Scan barcode
coleycole's review
3.0
I liked The Nine better but this was still interesting. Good stuff on citizens united and healthcare ruling but The Nine felt more like an insider's perspective and (somewhat) less of a partisan perspective.
nightchough's review
3.0
Liked:
* Toobin's journalistic writing style - very clean
* Good summary of the activism of the Roberts Court
* Learned quite a bit about Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan
* Very fair to Clarence Thomas
On the other hand it had a little of a "ripped from the headlines" feeling ... would have liked a little more historical perspective.
If you're interested in the Supreme Court, definitely worth a read.
* Toobin's journalistic writing style - very clean
* Good summary of the activism of the Roberts Court
* Learned quite a bit about Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan
* Very fair to Clarence Thomas
On the other hand it had a little of a "ripped from the headlines" feeling ... would have liked a little more historical perspective.
If you're interested in the Supreme Court, definitely worth a read.
thrilled's review
2.0
sometimes i overdo things, take to extremes. like when i decided i should read both of toobin's supreme court books back to back. i loved the first and struggled to finish this one. maybe it was too much of a retread? or maybe i just don't care for the political climate of the past few years? maybe i need more distance between me and it? whatever the case, this was more boring than the bling ring.
rick2's review
5.0
I want more. I don’t think I’ve ever realistically thought of law as being interesting. But this book and its predecessor are riveting.
This book, and “the nine“ Are a pair of books that have fundamentally changed the way I interpret the world. Outside of a few tomes of literature, I’m not sure I would say that about many books.
It’s got me driving around Texas thinking about constitutional law. It also has me being a pretentious doof referencing supreme court cases in casual conversations. I was on a zoom call with some friends, we got to talking about gun control after the shooting last week here in Austin. And while the opinions differ wildly, from “free guns for Jesus” to “Jesus was a pacifist you sick fuck” it came back to the constitutionality of the right to bear arms, and there is an interesting parallel between the limits on free speech and the ideas around gun control. You can’t yell fire in a theater, and so forth and so on. I never realized how differently you can interpret the same parts of the constitution. And how “out over our skis” we are on other parts.
The level of divisiveness around various constitutional interpretations is really astounding.
It’s also amazing how distant the supreme court seems, but how pervasive it can be in our day-to-day lives.
This book, and “the nine“ Are a pair of books that have fundamentally changed the way I interpret the world. Outside of a few tomes of literature, I’m not sure I would say that about many books.
It’s got me driving around Texas thinking about constitutional law. It also has me being a pretentious doof referencing supreme court cases in casual conversations. I was on a zoom call with some friends, we got to talking about gun control after the shooting last week here in Austin. And while the opinions differ wildly, from “free guns for Jesus” to “Jesus was a pacifist you sick fuck” it came back to the constitutionality of the right to bear arms, and there is an interesting parallel between the limits on free speech and the ideas around gun control. You can’t yell fire in a theater, and so forth and so on. I never realized how differently you can interpret the same parts of the constitution. And how “out over our skis” we are on other parts.
The level of divisiveness around various constitutional interpretations is really astounding.
It’s also amazing how distant the supreme court seems, but how pervasive it can be in our day-to-day lives.
eldiente's review
3.0
Really enjoying this so far. Interesting how one's upbringing seems to trump education and logic.
This is a insightful glimpse into the current Justices serving on the Supreme Court and is helpful in understanding the extent to which political machinations play a role in the outcomes of the Court. I had a "grade-school" notion that the Supreme Court as an institution remained above the fray of current events. This book nicely dispels that myth.
This isn't for everyone, but I am glad to have listened.
This is a insightful glimpse into the current Justices serving on the Supreme Court and is helpful in understanding the extent to which political machinations play a role in the outcomes of the Court. I had a "grade-school" notion that the Supreme Court as an institution remained above the fray of current events. This book nicely dispels that myth.
This isn't for everyone, but I am glad to have listened.
bookhawk's review
4.0
Toobin provides great insight to the workings of the court including the flavors of the justices, the trends of the court and the issue wrestling. An excellent book for any lawyer as well as any American seeking greater understanding of the highest decisions of the judicial branch.
lauuwz's review against another edition
4.0
Effectively an update to "The Nine". If you like Toobin, you'll like it!
judyward's review
4.0
From the moment Chief Justice John Roberts swore in President Barack Obama in January 2009, there has been a confrontational relationship between the White House and the Supreme Court. Jeffrey Toobin believes that the basis of the hostility between the President and the Chief Justice is that one is a constitutional conservative and one one is a constitutional radical. And, in his view, it is the President who is essentially conservative on constitutional issues believing in pragmatism, compromise, and incremental change. In Toobin's view, Chief Justice Roberts want to lead a Supreme Court willing to overturn decades of decisions, ignore precedent, and undo many of the reforms reaching back to the New Deal. The high point of this conflict was in the 2011-2012 term when the challenge to the President's health-care legislation was heard by the justices. And, surprisingly, it was the Chief Justice's vote that upheld the constitutionality of that legislation. Toobin examines why Roberts voted to affirm and concludes that he is taking the long view and he wanted to keep the Supreme Court out of the 2012 election so that the Justices could renew their agenda later. The character sketches of the Justices on the Supreme Court both past and present drawn by Toobin contain some of the most fascinating portions of the book. A highly readable discussion of recent Supreme Court decisions.