The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court by Jeffrey Toobin

Dec 03, 2008 Jessica rated it 4 of 5 stars Recommends it for: young ladies thoughtlessly considering a thankless career in social work

Recommended to Jessica by: david giltinan; ginnie jones; paul glusman

Shelves: groups-of-people, kind-of-depressing

WELL. How I wish I'd had the foresight, at a much younger and more capable age, to consult some kind of career counselor! If only, if ONLY someone back then had the wisdom and charity to inform me of the existence of something called "constitutional law," and advised me to study hard, behave myself, keep my mouth shut, make influential friends, and avoid leaving a drunken trail of scribbled opinions about all my personal and political views as I careened helter-skelter along a haphazard career p...more

47 likes · like · see review

Oct 02, 2008 Kate rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: Chris Michaud

Shelves: nonfiction, usa_canada, currentaffairs, pop-nonfiction, post-2000

3.5 stars. This book is really about the political trajectory of the Supreme Court over the past 30 years. Toobin seeks to show a gradual, unlikely shift leftward over the years of the Rehnquist Court (followed by a striking and uncharacteristically - for the institution - speedy swing back to the right since the Roberts and Alito confirmations).

Not exactly a work of rigorous scholarship, so don't read it if you want a primer on important cases (though Toobin does a good job describing, in plain...more 3.5 stars. This book is really about the political trajectory of the Supreme Court over the past 30 years. Toobin seeks to show a gradual, unlikely shift leftward over the years of the Rehnquist Court (followed by a striking and uncharacteristically - for the institution - speedy swing back to the right since the Roberts and Alito confirmations).

Not exactly a work of rigorous scholarship, so don't read it if you want a primer on important cases (though Toobin does a good job describing, in plain English, most of the issues at stake). But it's diligently researched - obvious from the volume of material on the justices' personal lives and the many accounts of exchanges at oral arguments - and if Toobin's agenda is a bit obvious, his thorough profiles of the lead actors are wonderful, fair and rare.

I agree with reviewers who take issue with Toobin's seeming worship of Sandra Day O'Connor. At the risk of oversimplifying, I'd say he credits her swing vote for just about every 5-4 decision when he agrees with the outcome, while letting her off the hook when she swings the wrong way.

His coverage of Bush v. Gore is pretty good; he shows, I think adequately, that the Court's intervention in the Florida recount was a low in its history, not because of the outcome, but because it injected itself into a political drama that did not require or deserve its intervention. He rightly points out that the Court prides itself on moving slowly and staying above the political fray, but that in this case, it was so eager to jump into the debacle as to be unseemly, not to mention that events were moving too quickly for the Court even to keep up. One comes away feeling as embarrassed for the Court as angry.

The book is very readable. Toobin, notwithstanding his tendency to break paragraphs in odd places, is a good writer. I most enjoyed the anecdotes about the justices themselves. Things you may not know:

- Clarence Thomas is universally adored on a personal level. From justices to cafeteria workers, he is kind to everyone in the building.

- Ruth Bader Ginsburg's and Antonin Scalia's families celebrate every New Year together.

- David Souter, once mistaken for Stephen Breyer by a stranger, was asked what the best thing was about serving on the Supreme Court, and responded: "The privilege of serving with David Souter."

- William Rehnquist ran all the betting pools at the Court.

- There is a basketball court on one of the upper floors of the Supreme Court building. It is known as "the highest court in the land."(less)

8 likes · like · see review

Aug 29, 2008 Peggy bill rated it 4 of 5 stars

In the past, whenever I have gotten sick or scared about the direction of politics in this country, I have comforted myself with the idea that our governmental balance of power mediates abrupt shifts to the right (I am not worried about abrupt shifts to the left, as the country is generally too far to right already). I didn’t have hope in the Supreme Court, but I did have faith in their moderating effect on law and society.

That was until the presidential election of 2000. I was disgusted by a st...more In the past, whenever I have gotten sick or scared about the direction of politics in this country, I have comforted myself with the idea that our governmental balance of power mediates abrupt shifts to the right (I am not worried about abrupt shifts to the left, as the country is generally too far to right already). I didn’t have hope in the Supreme Court, but I did have faith in their moderating effect on law and society.

That was until the presidential election of 2000. I was disgusted by a strongly pro-state-rights court blatantly turning against their own principles and voting for federalist intervention. At that point I lost all hope in the system.

So, I recently read The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court by Jeffrey Toobin, in order to understand what happened and what was happening to the highest court in the land.

The Rehnquist court saw no changes in personnel for 11 years. This is the longest period for justices to work together in the history of the Supreme Court. In that time, Sandra Day O’Connor became the mediating voice. And while she was politically to the right of me, she had a solid thumb on the pulse of American politics. She consistently and thoughtfully voted the voice of the American people. This was correct and just. However, even she lost her head in Gore v. Bush.

This is what Toobin had to say about Gore v. Bush.

Random Chance—a freakishly close vote in the single decisive state—gave the Supreme Court the chance to resolve the 2000 presidential election. The character of the justices themselves turned that opportunity into one of the lowest moments in the Court’s history. The struggle following the election of 2000 took thirty-six days, and the Court was directly involved for twenty-one of them. Yet over this brief period, the justices displayed all of their worst traits—among them vanity, overconfidence, impatience, arrogance, and simple political partisanship. These three weeks taint an otherwise largely admirable legacy. The justices did almost everything wrong. They embarrassed themselves and the Supreme Court. –p.141.

