

Editorial Review

One Saturday morning in February 1972, an impoundment dam owned by the Pittston Coal Company burst, sending a 130 million gallon, 25 foot tidal wave of water, sludge, and debris crashing into southern West Virginia's Buffalo Creek hollow. It was one of the deadliest floods in U.S. history. 125 people were killed instantly, more than 1,000 were injured, and over 4,000 were suddenly homeless. Instead of accepting the small settlements offered by the coal company's insurance offices, a few hundred of the survivors banded together to sue. This is the story of their triumph over incredible odds and corporate irresponsibility, as told by Gerald M. Stern, who as a young lawyer and took on the case and won. ... Read more

Reviews

Lawyering down in the pits, October 31, 2001
Jerry Stern's account of the litigation over the Buffalo Creek dam disaster ought to be read by every wannabe trial lawyer so that he or she will understand the tremendous creativity real lawyering, particularly lawyering down in the pits, requires.

The real practice of law requires vision and courage, which this book amply illustrates. Stern and his team from Arnold and Porter took on the near impossible case, armed only with the real tools of our trade, the words and ideas that form the arguments that shape the law.

And yet this is not just the story of courageous plaintiffs' lawyers, it is about the truly great defense lawyers on the other side, in particular Zane Grey Staker, whose tenacity and command of the language and of his case, gave the A & P lawyers a great and fair fight, and of the United States District Judge, whose role was not only to provide each side with "the cold neutrality of an impartial judge" but who understood that proper case management plays a critical role in achieving substantial justice.

There Are Good Attorneys . . ., March 13, 2003
My Civil Proceedure Prof. assigned this to us over Christmas Break so we could become familiar with "piercing the corporate veil", which merely refers to the rare legal opportunity to cut through a corporation's legal armour and attack some of the meat and money, i.e. personal assets of the officers. This only happens when there is extreme wrong doing by those suits running the business, and if you want to know what extreme worngdoing is, this is the book that will lay it out for you, pretty as a penny.
I have to admit, I was dreading reading this book, as the holidays were a sweet time to escape the stressful activities of law school. So when "Harold", our WonderBread/uptight, D.C., in the process of divorce, Napoleonic law professor assigned this reading, I was not too thrilled.
But once I started reading, I couldn't put the book down. This is the story that makes good people want to become good lawyers.
The story is about a coal mining disaster, a preventable, mind-reeling, man-made disaster and how a dedicated attorney wades through the litigation process, extracting painful stories from the survivors, and skillfully uses hard work, pit bull clenched determination, the legal system and a little luck to persevere over a greedy, thoughtless, and culpable corporation. I hope those guys fighting Enron read this.
A great read, even if you have no legal aspirations and like a good, meaty story with a real-life happy ending.

A horrible disaster, September 21, 2000
This was, I believe, one of the worst man-made disasters of it's time, and it is a shame that so few people have heard of it. It was, essentially, a man made dam built from slag refuse from a local coalmine that collapsed during a large thunderstorm. The resultant floodwaters killed scores of people in the Buffalo Creek Area, destroying homes and private property as well. What makes the tragedy so much worse, however, is the conditions the people were forced into before and after the flood. If you want to read a heartbreaking true story of tragedy, poverty, and the cold, uncaring face of Big Coal in West Virginia, then you must read this book.

Was Stern as Big a Winner as he Thought?, January 29, 2000
The premise of Stern's book is - "How the survivors of one of the worst disasters in coal-mining history brought suit against the coal company - and won."

One of my civil procedure professors required us to read this book before our first year of law school, because it does an excellent job of framing the issues that a lawyer might face. From that standpoint, it serves as a good teaching tool. From a social standpoint, I also believe that the book raises valuable questions about the legal system and whether it promotes corporates interests unless there is a firm like Arnold & Porter that is willing to step in and undertake this type of representation. Too often, there are attorneys who view mass disasters as an opportunity for themselves, rather than as the tragedy that they are for the victims. But, on a professional level, although I think that Mr. Stern did a good job of representing his clients, at the end of the book I wondered whether he was as successful as he thought he was. Certainly, his clients were better off than they had been before his efforts, but given the fact that his law firm earned more than $3 million from his efforts, did his 600+ clients fare as well as he thought?

