"Superbly well written . . . a wonderfully informative guide to the Supreme Court both past and present."--David J. Garrow, American History...
read full description
reviews
Aug 16, 2009
Robert
rated it: 
This book taught me that Oliver Wendell Holmes was a real jerk.
Who knew? I knew he was a famous supreme court justice, and that a character in Bloom County was sort-of named after him (the wonderful African-American computer geek kid Oliver Wendell Jones), but it turns out that he was a devoted social Darwinist (a believer that the strong defeat the weak, and that this is a natural and good thing), worked against civil rights, and believed that the wishes of the majority should alwa More...
Who knew? I knew he was a famous supreme court justice, and that a character in Bloom County was sort-of named after him (the wonderful African-American computer geek kid Oliver Wendell Jones), but it turns out that he was a devoted social Darwinist (a believer that the strong defeat the weak, and that this is a natural and good thing), worked against civil rights, and believed that the wishes of the majority should alwa More...
0 comments
like
(2 people liked it)
Aug 18, 2009
Jean
rated it: 
Rosen, a professor of law at George Washington University, contends that a justice’s temperament is the crucial factor in determining that person’s effectiveness on the Court. He compares the temperaments of four pairs of historic rivals: John Marshall and Thomas Jefferson (Jefferson was not a justice, but he was Marshall’s key Constitutional rival), John Marshall Harlan and Oliver W. Holmes, Hugo Black and William O. Douglas, William Rehnquist and Antonin Scalia. Rosen contends that the man i
More...
0 comments
like
(1 person liked it)
Jul 29, 2011
Kurt
rated it: 
This is probably the worst book about the Supreme Court that I have ever read. The structure is intriguing: Rosen looks at a few pairs of Supreme Court justices (or, in one case, Thomas Jefferson, who was not a justice but had an effect) and contrasts their temperaments. Ostensibly, he is making the point that a justice's temperament, specifically in a flexible willingness to compromise to achieve consensus, is the most important factor to the justice's long-term effectiveness. In practice, thou
More...
Sep 19, 2009
Michael
rated it: 
I just finished listening to the audio version of this book read by Alan Sklar. Sklar has a marvelous voice that's perfect for this book.
Rosen's book analyzes the Supreme Court by shining a light on the personalities and judicial temperaments of key players in its history: Chief Justice John Marshall and President Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall Harlan and Oliver Wendell Holmes, Hugo Black and William O. Douglas, and in our own day William H. Renquist, Antonin Scalia, and John Rober More...
Rosen's book analyzes the Supreme Court by shining a light on the personalities and judicial temperaments of key players in its history: Chief Justice John Marshall and President Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall Harlan and Oliver Wendell Holmes, Hugo Black and William O. Douglas, and in our own day William H. Renquist, Antonin Scalia, and John Rober More...
Jul 04, 2010
Tom
rated it:
I didn't make it through listening to The Supreme Court. What I didn't like about this book is that it felt artificial and pushed. The book is based on Rosen's idea that how effective a justice is depends less on their ideology and more on their temperment. Rosen contrasts 4 pairs of justices (the exception being Thomas Jefferson, who obviously was not a justice) from different eras. He attempts to show that the rigid ideologues were ineffective, while the pragmatists and incrementalists had a m
More...
Oct 16, 2009
Mara
rated it:
Here’s an interesting technique of historiography: match up pairs of historical figures, making sure that in each pair you agree with one, and disagree with the other. Then praise the one in almost every way, while denigrating the other. Lastly, declare that the first was on the side of truth and justice, while the other was merely self-serving. Rosen applies this rubric to pairs of Supreme Court Justices through the ages (although, oddly, he pairs John Marshall with Thomas Jefferson, who of
More...
Aug 05, 2011
This book seemed much shorter than the 240 pages it is. Rosen masterfully combines journalism, scholarship, and the dramatic elements of a fiction author to describe a series of personalities whose tenures on the Court were notable. As General Kagan approaches her confirmation hearings, I highly recommend this book to anyone who needs a reminder of the role of the Court in American life. Bonus: Rosen's interview with Chief Justice Roberts at the end regarding Roberts' view of the Court, how he h
More...
Jul 19, 2008
David
rated it: 
I found this account of the Supreme Court far less engaging than "The Nine". Rosen's main point - that judicial temperament determines success on the court, in the sense that justices who work well with others have more influence - hardly qualifies as an earth-shattering insight. But it causes him to adopt an awkward structure for the book, sorting through history to pick pairs of judges, who are then analyzed in a series of artificial head-to-head comparison. The result seems forced,
More...
Aug 12, 2007
Nicko
rated it:
The real Justice League of America. This book gives a much needed perspective on how the Supreme Court has developed since the country began and gives the reader good insight into the personalities that shaped the Court. We tend to think of the Court only in terms of the present justices, but it is extremely revealing to gain an understanding of the dynamics among and between the many justices who have played vital and not so vital roles in the course of U.S. history. A primer to grasping how th
More...
Nov 18, 2008
Suzie
rated it:
Companion book to the PBS series. Pairs of rival supreme court justices are discussed in each section of the book (though the first section pits Marshall vs. President Jefferson.) Rosen makes a case that pragmatic collegiality has been a more effective position to take on the court than idealism/solitude. The book focuses on personality over legal history/scholarship. This doesn't give you the WHOLE picture, and Rosen obviously favors certain justices over others... on the other hand, I definite
More...