This book was published last year, and that quote was only halfway through. He goes on to describe how that case affected the court. It, in fact, caused it to move to the left. An interesting and refreshing phenomenon (I always value people learning from their mistakes).

That of course, was before O’Connor quit and Rehnquist died. Now all bets are off. The religious right who has been loudly crying foul on ‘Activist Judges” have won in their attempts to place activist judges on the Supreme Court. With George Bush’s two appointments, the Highest Court in the land has taken a decided jump to the right.

I am saddened by this happening in my lifetime. However, I recognize that such phenomena move in waves with lag times. This court is to the right of center. I think (I hope, I pray, I dance) that the country is on a move to the left. The court will be out of step with American sentiment, but the sentiment will eventually catch up as more liberal presidents select more liberal judges.

While I no longer have faith in our Supreme Court, I do have faith in our fundamental system of government. If we can overthrow the “Corporatacracy” that has developed, then we can be ‘the people’ again.

I just don’t know. I don’t think it looks good for my lifetime.

This book was a long, arduous but fruitful read for me. Now that I am finished, I will be able to spend my van ride writing instead of reading.(less)

7 likes · like · see review

Oct 04, 2007 Ira rated it 4 of 5 stars

Toobin's book, as mentioned in some of the other reviews, is highly readable, captivating and contains very good summaries of many of the important Supreme Court cases of the last few decades. Perhaps as important is his ability to write about the Jurist's personalities and their judicial philosophy providing the reader with the thought processes that go to work behind the decision making.

The inner workings and day to day activity of the Court was something I found quite interesting. The Jurist...more

3 likes · like · see review

Feb 08, 2008 m rated it 2 of 5 stars

"This book is based principally on my interviews with the justices and more than seventy-five of their law clerks," author Jeffrey Toobin writes in his notes that close the book. "The interviews were on a not-for-attribution basis -- that is, I could use the information provided but without quoting directly or identifying the source."

If you read the book back-to-front -- like the apocryphal politicos who look for their names in the index before reading a book -- you'll see the problem with this...more "This book is based principally on my interviews with the justices and more than seventy-five of their law clerks," author Jeffrey Toobin writes in his notes that close the book. "The interviews were on a not-for-attribution basis -- that is, I could use the information provided but without quoting directly or identifying the source."

If you read the book back-to-front -- like the apocryphal politicos who look for their names in the index before reading a book -- you'll see the problem with this book right away. You've got to trust Toobin as an author and a journalist in order to trust the book.

I started out trusting it, but somewhere around the time that he took on Bush v. Gore, my view started to change... this was a man with an agenda to push, and though it may make for entertaining reading, it doesn't inspire confidence when all of the sources are anonymous.

So I didn't finish this one. I bailed out at page 199, just before he began to profile Scalia. I'm no fan of Scalia's jurisprudence myself, but I am also loath to impugn the reputation of a sitting Justice... and I feared that was what Toobin was about to do.

I close my eyes during the scary parts of movies. I even close my eyes on Splash Mountain, for heaven's sake. So it comes as no surprise that when I smelled the vitriol that was about to come, I bailed out. Maybe it didn't come after all. But I wasn't sticking around to find out.

Modern journalism isn't well served by the preponderance of anonymous sources, all with an axe to grind, in our newspapers' front pages. I'm frankly surprised I got this deep into the book before questioning its methodology. And that, dear reader, is a testament to its entertainment value, at least for a while.

Soon after I shut the book for good, Super Tuesday came along and I saw Toobin on CNN, huffing and puffing along with all the other talking heads. It was then that I knew shutting the book was the right decision. The Supreme Court exists to live above the political. It's not always successful (cf. Bush v. Gore), but it's meant to. Having a political analyst analyze the Court is, in a way, missing the point.(less)

10 likes · like · see review

Jan 25, 2008 David rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: read-in-2008

This is an excellent book. Toobin exhibits all the qualities one could want in a guide to the Supreme Court: he is smart, knowledgeable, engaging, witty, and writes clearly and fluidly.

This is a well-organized, well-written book on a fascinating and important subject. Remarkably, it is never dull - parts I found particularly notable were his account of the Court's role in the 2000 election debacle, and his explanation of how Sandra Day O' Connor became the most influential justice on the court....more

3 likes · like · see review

Jun 01, 2012 Janice rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: res-ipsa-loquacious-esq

In law school I had one of the most sadistic, demanding and universally feared professors in the entire school for Constitutional Law, which is probably the most important class in law school. The first day of class he called me an idiot and told me I didn’t know how to read. For the next few weeks of the semester, he regularly berated me for my ignorance and ineptitude (which in retrospect, I fully deserved), but I got off easy (he stopped abusing me after a few weeks once I adapted my schoolwo...more In law school I had one of the most sadistic, demanding and universally feared professors in the entire school for Constitutional Law, which is probably the most important class in law school. The first day of class he called me an idiot and told me I didn’t know how to read. For the next few weeks of the semester, he regularly berated me for my ignorance and ineptitude (which in retrospect, I fully deserved), but I got off easy (he stopped abusing me after a few weeks once I adapted my schoolwork schedule to focusing only on his class; also it’s worth pointing out that he even called one of my classmates FAT and regularly told people they were so stupid they were probably going to fail the class/out of school). Needless to say, I came to dread going to class and even went through great lengths to manufacture illnesses in order to justify my absence. To be honest, I only skipped his class once or twice the entire semester, because despite the stress of being on the receiving end of his abuse, and the accompanying “heart palpitations,” I actually got a lot out of the class and later came to enjoy it (perhaps because I too, am a sadist, and received a perverse sense of pleasure in seeing the little shits in my class squirm). Regardless of the intimidation factor, Professor Higgins was exactly how I imagined all law professors would be, no doubt informed by the The Paper Chase. My school turned out to be more like Legally Blonde.*