How law was used to overcome senseless mine failure., August 12, 1999
This is a tragically true story of how a big coal company built a totally unsupported mine waste pile in a valley with stream running through it. The dam failed during a storm, flooding the valley and killing 125 poor people living downstream. This book recounts the lawyer's tale of how he used the litigation process to fight an incredibly arrogant and wealthy coal company. Not quite Grisham-esque in his prose, Gerald Stern still does a good job of telling the tale and teaching the lay person how the legal system works for the victims. If you are thinking of becoming a trial lawyer, or just interested in a how a civil suit is filed and moves through all the steps to trial, this is a great introduction.

If you're in law school read this!, January 23, 2001
A fabulous book for two reasons. It chronicles a disaster that is virtually unknown beyond the state of West Virginia. Secondly, it's a great tool for any law student in a Civil Procedure class. Forget about "A Civil Action" or "Erin Brockovich", this book best depicts the struggles of those who suffered, both the victims and the lawyers who fought for the people in the Buffalo Creek region.

A gripping story of human disaster and corporate ineptness, June 18, 1999
Wow! What a book. Can you imagine having a wall of water suddenly appear on a Saturday morning and totally engulf your house and drown members of your family? Can you imagine escaping to the roof of your house as it was carried along by flood waters, crashing into bridges and other houses? Can you imagine having a young child ripped from your arms by rampaging flood water? These horrors actually occurred in 1972 in a small valley in West Virginia. Eventually 125 people lost their lives in what is still the greatest disaster of its kind in the U.S.

Stern tells the story of the Buffalo Creek disaster. He describes how an inept corporation used coal slag to construct illegal dams across Buffalo Creek, a small stream in West Virginia. As would be expected, water accumulated as lakes behind the dams. During a heavy rainfall, the largest of the dams burst, sending millions of gallons of water rushing down the valley toward 16 small communities built along the creek's banks. The loss of life, property damage, and mental anguish were extensive and traumatic.

Stern, who was the lead attorney for a law firm that represented the survivors of this disaster, tells the story of the victims and relates the legal intrigues that formed litigation against the coal corporation responsibile for the disaster. Also described are problems with West Virginia authorities, including the governor, who historically had close political ties with coal companies.

The most gripping parts of Stern's book are the words from the survivors. Their stories of death and injury are made even more horrific when you realize that this disaster need not have occurred if the coal corporation had been less callous and more socially responsible.

This book is an evening's read and is highly recommended for anyone concerned about social justice, political intrigues, and corporate responsibilities.

Engrossing Real-Life Legal Drama, August 13, 2005
Even though the subtitle gives away the ending, you won't be able to put this one down as the author leads you to one clue after the other that bring down a corrupt company and give new life to a community ripped to shreds.

Great true life story, August 4, 2005
The book was amazing. Really a good read. The story of what happened to those poor people when the Buffalo Creek Dam broke is absolutely heartbreaking, but they were able to triumph in the end. The book is not bogged down with legalese as it so easily could have been, making it accessible to readers who are not familiar with the law world and its idiosyncracies. Very well written. I highly recommend!

The Law to the Rescue, April 13, 2005
This is an excellent book to read while in law school on the days when you are questioning why you want to enter the profession. The Buffalo Creek disaster was a horrible tragedy in poverty-stricken coal mining region and the people who had lost relatives, their homes and their livlihoods had no where to turn until a law firm was willing to take their case and fight the large mine operators. The book is written by the lead attorney on the case, which certainly makes it slightly self-serving, but this just proves that justice can truly can served through the law and lawyers can make the world a better place. The writing is very clear and easy, the action is fast paced and it is very educational (it somehow makes torts and civil procedure come alive). I would highly recommend this book for all aspiring lawyers or people who are already practicing. ... Read more

Editorial Review

A history of the landmark case of James Earl Gideon's fight for the right to legal counsel. Notes, table of cases, index. The classic backlist bestseller. More than 800,000 sold since its first pub date of 1964. ... Read more

Editorial Review

The first full-scale biography in twenty-five years of one of the most important and distinguished justices to sit on the Supreme Court–a book that reveals Louis D. Brandeis the reformer, lawyer, and jurist, and Brandeis the man, in all of his complexity, passion, and wit.

Louis Dembitz Brandeis had at least four “careers.”As a lawyer in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, he pioneered how modern law is practiced. He, and others, developed the modern law firm, in which specialists manage different areas of the law. He was the author of the right to privacy; led the way in creating the role of the lawyer as counselor; and pioneered the idea of pro bono publico work by attorneys. As late as 1916, when Brandeis was nominated to the Supreme Court, the idea of pro bono service still struck many old-time attorneys as somewhat radical.