Feb 28, 2011
I liked this book so much, I hope to listen to it again. It is very rich in terms of defining some of the principal issues that shaped the development of the United States and the principal actors, including, justices, presidents, etc. Some of issues never seem to go away or they morph into new situations. Human nature? Politics?
Nov 05, 2008
Thomas
rated it:
Rosen emphasizes the difference between doctrinaire judges who try to impose their personal legal philosophy on the court and those who try to build consensus on the court, coming down firmly on the side of those judges who compromise their views for the sake of majority or unanimous decisions. He picks out pairs of justices whose personalities and philosophies contrast in a way that seems suspiciously contrived, as if they acted as they did to satisfy Rosen's thesis. It's almost as if Rosen is
More...
Mar 09, 2009
Emily
rated it:
This book is split into 4 comparisons between justices and presidents. It's an intense read and sort of jumps around, so it was hard for me to stay focused, which is what you need to finish this book. It does do a good job and explaining each personality, whether or not you agree with the assessment.
May 18, 2011
Robert
rated it:
Billed as the companion book to the PBS series on the supreme court. I found it very interesting. The author juxtaposes personalities on the court and compares their effectiveness. Technically the fisrt paring is not two justices but Jefferson and Marshall.
Mar 06, 2008
Eric
rated it:
The writing is engaging, which is frankly the only reason I gave it three stars. Otherwise, the structure, theme, and conclusions are very simplistic -- the stuff, really, of an undergraduate political science paper. The basic point is that justices who compromise, build bridges and have reasonable temperaments are more politically successful on the court than brilliant, arrogant intellectuals. And he makes his point through a boring compare-and-contrast method, e.g. Rehnquist is like this, Scal
More...
Jul 13, 2008
John
rated it:
An accessible peek into the inner workings and personalities of the SCOTUS through the examination of key rivalries that shaped the court. Through these anecdotes, Rosen argues that judicial temperament is a better indicator of long-term impact on American Constitutional law than ideological purity. Throughout the book, he champions those justices who worked for consensus and who placed the viability of the court over the vocal and often self-aggrandizing purists. I don't know enough about th
More...
May 22, 2010
Delacey
rated it:
Not as good as The Nine or as The Metaphysical Club, but a really interesting take on jurisprudence and judicial temperament and how they've shaped the legacy of the Court
Dec 24, 2008
Mark
rated it:
Good enough about rivalries and the lives of these pivotal justices (and 1 President)- John Marshall-Thomas Jefferson, John Harlan-Oliver Wendell Holmes, William Douglas-Hugo Black; and William Rehnquist-Anthony Scalia
Jun 17, 2009
Roy
rated it:
First book on the Court that helped me understand the politics of voting on cases. Very enlightning for me even though I thought I knew a lot about the court!
Jan 04, 2009
Catherine
rated it:
I absolutely loved this book, but I am a supreme court junkie. Others might not enjoy all the minutiae.
Mar 27, 2008
Michelle
rated it:
This book presents the history of the Supreme Court as viewed through the personalities of the Court's justices. Rosen makes a strong plea for the importance of judicial temperament, generally arguing that history favors the flexible, consensus-building, pragmatic, and personable justice over the justice that adheres strictly and rigidly to a particular judicial philosophy. The best implicit message of the book may have been that a Court made up of Scalias and Scalitos is a Court that will qui
More...
Jan 31, 2008
Jeff
rated it:
I originally bought this book in audio form to listen to on my frequent drives between Baton Rouge and Houston. I was only passingly interested in the Supreme Court before this, but I have bought four books on the subject since.
Told from the perspective of four pairs of personalities in various times in history and how their conflict shaped law and culture, the story moves along like a narrative novel while managing to be quite informative.
After reading this and The Nin More...
Told from the perspective of four pairs of personalities in various times in history and how their conflict shaped law and culture, the story moves along like a narrative novel while managing to be quite informative.
After reading this and The Nin More...
Aug 05, 2011
Surprising how big a role personal history and office politics can play on legal decisions across the decades.
Jan 23, 2010
Kristi
rated it:
This book profiled the Supreme Court by detailing rivalries throughout its history, that in many ways defined it; similar to "Founding Brothers." Problem is, each comparison was too long for me--I felt like I got the point after 15 pgs, but he dedicated 50 pgs to each rivalry. This was good but I guess I didn't have the patience to finish. "The Nine" came in to the library and I never finished this after reading that.
Aug 02, 2008
Emily
rated it:
Obviously, I liked this book--he does a great job bringing various justices to life beginning with Chief Justice Marshall through to Chief Justice Roberts today. His point is pretty clear early on about the importance of judicial temperment, so that the book verges on pedantic occasionally. I also think you should take it with a grain of salt, especially if you haven't read a lot of the cases by these folks.
Nov 12, 2008
Bex
rated it:
Say 4.5 stars. Fascinating comparison of 4 sets of men, beginning with the first star of the Supremes, John Marshall, versus Thomas Jefferson. Very easy to read; anecdotes to highlight the personalities and important decisions to explicate judicial temperament. Ends with Rehnquist v. Scalia with tidbits about other justices thrown in. Highly recommend.