In any case, Con. Law grew on me; in part out of necessity and self-preservation, but also because I found the justices fascinating. Professor Higgins focused a lot on the individual judicial philosophy of the justices and I came to know and love the writing styles and kinks of each of them. Scalia’s brilliant, but a sanctimonious asshat, O’Connor effectively legislated from the bench, Kennedy is melodramatic, and Justice Stevens - my favorite - was perhaps the most idiosyncratic Supreme Court Justice in history; he began his career as a moderate conservative, and sometime during his tenure on SCOTUS an ideological shift occurred** within the court in which he became the head of the liberal bloc. He almost never joined the majority opinion, but rather preferred to either write a concurring opinion with his own rationale for the ruling, or often dissented.

Toobin goes into this a bit in The Nine, although his focus is primarily on how highly politicized SCOTUS has become. Justices are selected based on how they stand on Roe v Wade, rather than mere erudition, or professional merit. (To be fair, the Constitution is silent as to what criteria the President is to apply in selection process.) Toobin also focuses heavily on Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and the considerable power she possessed as a moderate conservative and as the “swing vote” of the court. Toobin champions O’Connor’s policy-based judicial philosophy of centrism - she was carefully attuned to what would be acceptable to the general public, and always careful to not push the envelope. Her focus was on the practical application of their decisions, rather than interpreting the Constitution in a vacuum like her more abstract colleagues, such as Scalia and Thomas.

Although Toobin is appropriately critical of the shift towards the political when it comes to the selection process, he seems to advocate for it when applied to the decision-making processes of the justices (at least when it came to Justice O’Connor, whom he focused on heavily, and made no secret of his reverence for her). Toobin should have paid equal attention to some of the more apolitical (and interesting) justices like Souter or Stevens, by way of contrast. Furthermore, Toobin’s account is in no way objective. Despite my own leftist proclivities, I would have preferred a more nonpartisan portrayal of SCOTUS, but I suppose it isn’t really fair to set that expectation when even the justices themselves aren’t capable of being completely detached from their own ideologies, nor are they required to be.

Despite the above referenced criticisms, this was a great, light read. Toobin writes about the legal complexities of the issues before the court in a way that is easily digestible and accessible, never pedantic, and even fun to read. He also includes gossipy tidbits about the justices, which adds to the entertainment factor, as well as humanizing these somewhat abstract figures. (Come on, show me a lawyer that doesn’t love to gossip. I dare you.)

In closing, I wish I had read this before I started law school. I think it would have given me a great, general perspective on SCOTUS and some of the contemporary justices. Also it could have provided me some much needed fodder for discussion in class to impress Higgins! Prof. Higgins was a strange guy; runty and belligerent, he often decried the evils of milk (please refer to the aforementioned fat phobia), and was a bit touchy feely outside of class. But to this day, I know all of those SCOTUS cases pretty well - I can’t say the same about any of the cases I read for say, Property (except for that one about the fox hunt: “first in time, first in right!”). Prof. Higgins retired after my second year of law school; he used to always complain that he should be retired and drinking champagne cocktails on the French Riviera instead of stuck teaching Constitutional Law to a bunch of thankless cretins. I hope he ended up there.

For a much more detailed, substantive review of The Nine, please refer to this one: http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...

*caveat: I haven’t actually seen more than 10 minutes of Legally Blonde.
** in part because of Stevens’ own evolving ideology, or in part because of how far to the right the court had shifted since Stevens’ appointment in 1975.(less)

5 likes · like · see review

Oct 13, 2007 Michael rated it 4 of 5 stars

The book offered some good (and at times, juicy) insights into the Court that I was not previously aware of. It is a compelling tale and analysis of the Court’s recent history from prominent cases to the nominations of the justices to judicial politics.

The unfortunate side effect of this was again feeling the anguish that accompanied some vile and lawless decisions; most of all, Bush v. Gore. The naked desire on the part of the five that made the majority in that case to act as speedily as poss...more

2 likes · like · see review

Jul 06, 2009 Seth rated it 3 of 5 stars

Interesting survey of the modern supreme court's history and personalities. The author pretends to write balanced even handed biographical sketches of a number of supreme court justices during the Bush years. He has a hard time veiling his distaste for conservative ideology while praising "moderate" justices like O'Conner for her "diplomatic" and "pragmatic" judicial view. He seems to spend by far more time on her than all the others combined. He believes that she was the most influential justic...more Interesting survey of the modern supreme court's history and personalities. The author pretends to write balanced even handed biographical sketches of a number of supreme court justices during the Bush years. He has a hard time veiling his distaste for conservative ideology while praising "moderate" justices like O'Conner for her "diplomatic" and "pragmatic" judicial view. He seems to spend by far more time on her than all the others combined. He believes that she was the most influential justice of the last 20 years and voted according to the "pulse of the nation" with the zeal of a politician. The author's favoritism would not particularly bother me were he to remain consistent for his reasons of preferences. However, he harshly criticizes conservative justices for ideological reasons and fails to mention Stevens and Ginsburg on the same grounds...that is to allow ideology to inform a justice's vote much more than other more legally justifiable factors. His neglect reveals his preconceived biases which motivate him to search for more errors with the "conservative" justices.