Between 1895 and 1916, when Woodrow Wilson named Brandeis to the Supreme Court, he ranked as one of the nation’s leading progressive reformers. Brandeis invented savings bank life insurance in Massachusetts (he considered it his most important contribution to the public weal) and was a driving force in the development of the Federal Reserve Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, and the law establishing the Federal Trade Commission.

Brandeis as an economist and moralist warned in 1914 that banking and stock brokering must be separate, and twenty yearslater, during the New Deal, his recommendation was finallyenacted into law (the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933) but wasundone by Ronald Reagan, which led to the savings-and-loan crisis in the 1980s and the world financial collapse of 2008.

We see Brandeis, who came from a family of reformers and intellectuals who fled Europe and settled in Louisville. Brandeis the young man coming of age, who presented himself at Harvard Law School and convinced the school to admit him even though he was underage. Brandeis the lawyer and reformer, who in 1908 agreed to defend an Oregon law establishing maximum hours for women workers, and in so doing created an entirely new form of appellate brief that had only a few pages of legal citation and consisted mostly of factual references.

Urofsky writes how Brandeis witnessed and suffered from the anti-Semitism rampant in the early twentieth century and, though not an observant Jew, with the outbreak of the Great War in 1914, became at age fifty-eight head of the American Zionist movement. During the next seven years, Brandeis transformed it from a marginal activity into a powerful force in American Jewish affairs.

We see the brutal six-month confirmation battle after Wilson named the fifty-nine-year-old Brandeis to the court in 1916; the bitter fight between progressives and conservative leaders of the bar, finance, and manufacturing, who, while neverdirectly attacking him as a Jew, described Brandeis as “a striver,”“self-advertiser,”“a disturbing element in any gentleman’s club.” Even the president of Harvard, A. Lawrence Lowell, signed a petition accusing Brandeis of lacking “judicial temperament.” And we see, finally, how, during his twenty-three years on the court, this giant of a man and an intellect developed the modern jurisprudence of free speech, the doctrine of a constitutionally protected right to privacy, and suggested what became known as the doctrine of incorporation, by which the Bill of Rights came to apply to the states.

Brandeis took his seat when the old classical jurisprudence still held sway, and he tried to teach both his colleagues and the public– especially the law schools–that the law had to change to keep up with the economy and society. Brandeis often said, “My faith in time is great.” Eventually the Supreme Court adopted every one of his dissents as the correct constitutional interpretation.

A huge and galvanizing biography, a revelation of one man’s effect on American society and jurisprudence, and the electrifying story of his time. ... Read more

Editorial Review

With over two hundred individual fact citations in over one hundred different sources, Kings of Tort has been impeccably researched. It used primary sources like the highly acclaimed book by Michael Orey entitled Assuming the Risk and Dan Zegart's book Civil Warriors.

The book has also sourced information via articles from publications and media outlets such as the Clarion Ledger, the Sun Herald, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times. That research has been supplemented with interviews and perspectives from those on all sides of this complicated story. All that were significantly involved in this story were invited in writing to participate. Most notably, Dickie Scruggs, Paul Minor, former Attorney General Mike Moore, and Attorney General Jim Hood all declined (either directly or through legal counsel) to be interviewed after multiple attempts. ... Read more

Editorial Review

Presents to the reader a selection of the finest closing arguments in American history.Softcover. DLC: Summation (Law)--U.S. ... Read more

Reviews

Spellbinding, December 29, 2000
Ladies and Gentlemen... kills two birds with one stone by providing an eduactional and intruiging experience. You will hit your curiousity spot by learning what the landmark trials of the United States were all about, and you will also get locked into some of the most persuasive literature I have ever seen.

While those who are interested in the legal field are virtually guaranteed to be interested in reading Ladies and Gentlemen..., you don't need to be anything close to a lawyer to appreciate this. This anthology of closing arguments teaches the reader how to connect/communicate with others. After reading a series of closing arguments, I learned different strategies to use to relate to a group of people to get my point across (in this case, a jury). This book is great to any businessman, negotiator, or even those who want to improve their basic social, everyday, oral skills.

I just bought this book for ten of my friends for the past holiday season, and I got star reports from all of them. I recommend this innovative book to all types of readers.

