Scan barcode
rc90041's review against another edition
5.0
Compulsively readable, especially for anyone familiar with or interested in the significant rulings from this era (the seventies) on abortion, busing, obscenity, criminalization of homosexuality, the death penalty, etc. This is likely the most important document a legal realist could point to to support that view of how the law often works: personalities, grudges, personal vendettas, charisma, charm, badgering, laziness, indifference, ideology, etc. It's a fascination look at how the legal sausage is made, with delicious details about negotiations and wheeling and dealing between the justices, maneuvering and office politics, and the very human factors that end up producing outcomes that can affect the lives of millions. Some have questioned whether Woodward actually had solid sources for all of the quotes and inside information. I'd just suggest perusing his body of work: He has the sources. Highly recommended for anyone interested in the Supreme Court and how it functions.
feindouno's review against another edition
informative
medium-paced
5.0
highly recommended for anyone interested in the history of the US Supreme Court
jacktiggs's review against another edition
5.0
Woodward in this book took on the quest of writing about the inner workings of the early Burger Court, which is around the early 1970's, and he succeeded in making one of the most interesting and readable books about the Court I've read. Okay, well, previously to The Brethren, I'd only read Toobin's works about the modern court, and while I enjoyed them, Woodward blows them out of the water.
First of all, while Woodward does appear to lean liberal, he is not as obviously biased as Toobin, as none of the Justices are particularly glorified, they all have their faults. From the power-hungry and incompetent Burger to the surprisingly somewhat lazy Marshall, they are all human. I loved the way Woodward was able to get behind the scenes to the political process of crafting opinions, and as someone with a budding interest in law I learned a lot about the backstories of important cases, like Roe v. Wade and US v. Nixon. Perhaps the most surprising part of this book was the humor throughout, mostly from the young clerks running about. In particular, the obscenity cases and the baseball anti-trust brought some laughs.
Overall, a great book for anyone interested in the law. I just wish Woodward continued publishing term summaries into one giant book from the 70's to now.
First of all, while Woodward does appear to lean liberal, he is not as obviously biased as Toobin, as none of the Justices are particularly glorified, they all have their faults. From the power-hungry and incompetent Burger to the surprisingly somewhat lazy Marshall, they are all human. I loved the way Woodward was able to get behind the scenes to the political process of crafting opinions, and as someone with a budding interest in law I learned a lot about the backstories of important cases, like Roe v. Wade and US v. Nixon. Perhaps the most surprising part of this book was the humor throughout, mostly from the young clerks running about. In particular, the obscenity cases and the baseball anti-trust brought some laughs.
Overall, a great book for anyone interested in the law. I just wish Woodward continued publishing term summaries into one giant book from the 70's to now.
christian_mcguire's review against another edition
5.0
A shocking and intriguing counter-narrative to the Supreme Court's monastic self-image.
The Brethren is a work of non-fiction narrative (non-fiction but in a format more typical of fictional works) that focuses on the Supreme Court of the United States from 1969 until 1976. Investigative journalists Bob Woodward (who needs no introduction) and Scott Armstrong (who I am not very familiar with) use off-the-record sources within the supreme court to paint a picture of it during a flashpoint in its history.
The Supreme Court is very secretive and thus is able to control its own public image. The narrative of the Supreme Court is that of a monastic group of intellectuals who even-handedly decide discrepancies within the federal body of law and federal judiciary. This is a convenient narrative that puts them in a positive light, but it is too convenient. Of course they would be that, it aids their legitimacy (which their power comes from). However, The Brethren dispels this notion. They are factional and are more willing to engage in backroom politics than actual deliberation. Each justice has their own unique personality that defines the course of cases, and their power and influence varies. They are occasionally petulant, sometimes devious, and often oblivious to the real reality of a case. The book's messages slowly unveil themselves. Firstly, the court is more political and less collegial than it seems. Secondly, whoever is in the middle of a case ideologically has the most influence. This middle eventually evolves into an entire faction, and then a majority. Thirdly, a number of the justices have personalities that aren't exactly conductive to good judicializing. Fourthly, there are real unmistakable flaws with how the Supreme Court works. And finally, the non-judicial aspects of the Court are flawed too.