However, the bias tone only mildly distracts from Toobin's otherwise terrific insight. As a matter of fact his criticism seems merited. The problem is that it wasn't applied with the same zeal to the opposing ideology. Toobin seems to prefer O'Conner's "splitting the difference" approach over Scalia's antagonistic dissent. His conclusion even tries to reconcile the conservative justices' ideologically driven decisions as a necessary part of the democratic process as if he wouldn't have it any other way. After having read 300 pages of mildly panicked criticism of ideologically motivated decisions his conclusion was, admittedly, a very unpredictable reconciliation. I suppose its fitting...his thought process was as cryptic as O'Conner's (which explains his admiration).

The book in many ways was incredibly informative. Its a terrific introduction to the court and who the justices are. The book's merit is mostly in the consolidated description of each justice's judicial philosophy. He also gives an excellent perspective of how justices influence their colleagues. Even though, I spend much of my review rolling my eyes at Toobin's facade of objectivity, I recommend this book for its summary of modern cases, condensed biographies of each justice, insight into motivations of justices, and judicial philosophies informing the court's decisions. (less)

3 likes · like · see review

Nov 25, 2008 John rated it 4 of 5 stars

This book was published in 2007 and already seems a tad dated. The author suggests in the prologue that what he calls the conservative counterrevolution has resumed and hints that it might be one presidential appointment away from victory.
I began reading this just after Sen. Obama became President-elect Obama, so there doesn't seem to be any possibility of a rightward drift in the court for at least the next four years.
Nonetheless, this book offers a fascinating look at the Supreme Court over th...more

like · see review

Mar 05, 2011 Caroline rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: own

A fascinating look at the Supreme Court and its justices.

I learned a lot (not that I was too knowledgable to begin with) about the ins and outs of the modern-day Supreme Court, from the procedures to the personalities that make it up. Before reading it, I expected Toobin to begin his narrative early in American history, so I was pleasantly surprised that it dealt with the Court's most recent history. I also appreciated how Toobin constructed his narrative, with a good mixture of anecdotes about...more

1 like · like · see review

Sep 10, 2008 Armand rated it 4 of 5 stars

I’m not sure exactly what it says about me that the first book I picked up post-Bar Exam was Toobin’s accounting of the modern Supreme Court; regardless, I’m glad that I did. This well-researched accounting of Rehnquist’s reign is a fun survey of the politically and socially significant cases over the last thirty years. All the issues are here: abortion, the death penalty, affirmative action, privacy, Congress’s power to regulate commerce, the role of foreign law, the war on terror, and, of cour...more I’m not sure exactly what it says about me that the first book I picked up post-Bar Exam was Toobin’s accounting of the modern Supreme Court; regardless, I’m glad that I did. This well-researched accounting of Rehnquist’s reign is a fun survey of the politically and socially significant cases over the last thirty years. All the issues are here: abortion, the death penalty, affirmative action, privacy, Congress’s power to regulate commerce, the role of foreign law, the war on terror, and, of course, Bush v. Gore. Toobin reserves his harshest criticism for this last issue, arguing that the justices “embarrassed themselves” in failing to de-politicize the judicial review process.

Relying on interviews with Supreme Court clerks, all of whom remain anonymous, Toobin moves through appointments and decisions, occasionally devoting a few pages along the way to each justice’s biography. I relished these sketches in particular – from Souter’s 19th century lifestyle to Thomas’s lack of self-awareness as he excoriates feelings of victimization in others but can’t seem to get past any slights made against him (or acknowledge the role that affirmative action played in his own ascendancy to the Court).

Toobin’s legal analysis seems directed for a layperson, but with enough detail to appease most lawyers, although at several points I craved a more fleshed out treatment. Regardless, it’s the behind-the-scenes descriptions that add the most value for those already familiar with the cases. The little details are both entertaining (the particular friendships among justices or late night poker games among D.C. elite) and frightening (the tech-wary justices shared a single internet connection at the time of Bush v. Gore).

Beyond these details, Toobin attempts to develop a few themes, principally the rise of the Federalist Society, and conservative scholarship in general, as a response to the Warren Court’s assertion/expansion of civil liberties. Like a laser, this movement is focused on abortion, and it’s through this lens that we get to know most of the Court’s members. The sophistication with which justices are now chosen, vetted, and appointed, seems to have further politicized the Court, making a change in membership the principal method of changing the law. It’s this lack of lively debate – particularly among the justices who retreat to their chambers and rarely seem to discuss cases with one another – that was most shocking. Questions posed during oral argument seem to be a primary method of persuasion, directed just as much to influence other justices as to press an appellant on an issue. It’s details like these that lead to some fun critical thinking (e.g., maybe Thomas’s reticence during oral argument is less a sign of some sort of anti-intellectualism and more a symptom of his isolation on the Court). If you have an interest in the law, you’ll appreciate these tidbits and enjoy thinking about the justices and key cases in a new light.(less)

1 like · like · see review

Jul 31, 2008 Nate rated it 2 of 5 stars

Shelves: economics-politics-law

The author discusses the Court from about 1980 to 2007. He wants to show how politics influences the rulings of the Court, but while reading the book I was struck by the degree to which politics had influenced his writing. He wears his bias on his sleeve, which makes this book a less than reliable source of Court information. He portrays the justices with whom he disagrees as petty, rude ideologues, while portraying the justices with whom he agrees as compassionate, intelligent, and most importa...more

5 likes · like · see review

Jul 24, 2008 Tracy rated it 5 of 5 stars

I had given this book to my partner, who hadn't read it. . . So I picked it up.