--Emanuel Abrishami

A must read for anyone who is or wants to be a litigator!, February 13, 1999
The authors have done a fantastic job of resurrecting some of the finest closing arguments of all time. From Gerry Spence's closing in Silkwood (perhaps the greatest closing argument ever) to the flair and panache of William Kuntsler, this book provides excitement and intrigue at the turn of every page. Completely engrossing. . . . I recommend this book for anyone who has an interest in trial practice, or plain old human drama.

Legal History, February 19, 2001
Describing or reading a speech is like describing color. I guess you can do it, but nothing is the same as being there and listening and experience a great speech. There is a poetry to the delivery which is missing from a dry read. Yet, if you want to read some of the great closes from the past, this is a good place to start.

This books picks 10 closing arguements which the authors state are the greatest of history. Whenever you have such a book, of course, people will differ on which closes should be included. By necessity, for mass appeal, oftentimes "famous" speeches, which may not be so great will be included while less famous speeches, which were much better, will not be the cut. I thought the ones chosen, overall, were very good.

Personally I liked the ones I read. My favorite was Clarance Darrow's close in the Leopald and Loeb case. It was great because it was effective. Everyone in this case knew they were guilty and wanted them to die. How did Clarence Darrow change the judges mind? It was in his words and his delivery. This was an effective speech.

There are others here which I also found very good. We hear the closing speech from the Nuremberg trials (which I would not have included because I think the win was almost preordained), the close in the Karen Silkwood civil case, the DeLorean defense close and six others. This is a good book and a good read. I would recommend it most to history fans, but I think some of the general public would also enjoy it.

If your idealism is waning, this book will help you find it!, February 15, 2005
After years of arguing caseslaw, motions, picking juries, interviewing witnesses, going through all the day to day protocol that trial work demands, one may forget at times how important is the job of a lawyer. But this book reminds the practioner that he/she is a part of a wonderful system of justice. Not many cases will go down as "The Greatest" but to your clients, it is often the defining moment of their lives. And this book helps you reconnect to the reasons why you sought a lifetime devoted to the noblest of professions.
Reading about the great lawyers of in our history is humbling and worthwhile. Reflection is helpful as you try to regain a little lost idealism. And if you are a new lawyer and have all of you ideals from law school still in tact, reading this book will help you realize how important it is to never lose them. Great book for lawyers and non-lawyers alike.

Book brings to life some of the great cases of the century, January 29, 1999
I found this book a must for anyone interested in famous trials. I'm an historian and not a lawyer and found it to be just what I needed to increase my knowledge of specific trials at crucial points in history.

For example, the chapter on the Nazi war crimes trials allowed me to fully understand the complexities of an international war tribunal.

Darrow's closing argument in the Leopold and Loeb case was one of the most erudite pieces of logic this writer has ever come across.

I've given this book to many of my lawyer friends as presents. They enjoyed it as much as I did.

A worthwhile read for a trial attorney, August 20, 2004
If only for Spence's closing in the Silkwood case, this book is worth every penny. A real thing of subtle and effective beauty, that closing contains so many incredible and useful techniques, it's just plain stunning. The subtle allignment of Spence to the jurors in groups in which Spence and the jurors can work together are wonderful and powerful -- Spence places himself and the jurors by turns in a self built retirement community, and in the class of local state citizens all the while emphasizing that the cause of the need for retirement and the genesis of Spence's new found home state membership is the defense's prolongation of trial -- wonderful. The rhyming "if the lion gets away, Kerr McGee must pay" is hard-to-forget and masterfully so. The analysis that proceeds each transcript is useful and informative. Buy it if you can.

OK if you want a Trial History book., July 5, 1998
I was disappointed with this book. It seemed "flat", something was missing. I think that there was not enough critical commentary and analyis on the closing arguments selected and what made them the "greatest" closing arguments in modern law. The book essentially gives the facts of the case, a brief commentary on the summation, then the summation itself. If you buy this book, read the table of contents first so that you know whether or not you are interested in reading about the chosen cases. Otherwise the book will not be a good read.

Fascinating read, August 24, 2000
As a reader of only non-fiction pieces, this was an excellent book. It takes a short look at the case itself, explaining what its all about, then brings you to the closing argument. I don't know if you can truly call them the "greatest" closing arguments, but they must be some of the best. The book held my attention from cover to cover. Of particular interest to me was Gerry spence on the Karen Silkwood case, Darrow on Loeb and Leopold, and the John Delorean defense, all high profile, and all well thought out defenses, The Delorean defense is sure to suprise you!

