Scan barcode
A review by lkedzie
The Supreme Court Footnote: A Surprising History by Peter Charles Hoffer, Peter Charles Hoffer
5.0
As the author of a blog titled Citation Heeded, you might think that I would be a sucker for this book because of its focus on citations. You would be wrong. Instead, I am a sucker for this book due to it showing how a bunch of accomplished people can receive plaudits for their writing on history despite not being credentialed historians.
The Supreme Court Footnote is a book about the ways that the footnote has been used in Supreme Court decisions. It may not be obvious, but the Supreme Court had to discover how it wanted to use footnotes, in procedure and in custom, and nor has those methods stayed the same over time. It not only reflects the development of the norms of civil society, but the specific American take on Common Law.
The picture of the footnote here is one where Justices use it to include or address additional information and citations outside of the scope of the information on hand for the case. What that means changes as the court's judicial philosophy changes, and so the book is a review of that in time as well. And if there is a weakness here, it is how broad a spectrum that is, because what is relevant how changes as the jurisprudence changes. And what is persuasive or rhetorical changes as the jurisprudence changes.
It is mostly non-partisan, as evidenced by the somewhat technical aspect of its consideration and things like its criticism of both the majority and dissent in Heller. The exception is the treatment of the majority in Dobbs. I feel like the major flak this book will draw is that it is an excuse to dis on Justice Alito's opinion in Dobbs, but the author makes a compelling case for how the decision is flawed on its own terms, irrespective of the outcome. And the author makes a point of disclosing his own interests about critiques on it (in a footnote, naturally).
It is a short book, written clearly and with a little snark to keep it bright. The footnote game within it is on point, being more restrained in the color than some of the author's subjects, though they have a broad sweep in how much text they cover. I shouldn't like this, but I do, in it creating a better reading experience.
I worry about this book having problems finding its audience, but I recommend it to anyone with an interest in the United States' legal system or as a dissection of the process of American democracy.
My thanks to the author, Peter Charles Hoffer, for writing the book, and to the publisher, NYU Press, for making the ARC available to me.
The Supreme Court Footnote is a book about the ways that the footnote has been used in Supreme Court decisions. It may not be obvious, but the Supreme Court had to discover how it wanted to use footnotes, in procedure and in custom, and nor has those methods stayed the same over time. It not only reflects the development of the norms of civil society, but the specific American take on Common Law.
The picture of the footnote here is one where Justices use it to include or address additional information and citations outside of the scope of the information on hand for the case. What that means changes as the court's judicial philosophy changes, and so the book is a review of that in time as well. And if there is a weakness here, it is how broad a spectrum that is, because what is relevant how changes as the jurisprudence changes. And what is persuasive or rhetorical changes as the jurisprudence changes.
It is mostly non-partisan, as evidenced by the somewhat technical aspect of its consideration and things like its criticism of both the majority and dissent in Heller. The exception is the treatment of the majority in Dobbs. I feel like the major flak this book will draw is that it is an excuse to dis on Justice Alito's opinion in Dobbs, but the author makes a compelling case for how the decision is flawed on its own terms, irrespective of the outcome. And the author makes a point of disclosing his own interests about critiques on it (in a footnote, naturally).
It is a short book, written clearly and with a little snark to keep it bright. The footnote game within it is on point, being more restrained in the color than some of the author's subjects, though they have a broad sweep in how much text they cover. I shouldn't like this, but I do, in it creating a better reading experience.
I worry about this book having problems finding its audience, but I recommend it to anyone with an interest in the United States' legal system or as a dissection of the process of American democracy.
My thanks to the author, Peter Charles Hoffer, for writing the book, and to the publisher, NYU Press, for making the ARC available to me.