It feels really strange to say this was a guilty pleasure, but it was!

What, a non-fiction work about the Supreme Court a guilty pleasure??? Well, it was! It is extremely accessible (perhaps too accessible?), and the position Toobin takes on any issue coincides pretty closely to mine, so that made it even easier to read.

The general pictures of the book is an insider's look at the Supreme Court from roughly the mid 1980...more I had given this book to my partner, who hadn't read it. . . So I picked it up.

It feels really strange to say this was a guilty pleasure, but it was!

What, a non-fiction work about the Supreme Court a guilty pleasure??? Well, it was! It is extremely accessible (perhaps too accessible?), and the position Toobin takes on any issue coincides pretty closely to mine, so that made it even easier to read.

The general pictures of the book is an insider's look at the Supreme Court from roughly the mid 1980's to 2005, 2006. The information Toobin got was all off the record, but it's easy to see that much of it came from O'Connor, who is deeply disappointed with the current administration and the state of the nation.

Toobin has a great deal of cool, gossipy information -- he knows things like what's in the offices of the justices (including a huge elk in Scalia's. He shot it himself), and he knows where their former clerks have ended up. For instance, Thomas's staff completely explores everything about his clerks, and they are all extremely concervative. One of his clerks was John Yoo, who helped more than anyone else to shape the current policy on torture.

Another bit of insider information that felt intimate included Souter's great depression after the Gore v Bush decision. He felt that was a terrible moment in the court's history, and the only thing that kept him on the court was that he would lose his pension if he resigned immediately. He did, however, finally reignite his interest in the court.

The book is frightening, though -- it's clear that we now have a near majority of justices who do not believe in stare decisis. That is, they do not believe that previous rulings of the court have any weight. Instead, they should make their decisions based on...well, something else! What is that something else? Some would say merely the constitution and no decision made after that document was written. However, it is very difficult to determine the exact meaning of the generalizations in the constitution and 2) the "intent" of the folks who wrote that document.

Anyone who studies literature knows that "intent" is often impossible to posit accurately...

But, it's always possible to think we do know what that intent is...It's what we want it to be.

So, anyone who thinks like that gets to decide cases however he or she wants.

That's a radical court, the very thing the folks who practice it now hated when Brennan was chief justice.

Vote, vote, vote, vote!(less)

1 like · like · see review

Jason i must say i know very little about the supreme court...my wife asked me the other day who the chief justice was and i said 'john wayne'...
she was sui...more
Jul 25, 2008 01:22pm

Tracy Yeah, her politics are probably farther to the right than Toobin's. In that case, the book might prove more of a challenge to her...or very irritating...more Yeah, her politics are probably farther to the right than Toobin's. In that case, the book might prove more of a challenge to her...or very irritating : )

Given the current polarization of politics, that kind of irritation isn't mere rearrangement of intellectual furniture. It can be just too, too challenging to be faced with opposing points of view!

That in itself is a tragedy. I think it's a terrible thing that we all find it so difficult to find the points of commonality and difference without feeling blighted...

I don't know why I am fascinated by the Supreme Court. I have a very political side to me, and I can't remember a time when I wasn't fascinated by the court.

Is it a modernist streak in me? That these nine people, unelected, get to decide the quality of life that the rest of us live? Is it compensation for the fear that something utterly out of my hands determines intimate parts of my life, so I try to learn about it in order to feel a sense of control?

I have no idea. I do know that it fascinates me and seems to always have done so!

This book is very strong in many ways. When Toobin explores the Bush v Gore decision, for instance, he's able to show how one justice, Kennedy, relished the chance to get involved in the case. He is so excited, it embarrasses the other justices. They do get involved, and when the dust settles and Bush becomes president, it completely changes Kennedy's politics for a very long time. The unintended consequences in that resonates for me. It makes sense to me, and I appreciate it.

As for those two decisions you mention, they are really eye-catching and they create a visceral reaction. Hm...now that I think about it, is my fascination with the court a function that alleged rationality and law are applied to these extremely emotional issues?? In any case, I heard many of the comments made around the country about these two cases, and it's truly amazing to me. What Toobin might say about them is that when O'Connor was on the court, she was able to determine where much of the country fell in terms of opinion. She could reach decisions that wouldn't please the extremes, but they would satisfy the majority.

They don't have anyone like that anymore.

Instead, the court has a number of extremely radical folks on it, and these people are interested in changing the country to its depths.

What will happen?

I'm sure that much of what will happen will have to do with those unintended consequences I mentioned above!(less)
Jul 28, 2008 03:41pm

Feb 11, 2009 Stewart rated it 4 of 5 stars

A juicy must-read for any SCOTUS buff. Toobin presents a wonderfully entertaining and titillating portrait of the nine justices that graced the Reinquist Court from the early 1990s to the mid-2000s, while simultaneously weaving throughout his book the more sober legal implications at stake in the many high profile cases that this Court took on over those years. And they are all here, the culture war cases of abortion rights, gun rights and gay rights; the First Amendment cases of freedom of spee...more

1 like · like · see review

Jun 16, 2008 Andrew rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: history-skim

More of a liberal rant about the Roberts Court than an impartial history or analysis. It is aggravatingly and stupendously biased. When my blood cools perhaps I will read some more.