These closing arguments are social history., December 5, 1998
As a lawyer I thought that this might be interesting as a "how to book." It is not that kind of book. It is a sort of "coffee table book" that I was glad to get as a gift. The closing arguments are interesting for the way the lawyer "pitched" a case to the jury. They reflect the social milieu out of which the cases arose. I read it in bits for the sheer fun of recalling our social history.

An Insightful Book, October 6, 2008
This book, the first in a series of three by the authors, looks at significant trials in American history. What I found interesting as a teacher of trial advocacy is the ability to read closing arguments from a wide variety of lawyers that took place in the context of interesting trials. Is the collection of closing arguments the greatest in history? Who is to say unless you were in the courtroom. But that does not take away from the fact that the book provides a unique glimpse for lawyers to see how other attorneys handled difficult issues in their closing arguments. ... Read more

Editorial Review

Does the government have the right to seize your house in order to build a shopping mall? Can it determine what you can do to your own body? How far can it go in regulating your use of the Internet? The answers to those questions come from the Supreme Court—and its rulings have shaped American life, justice, and culture. Here are 37 of the most significant issues the Court has grappled with—from equal rights to privacy rights, from the limits of speech to the boundaries between church and state. Many of these cases read like thrillers…right down to their cliff-hanging endings.

Editorial Review

Reviews

For the serious Court-Watcher, June 19, 2008
The Hollow Hope is written for the serious Court-watcher. It uses empirical data to deflate the notion that the Supreme Court influences significant social reform. However, it is written very clearly so even the novice who is serious about learning about judicial behavior and its impact on society can follow the arguments. Its first edition concentrated on Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and Roe v. Wade (1973)and related women's movement issues. It's second edition includes chapters on Goodridge v. Dept of Public Health (2003), wherein Massachusetts Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage, and related equality cases involving same-sex couples. This updated work does not change the overall deflating thesis of the Hollow Hope. However, the second edition was published before the recent California Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage. A key counter-factual to the Hollow Hope is that public opinion in California favoring same-sex marriage changed after the Supreme Court ruling, not before. However, as with all empirical data, this correlation and time sequence does not prove that the Court actually moved public opinion; it may have reflected an opinion trend already underway. Moreover, since Californians still have an opportunity in Novemnber 2008 to reverse their Supreme Court with a state constitutional amendment, the thesis of the Hollow Hope may once again be proven true. Nonetheless, my bet is that the California context will emerge as the counter-factual to the thesis of the Hollow Hope. ... Read more

Editorial Review

This new edition ofChief Justice William H. Rehnquist’s classic book offers a lively and accessible history of the Supreme Court. His engaging writing illuminates both the high and low points in the Court's history, from Chief Justice Marshall’s dominance of the Court during the early nineteenth century through the landmark decisions of the Warren Court. Citing cases such as the Dred Scott decision and Roosevelt's Court-packing plan, Rehnquist makes clear that the Court does not operate in a vacuum, that the justices are unavoidably influenced by their surroundings, and that their decisions have real and lasting impacts on our society.

The public often hears little about the Supreme Court until decisions are handed down. Here, Rehnquist reveals its inner workings--the process by which cases are chosen, the nature of the conferences where decisions are made, and the type of debates that take place. With grace and wit, this incisive history gives a dynamic and informative account of the most powerful court in the nation and how it has shaped the direction America has taken. ... Read more

Reviews

Excellent short history of the court, April 28, 2003
As an introduction to the history of the Supreme Court, Justice Rehnquist's book was just what I was looking for. Not only does he give a good explanation of the personalities and issues through the ages, he also explains the experience of being a clerk on the court.

Rehnquist begins by telling the story of how he came to be a clerk for Justice Jackson in the early 1950s. He then goes back and explains the origins of the court in the 19th century. From 1800 until the Civil War, only two men were chief Justice, John Marshall and Roger Taney. Rehnquist explains why both of these men were important and how they shaped the court for generations to come.

Rehnquist then explains that the next 100 years were without an important chief justice, but many significant associate justices. This period begins with cases like Plessy v. Ferguson and ends with Brown versus the Board of Education. Rehnquist does a good job of explaining the politics behind FDR's court packing plan in the 1930s, and the Steel Case that came before the court when he was a clerk in the early 1950s.

The book ends with how the process of deciding cases happens on the Supreme Court, and how Rehnquist's experience was different as an associate justice before he became the chief.

