What do you think?
Rate this book
First Among Equals: The Supreme Court in American Life
- FIRST AMONG EQUALS was published in hardcover in 10/02 and met with critical acclaim.- As shown by Alan Dershowitz's "Supreme How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000 (Oxford University Press, 2001), Robert H. Bork's "The Tempting of America (Simon and Schuster, 1997), and Bob Woodward's "The Brethren (Simon and Schuster, 1979), books about the Supreme Court frequently end up on the bestseller list.- Currently a partner at Kirkland and Ellis, a Washington, D.C., law firm, Starr served as Solicitor General, clerked for Chief Justice Warren Burger, and served as a U.S. Circuit Judge. He has been on the law school faculties of both George Mason University and New York University and has published numerous articles.
352 pages, Paperback
First published October 10, 2002
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
September 30, 2013
Despite of my limited legal background, there is always an impulsive thrust urging me to understand the legal framework and how it fits in the society. One of the interesting topic I came across while staying in Beijing is the Supreme Court and its basic roles and functions.
Before focusing on this book, we shall come back to the basic understanding of the tripartite division of powers among the legislative, executive and judicial branches, which was advocated by Montesequieu, Hamilton and others. The title "first among equals" essentially infers that judicial branch (the Supreme Court) is the authority or the hidden leader to the other two branches even though allegedly the three branches share the same rank.
One can be somewhat certain that the system's early designers failed to reach the idea of "first among equal". Rather, they proposed that comparing to executive and legislative branches, "the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous [branch] to the political rights of the Constitution".
Thus, idealy there will be three questions regarding US modern Supreme Court: 1) Is the Supreme Court “the branch of government with the authoritative role in vital issues that deeply affect American life and politics", or simply put "Is it first among equals"? 2) Is the Supreme Court the "least dangerous" branch comparing to legislative and executive branches? 3) Can "first among equals" and "least dangerous" co-exist?
This book deals with all three questions but with an emphasis on the first one. And it does a good job.
The center of the issue is stated by the author as the following:
"In a constitutional democracy, the Constitution is the ultimate authority, binding on all branches and levels of government. But the Constitution, since it is a written document, must be interpreted. Who is to do that? May each branch of government interpret the Constitution for itself? What if the president or Congress reads the Constitution differently from the Supreme Court? Which branch prevails?"
Initially, branches are co-equal. But in Marbur v. Madison (1803), the Chieft Justice John Marshall mandated that "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." This seems to be the ideal situation to the author. He argues that if who has the correst interpretations of constitutional matters remains unsettled, there is always a propensity for sword or the purse to substitute genuine actions of law interpretation that is grounded in principle. And judiciay branch is the least dangerous branch, if it strickly restrict to its assigned functions.
Therefore, judicial branch is the authority of vital issues, especially regarding constitutional matters; At the same time, it is the least dangerous branch by confining its duties. Thus, both roles co-exist.
This book is a good introductory book on the subject and deserve the merit for three reasons: It adequately addresses the origin of the Supreme Court and background of the underlying issue; It contains numerous well-known case studies illuminating the principles behind functions of the Supreme Court; it is written in plain English, which make the general public and young punks like me without legal background the intended readers.
For those who are interested in subjects regarding the Supreme Court of The U.S., here is the recommend reading list. Some of the works provide a totally different perspective of the Supreme Court.
* <>
* <>
* <>
* <>
Before focusing on this book, we shall come back to the basic understanding of the tripartite division of powers among the legislative, executive and judicial branches, which was advocated by Montesequieu, Hamilton and others. The title "first among equals" essentially infers that judicial branch (the Supreme Court) is the authority or the hidden leader to the other two branches even though allegedly the three branches share the same rank.
One can be somewhat certain that the system's early designers failed to reach the idea of "first among equal". Rather, they proposed that comparing to executive and legislative branches, "the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous [branch] to the political rights of the Constitution".
Thus, idealy there will be three questions regarding US modern Supreme Court: 1) Is the Supreme Court “the branch of government with the authoritative role in vital issues that deeply affect American life and politics", or simply put "Is it first among equals"? 2) Is the Supreme Court the "least dangerous" branch comparing to legislative and executive branches? 3) Can "first among equals" and "least dangerous" co-exist?