(For the record, I am neither a knee-jerk liberal nor an arch-conservative; I am an independent with libertarian leanings. However, in the realm of the law, my feelings align much more with "conservatives", in that I believe that judicial restraint must be the sine qua non of the legal system. The unelected judiciary...more More of a liberal rant about the Roberts Court than an impartial history or analysis. It is aggravatingly and stupendously biased. When my blood cools perhaps I will read some more.

(For the record, I am neither a knee-jerk liberal nor an arch-conservative; I am an independent with libertarian leanings. However, in the realm of the law, my feelings align much more with "conservatives", in that I believe that judicial restraint must be the sine qua non of the legal system. The unelected judiciary must be deferential to the elected branches in the absence of a clear or at least somewhat clear constitutional mandate.)

Toobin quickly reveals that he is a staunch liberal, and that The Nine is a political diatribe against "the conservative counterrevolution" in which, Toobin believes, nefarious conservatives are nominating their ilk to the court with the single-minded intent to "reverse Roe v. Wade and allow states to ban abortion, expand executive power, end racial preferences intended to assist African Americans, speed executions, and welcome religion into the public sphere." What a parody of the right. I can almost see Dr.Evil aka Bush cackling in the background. Ah yes, you have got to love those Christian fundamentalist racist pro-death penalty conservatives. The simple fact of the matter is that Bush (please help us) is President, and as such gets to appoint, with advice & consent of the Senate, federal judges. The personal political opinions of a judge should always be irrelevant. What is relevant is whether a judge can rise above personal feelings to apply the word of the law, insofar as possible. Now it may well be that the Court is becoming increasingly political, but it just so happens that any "pro-lifers" on the Court have the Constitution on their side.

What Toobin fails to recognize is that, while the "discovery" of rights by the liberal Warren Court can be accurately labeled "judicial activism", the mantra of "judicial restraint" espoused by "conservative" judges is not, at least theoretically, affiliated with a politically "conservative" (or any other substantive) agenda. A "conservative" judge would overturn Roe v. Wade (stare decisis notwithstanding) not because she is "pro-life", but because the Constitution has nothing to say about abortion and therefore it is not an unelected judges place to overturn the considered will of an elected state legislature.

Ironically, Toobin seeks to challenge the anti-Roe movement (judicial and political) by claiming that "most people" support the right to choose. Again, the issue of abortion is NOT the issue for a conservative judge. The issue is whether the constitution has anything to say about abortion. All Roe does is prevent the will of the majority from mattering. In a post-Roe world each state would be free democratically to set abortion policy. (In fact, the many embarassing law-making revisions by the court since Roe has essentially set up a framework that does mirror what most states probably would do anyway - legal but heavily restricted abortion.)

Liberal supporters of Roe just want abortion protected by constitutional fiat because they support the right to an abortion (perhaps insurance just in case a majority ever disagrees). They probably don't know or care that the Court had to tendentiously analogize the right to an abortion to an already tendentious right to privacy that had also been "discovered" in the Constitution. I dig privacy, but I don't think the act of terminating a fetus (or, in pro-life terms, murdering a cute, defenseless unborn child that would grow up to be another Einstein) has much to do with it.

But in any event, to accept this constitutional protection for abortion, you have to accept the principle that judges can "discover" constitutional protection for things they think should be constitutionally protected. That works fine as long as judges of your philosophical persuasion dominate the bench(i.e., during the Warren Court). But don't start complaining once Warren and his idea of what the Constitution should say is replaced by Roberts and his idea (if, in fact, Roberts et al ARE politically motivated, which is a possibility and perhaps unavoidable to some degree, but I do not believe generally to be the case). Stare decisis (deference to previous judicial pronouncements) is only as strong as the Court say it is. That is what judicial activism means.

Abortion is an exceedingly contentious and difficult policy matter that needs to be addressed in the public arena, not by the courts.(less)

1 like · like · see review

Feb 28, 2008 Kirsti rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: nonfiction, politics

Fascinating (though left-leaning) explanation of how the backgrounds and personalities of the nine Supreme Court justices affect American life and culture.

Probably the most interesting part, unsurprisingly, is about Roe vs. Wade. Justice Blackmun wrote the opinion based on viability of the fetus and on a Constitutional right to privacy. O'Connor believed Roe was sound based on the privacy argument but contended that technology would change the viability issue. (So far, it hasn't.) Ginsberg (who...more

1 like · like · see review

Mar 17, 2008 Kevin Quinley rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: better-if-bored

