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 This shift became evident as Kennedy led the decision in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 to overturn outdated sodomy laws, and his decision in the 2005 case Roper v. Simians in which Kennedy drew on European precedents to ban execution of juveniles.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.