The book works as an excellent history and an insider's view to how the court operates. It's not an in-depth book, but I don't know a single volume could accomplish that. I was very happy with what I learned in 300 pages.

Who knows better than he?, February 6, 2001
No matter what your political persuasion, I think the average reader will find this a cogent, witty history of the High Court.

The Chief is a surprisingly smooth writer, and has a good ear for deliniating the chief cases in U.S. History. However, the book does really presume a familiarity with U.S. History that International readers may not have. Not the worst weakness in the world.

This is also a wonderfully appropriate gift for a gifted child with an interest in politics or jurisprudence. Just don't bring up Bush v. Gore.

A Thoughtful Introduction to the Nation's Highest Court., April 20, 2001
Chief Justice William Rehnquist presents an impressively well-written introduction to the history and the operations of the United States Supreme Court.

Beginning with the landmark case, Marbury v. Madison, Rehnquist guides the reader through a history of the Supreme Court, its notable Justices, and important cases. He traces this history through the court of Cheif Justice Earl Warren, the last Chief Justice with whom Rehnquist did not sit on the Court.

Rehnquist also sheds light on the inner workings of the Court. Topics covered include how the Court chooses which cases it will hear, what happens in the conference after the oral arguments are heard, and how opinions are written. For someone on the outside, this is perhaps the best glimpse into the most secretive of our three branches of government.

Chief Justice Rehnquist's book will astound all readers who bear even the least interest in highest court in the land through his deft handling and description of each of the topics he discusses.

Masterpiece - short yet stuffed with perspective, July 21, 2005
I was surprised to read that some readers found this book a dry read. On the contrary, I would propose that Chief Justice Rehnquist is a wonderful writer who provides a short masterpiece on the history of the Court.

Two perspectives on the history of the Court create the primary structure of the book:
1) Rehnquist reviews specific cases in chronological order that have created the most imporant body of law used by the Supreme Court and required to be followed by the lower courts as they conduct their appellate work. He weaves in the personalities of the Court and sometimes of the Presidents who impact the Court, along with the historical perspective driving these issues by using a narrative structure. We are told stories rather than being forced to review lists of dates and people. This portion of the book also describes how the Court accepts cases through the eyes of a young court clerk, William Rehnquist himself.
2) There are a couple of chapters in the back of the book that explains how the court conducts its work, such as oral argument and how the court decides cases and delegates the writing of rulings and opinions. While interesting to read Rehnquist's perspecive, Bob Woodward's "The Brethern: Inside the Supreme Court" provides a more complete picture of the inner-workings of the Court.

Justice Rehnquist surprised me with the lack of ideology contained in this book. As opposed to Mr. Gingrich's new book that is basically a propaganda tract rife with deceptions, Rehnquist provides a mostly honest and fair assessment of not only the perspective of conservatives like him, but also the liberal side. Rehnquist, like Kenneth Starr's "First Among Equals", can be counted on to provide an accurate protrayal of the issues worked out by previous courts.

Mr. Rehnquist also surprised me with his writing talent, while his opinions have always been first rate reading, they are those of an advocate for a certain position which filter-out competing positions. This book is truly a well-written, honest look at the history of the court; Rehnquist provides respectful commentary of competing positions. This book is one of my primary resources I've continuously used over the years when I require some insight into a past case, court, or justice.

Delightful Historical Insight Into The High Court, November 19, 2004
This able jurist takes the reader into the heart and history of the nation's high court, beginning with his own beginnings there as a clerk to one of the Justices.

His flair for the historical setting and the surrounding circumstances makes for easy reading. He does not assume that his readership is well versed in technical legal jargon so is careful to define and explain as he goes, which this reviewer found very helpful. Even when I thought I knew what he was referring to, his clarity and succinctness helped immensely in the experience.

For much of our country who harbors wrong thinking about the Supreme Court, how they operate and what they are to do Constituionally this is just the book to give the needed correction. Essentially this book serves that purpose well: to provide the chronolical history of the court's developments including profiles of the justices, its changing legal posture, its historic, landmark cases and Chief Justice Rehnquist's running commentary on such.

It is lucid, well structured and thus easy to follow and insightful. Especially was his valuable contributions on just how the court has functioned, now functions on selecting cases to hear. I was intrigued especially by the government's seizure of the steel industry and Montgomery Ward's Chicago headquarters during WWII.

Just a great read from beginning to end which will and should span a wide breath of readers. Worthy to become classic on the topic. Glad that he didn't write this as memoirs on his court term. That likely will to come, or be published posthumously.

Not Quite What I had envisioned, February 6, 2006
In purchasing this book, I noted that the index covered some major cases and I anticipated a review of the court as perceived through the writings of it major decisions. And although the book starts out this way, it changes to more to a memoir of the Chief Justice, his time working clerking on the court and arguing in front of it. The book's final chapters focuses on the procedures within the court. How they oral arguments occur, how they discuss decisions behind chambers, etc. This part was indeed fascinating, but again, not really what I had imagined when I purchased the book. Overall, the Chief Justice does a good job of reviewing some major cases, and identifying the tone and procedures inside the most important arm of government that few people really know.

A Good Primer on Institution & Jurisprudence of the Supremes, March 18, 2004
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist has recently revised and expanded his book on the history and operation of the US Supreme Court. The book comes in at around three hundred pages, and is accessible to a general reading audience. Yet, those trained in political science and the law can also benefit from this work, as it provides a nice overview of Supreme Court history and how the justices operate today.

In terms of history, the Chief Justice's book provides brief discussion spanning from the Marshall court in the early Nineteenth Century until then end of the Warren court in the latter part of the Twentieth Century. Again, this work remains light in terms of doctrinal analysis, giving the orthodox views of cases as Marbury v. Madison (1803) and Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857), and likewise giving standard, summary treatments to landmark cases like Lochner v. New York (1905) and the court's Commerce Clause cases. The Chief Justice does a fine job in framing the historical backdrop and context in which cases like Dred Scott and Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) were decided, discussing the Missouri Compromise and Kansas-Nebraska Act in setting up the former case and the Korean Conflict and labor disputes in the latter.

Since the Chief Justice was himself a Supreme Court law clerk for Justice Robert Jackson during the Youngstown case (aka the "Steel Seizure Case"), his discussion of that case serves the twofold purpose of covering a significant decision in separation of powers jurisprudence and describing the work of a clerk. Justice Jackson also figures prominently in the Chief Justice's enjoyable summary of President Theodore Roosevelt's failed "Court Packing" plan, as the book covers the history behind the appointments of many of the justices.

Being rather appreciative of Justice Jackson's career and Supreme Court opinions, I longed for a more intimate portrayal of the man by his former law clerk, but I nonetheless realize that this book is too short for that, and likewise too short to go into detail in a great many of the areas that were touched upon. But I did enjoy his short biographical overviews of many of the justices who have served on the high court, including Joseph Story and Stephen J. Field.

For the most part, the Chief Justice gives a balanced look at the figures and cases of the court, but he does show his feelings about such cases as Korematsu v. US (1944) (an infamous Japanese internment case), as well as the Warren court's general approach to constitutional rights guarantees for criminal defendants.

I found later chapters dealing with the Supreme Court's administrative operations less interesting than the history, and his brief descriptions of more recent and current members of the court something read like a tourist brochure. Understandably and wisely, the Chief Justice likewise declines to discuss the events surrounding his own appointments and confirmations as well as major cases that have come before the Supreme Court during his own time as an Associate Justice and Chief Justice. (For a treatment of more recent cases and development of constitutional jurisprudence I recommend Judge Kenneth W. Starr's "First Among Equals: The Supreme Court in American Life.")

This newer edition is now available in paperback and it receives my recommendation.

Fascinating personal experience but spotty history, November 9, 2006
The highlight of this book for me were those chapters that dealt directly with the author's personal experience. At the age of twenty-seven he drove a heaterless Studebaker from his home in Milwaukee, Wisconsin in midwinter to start his first job in the legal profession, clerking for Supreme Court Associate Justice Jackson. He describes his initial experiences as a clerk and his impressions of the justices who served at that time, especially Frankfurter and Douglas. One case that made a particularly strong impression upon him concerned Truman's seizure of steel mills during the Korean War. The concern about abuse of Presidential power, seen at close range here, is extended in the book to a chapter devoted to FDR's attempt to pack the Court. He does not go into lengthy detail about his particular experiences as an Associate Justice and then as Chief Justice, but the three chapters on how cases are chosen, oral arguments presented, and cases decided are very interesting. He lists what he views as the different types of lawyers who present oral arguments, and blends his own experience in mentioning what a memorable and pressure-cooker situation it can be for those doing the presenting.