Toobin provides an informative if not provocative glimpse inside the inner workings of the Court, a branch sometimes overlooked but perhaps wielding the most power out of the three. Prior to reading, I could probably only name about half the justices and paint their ideology in broad strokes, so by interpolating major decisions with personal profiles Toobin dramatically increased my own familiarity with the Court. To be sure, Toobin writes for a popular audience by eschewing more technical cases...more Toobin provides an informative if not provocative glimpse inside the inner workings of the Court, a branch sometimes overlooked but perhaps wielding the most power out of the three. Prior to reading, I could probably only name about half the justices and paint their ideology in broad strokes, so by interpolating major decisions with personal profiles Toobin dramatically increased my own familiarity with the Court. To be sure, Toobin writes for a popular audience by eschewing more technical cases to examine the ones receiving notoriety in the public sphere -- most prominently Bush v Gore. Toobin is extremely dismissive towards Justice Thomas (although understandably so if the text is to believed), depicting an unflattering portrayal of racial equilibrium gone awry following Thurgood Marshall's retirement. Aside from Thomas, the Justices are exemplary legal minds rightfully deserving their place on the bench even if demonstrating ideologies apart from what was presumed at their appointment. Toobin reserves hte most laudatory praise for O'Connor, who typically uses the public as a litmus test for her votes rather than maintain strict accordance to a left/right ideology. Her influence creating the 'undue burden' standard for abortions along with her disassociation from the Bush administration are two particularly fascinating cases. If I did have to peg Toobin on the political spectrum, he would fall on the left (reflecting many of the lawyers he is writing for) but he takes a reasonably balanced perspective even for my conservative eyes. Curiously, he does not slam O'Connor for her stance on Bush v Gore, where her husband's comments alluding to her desire for a Bush win (so he could appoint a conservative successor) coincided with her vote -- interesting a departure from her avowal to public opinion as Gore proved victorious in the popular vote. Leaving this issue without strict scrutiny surely makes this book a fitting tribute to her remarkable judicial career.

The last line of the book was telling, undermining any notion of a truly blind scales of justice and basically asserting the justices have their faults and foibles--basically they're just like any of use, save for an abundance of intelligence and expertise in constitutional law. I would transcribe the portion but I don't have the book with me. (less)

1 like · like · see review

Jan 30, 2008 Damon rated it 4 of 5 stars Recommends it for: Those who care about our country

This book gives a nice overview of the Supreme Court justices of the last 20 years and their major decisions. It is a light, enjoyable read with enough information to keep the reader interested, but perhaps doesn't go into as much depth about some subjects as I would like. The description of how the Court shifted to the right, then to the left, then took a hard right with the Bush (W) nominations was laid out nicely, and the process (or lack of) that went into Bush's and Clinton's nominations wa...more

1 like · like · see review

Oct 28, 2007 Jeff rated it 5 of 5 stars Recommends it for: everyone

Shelves: us-government-law-and-history

Jeffrey Toobin’s The Nine is an incredibly well written book. If you’re a follower of the Supreme Court and acquainted with terms like Casey, Lawrence, or Hamdan you won’t be able to put the book down. If these cases are new to you, then you are in for quite an education on the true workings of the third coequal branch of the federal government. One criticism of Toobin’s style is that he doesn’t go into enough detail on the legal reasoning or merits of the cases. The book reads more like a novel...more

2 likes · like · see review

Sep 24, 2007 John rated it 5 of 5 stars Recommends it for: the politically curious

I picked up this book figuring "well, I should learn something about the supreme court, since I'm woefully ignorant", and fully expected to lose steam after 10 pages. Holy. Crap. This is an absolutely immersive and fascinating read. I now feel like I have a deeply personal or at least passingly jurisprudential understanding of each of the justices that have served on the supreme court from the mid-seventies up through the present. I have a vastly richer understanding of the legal history leading...more

1 like · like · see review

Feb 28, 2009 Lois rated it 4 of 5 stars

A fascinating, readable account of the Supreme Court and its inner workings. Profiles of the justices and accounts of cases dealing with affirmative action, abortion, gay rights, separation of church and state, and Bush vs. Gore. Toobin is a staff writer for the New Yorker and legal analyst for CNN. Especially interesting re. influence of Federalist Society and the radical right wing of the Republican party.

1 like · like · see review

Aug 13, 2009 Jason Roselander rated it 4 of 5 stars

The Nine tells the story of the Supreme Court over the last 20 or so years. Toobin gives an in-depth look at the personal histories that shaped many of the Court's landmark decisions in that period. I think one has to be politically inclined to really enjoy this, and I would warn conservatives that Toobin has a slight liberal bent. (He also writes for The New Yorker.)

Toobin's breakdown of legal procedures and theory is accessible without oversimplifying. He also does an excellent job of making t...more

1 like · like · see review

Sep 22, 2008 Michael rated it 4 of 5 stars

Before this book, I don't think I could've rattled off the names of the nine justices. Now I'm nursing a terrible crush on Ruth Bader Ginsburg. It's a gripping read, and Toobin does a terrific job making a dense topic pleasurable. My only beef is that the cast of characters is so dense, it would've helped to either be twenty years older or have a brief bio section in the back of the book to elaborate on their various roles.

In the midst of reading The Nine I had a chance to visit the Supreme Cour...more

1 like · like · see review

Apr 19, 2008 Loren rated it 2 of 5 stars Recommends it for: Left-leaning future law students.

Recommended to Loren by: Carol Steiker

A breezy and slanted view of recent happenings at the Supreme Court. Easy read and some good information. In my estimation, it most likely will not have much to interest those people not already fascinated by the court, but also will fail to interest buffs because it doesn't offer much they won't already know. The only lasting takeaway I got from the book was more about Toobin than the Court. More specifically that Toobin loves O'Connor and hates George W. Bush. It was an OK read, but not really...more

1 like · like · see review

Aug 06, 2011 Jack added it

Shelves: other

Great book on the recent decade of the Supreme Court. Toobin provides the perfect balance between tracing important court decisions and telling the personal stories of the justices.