In addition to being extremely enlightening, it's also an incredible story. As a work of non-fiction narrative, the figures are like characters, and the episodes portrayed are stories. This, and the fantastic and direct prose, make for an incredibly enjoyable book. Thus far, it's my favorite I've read all year, maybe ever. The justices (and others) are incredibly well done as characters, and each has a unique and interesting role to play in the events (in no order):
Warren is the former Chief Justice, a fantastic leader who had to retire and did not leave the court in good hands.
Black is a former great but is well past his prime and should have retired well before the book started. Even in his declining ability he can still shape the court. Then he dies.
Douglas is too averse-to-teamwork, rude, petulant and arrogant for the Supreme Court, but his intellectual honesty and legal brilliance cannot be ignored.
Harlan is the one true judge here; even-handed, honest, thoughtful and more impartial than anyone else. He is how to be a Conservative justice the right way.
Brennan does not have the emotional maturity to lead the liberal side, but tries anyways. Although a brilliant thinker, he is too petulant and emotional for the task.
Marshall is a follower, not a leader. He is lazy and just follows Douglas and Brennan, and has his clerks do most of the work anyways.
Stewart is the leader of the middle, and leads the court when leadership (often) cannot be found elsewhere, although his leadership is so subtle most of the time it goes without being noticed. He is an intelligent pragmatist who finds a satisfactory middleground when he can.
White is an overly and unnecessarily competitive asshole, with cringe takes, a bad attitude and poor teamwork.
Burger is the new Chief Justice, a conservative who is only there because he did a damn good job of selling himself to Nixon. He is stupid compared to the others, devious in his manipulation of the rules, horrible to his clerks, and overly pompous. He is genuinely one of the worst Justices in the history of the Supreme Court and this book makes that fact which I already knew even more apparent.
Blackmun is slow, meticulous and careful. He is unwilling to be bold and sweeping, but no one on there is more analytic and good at research as him. He also has the most interesting character arc, evolving from a moderate conservative under Burger's influence to an independent liberal.
Powell is the synthesis of his predecessor and successor, Harlan and Anthony Kennedy. A highly thoughtful and careful pragmatist who is also independent, collegial and amiable.
Rehnquist is atypically informal and youthful, but the most terrifying intellectual force on the court. He was the first in the modern trend of originalism on the court, and his positions were often way out there, and his handling of cases was sinister and devious. He was brilliant, but perhaps malicious.
Lastly, the new guy, Stevens, is frankly what a Supreme Court justice should be, a combination of the strengths of the others without the problems. Independent, friendly, analytical, malleable, unafraid to deliberate and say it how it is, impartial and a talented writer. Yet, he is also out of place, and he comes to realize it.
The clashing of these unique personalities and the incorporation of controversial issues results in a real battle of minds, and it is absolutely fascinating to read. The attention to detail that the author's have, and the fast pace, as well as the inspired framing of each event make for an absolutely engrossing read. Its structure is excellent as well. Each chapter covers a year, and that chapter begins with smaller episodes that frame the characters, and then goes into that year's major cases which puts the personalities and ideas into play. It's a brilliant way of organizing things. Overall, The Brethren ought to be required reading in studying the Supreme Court's history, and it is a fantastic book if you just want a good drama. As a fantastic story and a fantastic work of history, I can only conclude that The Brethren is nothing short of Bob Woodward's (and Scott Armstrong's) masterpiece. Lastly, it is an important counter-narrative to consider as an alternative to the monastic idea of the supreme court that is the norm.
The Brethren is a work of non-fiction narrative (non-fiction but in a format more typical of fictional works) that focuses on the Supreme Court of the United States from 1969 until 1976. Investigative journalists Bob Woodward (who needs no introduction) and Scott Armstrong (who I am not very familiar with) use off-the-record sources within the supreme court to paint a picture of it during a flashpoint in its history.
The Supreme Court is very secretive and thus is able to control its own public image. The narrative of the Supreme Court is that of a monastic group of intellectuals who even-handedly decide discrepancies within the federal body of law and federal judiciary. This is a convenient narrative that puts them in a positive light, but it is too convenient. Of course they would be that, it aids their legitimacy (which their power comes from). However, The Brethren dispels this notion. They are factional and are more willing to engage in backroom politics than actual deliberation. Each justice has their own unique personality that defines the course of cases, and their power and influence varies. They are occasionally petulant, sometimes devious, and often oblivious to the real reality of a case. The book's messages slowly unveil themselves. Firstly, the court is more political and less collegial than it seems. Secondly, whoever is in the middle of a case ideologically has the most influence. This middle eventually evolves into an entire faction, and then a majority. Thirdly, a number of the justices have personalities that aren't exactly conductive to good judicializing. Fourthly, there are real unmistakable flaws with how the Supreme Court works. And finally, the non-judicial aspects of the Court are flawed too.
In addition to being extremely enlightening, it's also an incredible story. As a work of non-fiction narrative, the figures are like characters, and the episodes portrayed are stories. This, and the fantastic and direct prose, make for an incredibly enjoyable book. Thus far, it's my favorite I've read all year, maybe ever. The justices (and others) are incredibly well done as characters, and each has a unique and interesting role to play in the events (in no order):
Warren is the former Chief Justice, a fantastic leader who had to retire and did not leave the court in good hands.
Black is a former great but is well past his prime and should have retired well before the book started. Even in his declining ability he can still shape the court. Then he dies.
Douglas is too averse-to-teamwork, rude, petulant and arrogant for the Supreme Court, but his intellectual honesty and legal brilliance cannot be ignored.
Harlan is the one true judge here; even-handed, honest, thoughtful and more impartial than anyone else. He is how to be a Conservative justice the right way.
Brennan does not have the emotional maturity to lead the liberal side, but tries anyways. Although a brilliant thinker, he is too petulant and emotional for the task.
Marshall is a follower, not a leader. He is lazy and just follows Douglas and Brennan, and has his clerks do most of the work anyways.
Stewart is the leader of the middle, and leads the court when leadership (often) cannot be found elsewhere, although his leadership is so subtle most of the time it goes without being noticed. He is an intelligent pragmatist who finds a satisfactory middleground when he can.
White is an overly and unnecessarily competitive asshole, with cringe takes, a bad attitude and poor teamwork.
Burger is the new Chief Justice, a conservative who is only there because he did a damn good job of selling himself to Nixon. He is stupid compared to the others, devious in his manipulation of the rules, horrible to his clerks, and overly pompous. He is genuinely one of the worst Justices in the history of the Supreme Court and this book makes that fact which I already knew even more apparent.
Blackmun is slow, meticulous and careful. He is unwilling to be bold and sweeping, but no one on there is more analytic and good at research as him. He also has the most interesting character arc, evolving from a moderate conservative under Burger's influence to an independent liberal.
Powell is the synthesis of his predecessor and successor, Harlan and Anthony Kennedy. A highly thoughtful and careful pragmatist who is also independent, collegial and amiable.
Rehnquist is atypically informal and youthful, but the most terrifying intellectual force on the court. He was the first in the modern trend of originalism on the court, and his positions were often way out there, and his handling of cases was sinister and devious. He was brilliant, but perhaps malicious.
Lastly, the new guy, Stevens, is frankly what a Supreme Court justice should be, a combination of the strengths of the others without the problems. Independent, friendly, analytical, malleable, unafraid to deliberate and say it how it is, impartial and a talented writer. Yet, he is also out of place, and he comes to realize it.
The clashing of these unique personalities and the incorporation of controversial issues results in a real battle of minds, and it is absolutely fascinating to read. The attention to detail that the author's have, and the fast pace, as well as the inspired framing of each event make for an absolutely engrossing read. Its structure is excellent as well. Each chapter covers a year, and that chapter begins with smaller episodes that frame the characters, and then goes into that year's major cases which puts the personalities and ideas into play. It's a brilliant way of organizing things. Overall, The Brethren ought to be required reading in studying the Supreme Court's history, and it is a fantastic book if you just want a good drama. As a fantastic story and a fantastic work of history, I can only conclude that The Brethren is nothing short of Bob Woodward's (and Scott Armstrong's) masterpiece. Lastly, it is an important counter-narrative to consider as an alternative to the monastic idea of the supreme court that is the norm.
bookhawk's review against another edition
4.0
The Brethren still stands up as a compelling read more than 30 years after publication as a look at how SCOTUS operates and how it reached a number of historically significant decisions. Woodward impresses as one of the best technical writers in communicating exceedingly complex ideas clearly and concisely. Certainly Woodward delivers the information with a slant that favors the more liberal policy view but it does not stilt the comprehension or value of the reporting. Warren Burger and Thurgood Marshall did not emerge with enhanced reputations after reading this book. This is almost a must read for any lawyer who studied many of these cases. It is a challenging read intellectually and fascinating in many ways.