Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read.
Start by marking “The Supreme Court: The Personalities and Rivalries That Defined America” as Want to Read:
The Supreme Court: The Personalities and Rivalries That Defined America
Enlarge cover
Rate this book
Clear rating
Open Preview

The Supreme Court: The Personalities and Rivalries That Defined America

3.58 of 5 stars 3.58  ·  rating details  ·  404 ratings  ·  53 reviews
A leading Supreme Court expert recounts the personal and philosophical rivalries that forged our nation's highest court and continue to shape our daily lives

The Supreme Court is the most mysterious branch of government, and yet the Court is at root a human institution, made up of very bright people with very strong egos, for whom political and judicial conflicts often beco
ebook, 288 pages
Published January 9th 2007 by Times Books (first published January 1st 2007)
more details... edit details

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Reader Q&A

To ask other readers questions about The Supreme Court, please sign up.

Be the first to ask a question about The Supreme Court

This book is not yet featured on Listopia. Add this book to your favorite list »

Community Reviews

(showing 1-30 of 798)
filter  |  sort: default (?)  |  rating details
History calms me. No matter how pissed off I get at current affairs or over the idiotic positions of one or another group, as soon as I immerse myself in history I realize that these arguments are nothing new; they’ve all been done before: nullification, states rights, federalism, constitutionalism, etc. Current travails will pass.

Rosen describes major conflicts on the court in terms of personalities. Marshall (the Federalist and convivial) and Jefferson (the Republican ideologue) hated each oth
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 always prevail.

Jean Poulos
I have watched Jeffrey Rosen on on CSPAN books interview various Supreme Court Justices. I recently watched his interview with Justice John Paul Stevens about his new book. Watching this trigger me to obtain this book as it seemed somehow I had skipped over Rosen in my readings on the Supreme Court.

In his book “the Supreme Court” Jeffrey Rosen, an acclaimed observer of the Court, teaches law at George Washington University, argues that temperament trumps all. “Humility and common sens
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 in ...more
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 cou ...more
Lukasz Pruski
I am a sucker for books about the U. S. Supreme Court, as I believe that the center of power in the United States resides in that highest court, so I have read Jeffrey Rosen's "The Supreme Court: The Personalities and Rivalries that Defined America" with greatest interest. The main theme of the book is how the individual justices differ by their judicial temperament, and how these differences affect their legacy.

Mr. Rosen organized the book around clashes of four famous pairs of personalities: C
As opposed to the usual chronological rehashing of the Supreme Court, Rosen pairs up participants of the Supreme Court (all justices with the exception of Thomas Jefferson) and compares, contrasts and measures their impact on the court based on their votes, and opinions. I found this book incredibly insightful and in some cases it changed my perception of certain justices, Oliver Wendell Holmes for example did champion certain liberal causes, but for the wrong reasons, and certainly was no frien ...more
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
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 Roberts Jr. I enjo
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, and not pa ...more
Aug 12, 2007 Nicko rated it 5 of 5 stars  ·  review of another edition
Recommends it for: Lawyers
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
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
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
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
Sam Motes
An interesting look at the minds and characters on the Supreme Court by doing comparisons of pairs of prolific Justices. It gives insight of the political and judicial philosophies of each and shows when each was on the right and wrong side of history.
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
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 the h ...more
Brian Bojo
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
This was a great book. It was a fairly short read but it covered the most influential figures on the bench. The author focused on temperament and how each judge's temperament changed and influenced the bench. Each chapter would compare and contrast two judges from the past to present.

I really enjoyed this book. It was interesting and the reader was able to see how individual personalities really did affect how they ruled and the political leanings of the Supreme Court.

I definitely recommend this
I am *not* a big fan of Supreme Court books. I know it sounds silly, but the focus is always on the court cases and less on the personal side. This book is different. A companion to the PBS series on the Supreme Court, Rosen’s book has an interesting setup: he looks at four periods in the Court’s history and analyzes the different temperaments of judges in each period. What made this an interesting read for me was the focus on just two personalities in each of these four periods. It made for a v ...more
Mar 27, 2008 Michelle rated it 3 of 5 stars  ·  review of another edition
Recommends it for: Attorneys
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 quick ...more
Jan 31, 2008 Jeff rated it 4 of 5 stars  ·  review of another edition
Recommends it for: Anyone interested in constutional law and the history of the Supreme Court.
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 Nine, I am hooked on the Su
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 4 of 5 stars  ·  review of another edition
Recommended to Bex by: NPR
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.
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?
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.
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.
Dan Duran
Geared more towards academia than the casual reader, still provides an interesting look at what happens when judicial philospiphies collide. I found the section contrasting Justices Black and Douglas particularly interesting.
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
Kevin Altman
Gives great insight into the REAL world of how the courts used to be....unbelievable things and behaviors regarding our state and federal supreme courts....a must read if into Political Science or Constitutional Law.
« previous 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 26 27 next »
There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Be the first to start one »
  • Becoming Justice Blackmun: Harry Blackmun's Supreme Court Journey
  • A People's History of the Supreme Court: The Men and Women Whose Cases and Decisions Have Shaped Our Constitution
  • Justice for All: Earl Warren and the Nation He Made
  • Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court
  • Justice Brennan: Liberal Champion
  • A History of American Law
  • The Supreme Court
  • Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. the Supreme Court
  • John Marshall: Definer of a Nation
  • Closed Chambers: The Rise, Fall, and Future of the Modern Supreme Court
  • House of War: The Pentagon and the Disastrous Rise of American Power
  • War in a Time of Peace: Bush, Clinton and the Generals
  • Making Our Democracy Work: A Judge's View
  • Five Chiefs: A Supreme Court Memoir
  • How Judges Think
  • Louis D. Brandeis
  • Gideon's Trumpet
  • America's Constitution: A Biography
The Unwanted Gaze: The Destruction of Privacy in America Constitution 3.0: Freedom and Technological Change Privacy, Property, and Free Speech: Law and the Constitution The Naked Crowd: Reclaiming Security and Freedom in an Anxious Age The Most Democratic Branch: How the Courts Serve America

Share This Book