The problem with the historical part of the book is that it is very selectively focused and somewhat wanting in broadly addressing the issues involved. He provides helpful background concerning the railroad monopolies and the struggles of farmers to lessen the control of middle men, but in other instances of the laissez-faire economics of the industrial revolution, I have to question whether he is telling the full story. For a very long time, the balance between the monopoly power of the few at the expense of the welfare of the community was weighing heavily toward the few. When the New Deal came along, it may have shifted the balance too far the other way, but coming on the heels of the Great Depression, it did finally provide for worker's rights which could only be of positive benefit to the community. The Court packing chapter was interesting and FDR certainly sounds like he overstepped his bounds, but at the same time there were other things going on in the Court that were of historical significance and it is notable that people at that time faced many hardships. In the same vein, he could have written more about Brown vs. Board of Education, especially since he was a clerk at the Court at least part of the time during which the case was considered: In particular, the story of the rather remarkable feat that resulted in an unanimous decision, and also the events leading up to that decision, especially those efforts to right wrongs after the Civil War. He may have made good points about the Radical Republicans overstepping their bounds but there were also other things going on at the time.

Whatever side of the ideological fence you may be on, I think that Bernard Schwartz's book HISTORY OF THE SUPREME COURT gives a broader and easier to grasp view of Supreme Court history that includes more about constitutional trends and is less bogged down in dry detail even though it no doubt offers more.

Read and learn, September 19, 2005
I would recommend this book to anyone who is interested in the United States Supreme Court. Chief Justice Renhquist has given us an excellent history of the United State as view through the eyes of the court. I was expecting a book written by a lawyer for a lawyer. What I got was a wonderful history of the court written in a style that any layman can enjoy.

Greg Puttmann

The "Chief's" Perspective, August 4, 2005
For the interested layman. Interesting chapters on the inner workings of the Court. Reviews of important cases going back to Marbury v. Madison. Fascinating discussion of the interaction of politics with the judicial process focusing on the Steel Seizure case. ... Read more

Editorial Review

Keeping up with the fast pace of change in Intellectual Property, the third edition of Intellectual Property: Examples & Explanations offers timely coverage of central concepts in the proven-effective Examples & Explanations format. Student-friendly, concise, and timely, Intellectual Property: Examples & Explanations features: complete coverage keyed to the leading IP casebooks for the survey course proven-effective Examples & Explanations pedagogy that fills in any gaps in students understanding of casebook assignments consistent emphasis on central concepts, without digressing into more advanced topics free-standing chapters that are easily adapted to any course structure and make this study guide useful to as a reference throughout the semester Key Conceptsand Policy Issues highlighted in each chapter Updated throughout, the Third Edition includes: new developments effecting Internet service providers new material on patents, including landmark Supreme Court cases (on first sale, injunctions, patentable subject matter, licensing, declaratory judgments, nonobviousness, infringement abroad, and experimental use) and key Federal Circuit cases minimum statutory damages for downloading musicoriginality copyright in forms, digital images of public domain works DMCA anticurcumvention provisions new exemptions cases protecting legitimate uses of copyright protected works First Amendment limits on Congress's power to expand copyright protection international issues, such as copyright restoration for foreign works, and scope of protection abroad for US works copyright protection for databases, software, and orphan works consumers licensing, such as click-through copyright licenses and arbitration clauses new material on fair use thumbnail images in search engines Google Book case Turnitin, on-line plagiarism protection Public records in private databases Legal documents new cases on audio books, sampling, and data use restrictions new material on patents, including landmark Supreme Court cases and key Federal Circuit cases new material on trademark Trademark Dilution Revision Act use of trademarks as keywords in search engine advertising unauthorized use of trademarks in video games and films cases on likelihood of confusion standard, scope of international protection, functionality of trade dress, and fair use of trademarks new material on trade secret, such as remedies, reverse engineering, and government use of trade secret informationnew material on state intellectual property law, such as First Amendment limits on right of publicity; unjust enrichment and Intellectual Property law; scope of employee invention assignment agreements; preemption by federal law Intellectual Property is a big field and continually in the throes of change. Stephen M.McJohn keeps his coverage focused and current in Intellectual Property: Examples & Explanations, Third Edition. For a complete, concise, and clear introduction to central IP concepts, trust the proven-effective Examples & Explanations methodology to convey Intellectual Property concepts to your students. ... Read more