The most prominent arc of the book is that of the liberal to conservative transition of the ideological composition of the court. The "Federalist Society," started during the Reagan era, sought to actively promote conservative agendas in the realm of judicial appointments as a reaction against liberal dominance in ac...more Great book on the recent decade of the Supreme Court. Toobin provides the perfect balance between tracing important court decisions and telling the personal stories of the justices.

The most prominent arc of the book is that of the liberal to conservative transition of the ideological composition of the court. The "Federalist Society," started during the Reagan era, sought to actively promote conservative agendas in the realm of judicial appointments as a reaction against liberal dominance in academia and warren court decisions. Their agenda includes curtailing establishment clause restrictions on church, overturning roe v. wade, prosecution, anti-international law, (ironically) states rights, etc. However, the Rehnquist court, composed predominantly of conservative appointments, is a surprisingly liberal court. This is mostly due to the ideological shifts of Justices Kennedy and O'Connor. This was most evident in the 1992 decision in Casey, in which the Souter/Kennedy/O'Connor "troika" struck down laws limiting abortion rights, establishes O'Connor's "undue burden" principle. The Federalist Movement did, however, have some success with Jay Sekulow in several cases that successfully defended religious practice in schools under First Amendment Free Speech provisions.

The Bush v. Gore case in 2000 was depicted as a debacle with the court demonstrating short-sidedness and political motivations. Quoting Kennedy's description of the fiasco was very apt: "the opinion did not reflect any general legal principles, rather the court was acting only to assist a single individual." The aftermath of the decision however, saw the leftward shift of Justice Kennedy as well as an increase in his international travels. This shift became evident as Kennedy led the decision in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 to overturn outdated sodomy laws, and his decision in the 2005 case Roper v. Simians in which Kennedy drew on European precedents to ban execution of juveniles.

This era of liberal rule was ended with the replacement of Rehnquist and O'Connor with Roberts and Alito. The ideological shift of the court became evident in the court's decision in two school segregation cases in which Roberts ruled against "reverse discrimination" or any consideration of color for school selection, invoking an impassioned dissent by Breyer. The current era is also marked by deep, almost fanatical radicalism by the far right on judicial matters. This was evidenced by the right's rejection of Alberto Gonzales and Harriet Miers, both die-hard conservatives thoroughly approved by the Bush White House.

I found the personal depictions of several of the justices to be especially interesting. I was especially captivated by the two centrist Justices, O'Connor and Breyer. O'Connor's decision to overturn the racial quota system in michigan in gratz but upheld law school policy considering race among other factors in grutter was striking as considerate judicial practice. Breyer is also fascinating as a Justice who is magnetic due to his good nature, intelligence, centrism, sensible pragmatism in his constitutional philosophy, and constant optimism and belief in the institution of the court. His ability to create coalitions and compromises is evident in his role in constructing a majority in Reno v. Condon in which federal regulation of driver's license was allowed. His role in Stenberg, in which laws obstructing abortion rights were struck down on the grounds of O'Connor's "undue burden" principle is also notable.(less)

like · see review

Feb 05, 2009 Bookmarks Magazine added it

The Nine is a welcome addition to the spate of recent Supreme Court histories (see Jan Crawford Greenburg's Supreme Conflict, ***1/2 May/June 2007). Informative and authoritative, Jeffrey Toobin's account draws on exclusive interviews with the principals (one critic cited a possible breach of secrecy) and offers colorful anecdotes about the members of the Court. The most important parts of the book explore Sandra Day O'Connor's critical swing votes, Clinton's impeachment hearings, and the Court'

...more

1 like · like · see review

Jan 03, 2009 Joe rated it 2 of 5 stars

Writing about the Supreme Court should be fascinating, since the cases brought before the justices steer our country into new realms of thought. The justices merely pass judgement though on an issue that is at the forefront of American thought. They don't really change the way we think, as Toobin sort of argues here, they merely give our thinking a legal imprimatur. The justices themselves are mostly boring and politically motivated people, which doesn't make for a robust read. I would have like...more

like · see review

Apr 28, 2013 Lightreads rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: history, law, politics, nonfiction

Sadly not the trashy gossip fest I was in the mood for. I wanted either another hundred pages discussing the court's role in the political system and propounding a new theory of case analysis, or I wanted some juicy judicial sexploits. Sadly, I got neither. The "revelations" in this book are nothing new if you pay a little attention to the court – Scalia and Ginsburg were besties, Thomas has a bizarre and alarming worldview, etc.

Still, the lay reader would probably enjoy this as a portrait of pe...more

2 likes · like · see review

Dec 30, 2012 Dan rated it 4 of 5 stars

This was an interesting view of the Supreme Court. This is the story of the Supreme court as it changes from an ultra liberal court to a very conservative court. It shows that the people on the court are actually the ones defining the constitution. It doesn't matter what the court said a on a particular point of law ten or 2 years ago, the current occupants of the court are the ones defining the Constitution. If you have a particular ideology, then by god, you will decide the law on that particu...more

like · see review

title link	preview: The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court
avg rating	preview: The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court Goodreads rating: 4.03 (8140 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/280410.The_Nine?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1320554180l/280410.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/280410.The_Nine?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court by Jeffrey Toobin[/url]

The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court

Friend Reviews

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

combine
Other Editions (12)

Genres

Readers also enjoyed similar books

About Jeffrey Toobin

Books by Jeffrey Toobin

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website

Trivia About The Nine: Inside ...