This book deals with all three questions but with an emphasis on the first one. And it does a good job.
The center of the issue is stated by the author as the following:
"In a constitutional democracy, the Constitution is the ultimate authority, binding on all branches and levels of government. But the Constitution, since it is a written document, must be interpreted. Who is to do that? May each branch of government interpret the Constitution for itself? What if the president or Congress reads the Constitution differently from the Supreme Court? Which branch prevails?"
Initially, branches are co-equal. But in Marbur v. Madison (1803), the Chieft Justice John Marshall mandated that "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." This seems to be the ideal situation to the author. He argues that if who has the correst interpretations of constitutional matters remains unsettled, there is always a propensity for sword or the purse to substitute genuine actions of law interpretation that is grounded in principle. And judiciay branch is the least dangerous branch, if it strickly restrict to its assigned functions.
Therefore, judicial branch is the authority of vital issues, especially regarding constitutional matters; At the same time, it is the least dangerous branch by confining its duties. Thus, both roles co-exist.
This book is a good introductory book on the subject and deserve the merit for three reasons: It adequately addresses the origin of the Supreme Court and background of the underlying issue; It contains numerous well-known case studies illuminating the principles behind functions of the Supreme Court; it is written in plain English, which make the general public and young punks like me without legal background the intended readers.
For those who are interested in subjects regarding the Supreme Court of The U.S., here is the recommend reading list. Some of the works provide a totally different perspective of the Supreme Court.
* <>
* <>
* <>
* <>
July 9, 2010
Although a bit outdated (the author is waiting on the outcome of several cases dating back to 2002), this is a great overview of the major cases that have shaped American constitutional jurisprudence and the intrusive place that the high court takes in American life today. Starr investigates the theme and tone of the cautious Rehnquist court and its juxtaposition to the more radical Burger and Warren courts, specifically, the unwillingness of the Rehnquist court to reexamine controversial decisions of past courts in the name of stare decisis: a theme which ironically, could be considered radical in itself. I recommend this book to anyone who does not fully understand the importance of voting people into office who will appoint justices who will approach the interpretation of the constitution from an originalist perspective, and not one open to the whims of personal bias.
August 30, 2010
Fabulous book. It was well written and the first legal book I've been able to understand. It is incredible to learn about the impact of the Supreme court decisions on daily life and to discover how those decisions are reached.
August 13, 2010
It was an interesting read. It made me fairly frustrated with the politicization of the Supreme Court, but that was Ken Starr's goal I think.
May 15, 2026
“First Among Equals” is a heavier, more academic read than the average Supreme Court book, but it’s also one of the more insightful ones I’ve come across. Kenneth Starr clearly writes with a particular lens and perspective, and at times that bias shows through, but I still found the historical context incredibly valuable — especially reading it in today’s political and judicial climate.
What stood out most was realizing how many of the tensions surrounding the Supreme Court today aren’t actually new. Questions about judicial power, public trust, constitutional interpretation, and the Court’s role in American life were being fought over generations ago as well. The book helped pull the Court out of the “headline of the week” mindset and place it into a much longer historical arc.
This isn’t a casual or fast-paced read, and there were definitely sections that felt dense, but if you’re interested in the Supreme Court beyond partisan soundbites, there’s a lot here worth wrestling with. I came away with a deeper appreciation for both the institution itself and the recurring nature of many of America’s constitutional debates.
What stood out most was realizing how many of the tensions surrounding the Supreme Court today aren’t actually new. Questions about judicial power, public trust, constitutional interpretation, and the Court’s role in American life were being fought over generations ago as well. The book helped pull the Court out of the “headline of the week” mindset and place it into a much longer historical arc.
This isn’t a casual or fast-paced read, and there were definitely sections that felt dense, but if you’re interested in the Supreme Court beyond partisan soundbites, there’s a lot here worth wrestling with. I came away with a deeper appreciation for both the institution itself and the recurring nature of many of America’s constitutional debates.
Want to Read
January 2, 2008Not sure how I will feel about the author's ideas on the Supreme Court- but I am open to it...
Anyone read this one? Is he the devil incarnate?
Anyone read this one? Is he the devil incarnate?
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews