[.ca] Peoples History Of The Supreme Court (ISBN 0143037382)

From Amazon.com:
The savvy, chatty author of The Courage of Their Convictions brings us a scholarly reckoning of the 200-plus years of decisions made by the highest court in the land. Not surprisingly (and justifiably, given his erudite arguments), Peter H. Irons represents the court's work as a never-ending appeal of the powerless to the powerful: of the just over 100 supreme justices who have sat on the court, all but two have been white, all but two have been men, and all but seven have been Christian, whereas the supplicants to our nation's highest bar are typically racial minorities, women, and deviants in some way from the religious and social mainstream. Taking a representative (if not comprehensive) accounting of the Supreme Court's most significant decisions, Irons puts cultural and political context--and a human face--to the parties involved, painting an absorbing and involving picture of landmark cases that readers are likely to recall but not fully understand. Whether he's explicating the tortuous history of freedom-seeking slave Dred Scott or explaining the "a Jap's a Jap" reasoning behind the legal exculpation of World War II internment camps, Irons reminds us of the court's spotted history while still conveying the deep affection he has for it. (Includes a thoughtful appendix with the complete text of the Constitution and suggestions for further reading.) --Paul Hughes

leftist nonsense:
Irons' left-wing bias makes this book impossible to slog through, well, for a right-winger anyway. It's a real shame, as there are so few books about the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, Irons' book, like most modern books on law, begins with the assumption that judicial activism is a good thing; therefore, Irons dismisses many of the Court's greatest justices as having done nothing. In actuality, most spent their careers upholding the Constitution, not rewriting it to suit their own agendas. It'd be nice if there was a modern book on the Court that didn't treat the likes of Warren, Black, Frankfurter, Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, and others who trampled over the Constitution for their own political purposes, as if they were gods. For those who would prefer a history of the Supreme Court told from the view of one who endorses judicial restraint, Irons book is definitely not for you. Personally, I'll have to wait until someone, somewhere, writes the history of the Court that I want to see, the one that treats justices like Rehnquist, Scalia, Van Devanter, Sutherland, and others as the great legal minds they are and were.

Stimulating interpretation of the history of the Court:
In this book, Peter Irons offers a refreshingly stimulating interpretation of the history of the Supreme Court. His approach, which focuses on understanding the personalities on the bench and behind the cases, serves as an invaluable reminder that laws and created and interpreted by people who bring their views and experiences into this process. Irons begins this process with himself; in the introduction he expresses his belief that "the Constitution's basic command is that every person must be accorded the dignity he or she deserves as a human being."(xv) This view serves as the basis for his analysis in the book. Irons divides the history of the Court into six parts. The first section looks at the prehistory of American law, the period before the ratification of the American constitution. He starts with the colonial era, focusing on the New England region to the exclusion of the other areas. While this distorts a more complete understanding of the broader background, it does allow Irons to more clearly identify ideas and doctrines that are relevant to today's jurisprudential issues. His account of the Constitutional Convention is more rote; all the classic debates are recounted, from the Great Compromise to the arguments over the enumerated powers of the government. It is with the discussion of the beginning of the Court that Irons' narrative comes to life and the pattern of the remainder of the book emerges. In presenting the history of the Court Irons concentrates his account on specific cases that best illustrate his argument. Though episodic, this provides for a clearer presentation of the evolution of the Court's overall jurisprudence over time. This is evident from the first with his analysis of John Marshall. Irons sees the Court initially focusing on questions of property rights, of which Marshall was a stanch defender. Such defense often came at the expense of the rights of debtors, farmers, and African Americans, though Marshall excelled at writing opinions that advanced his interpretations while depriving opponents of any grounds on which to launch political challenges. The enshrining of property rights also provided critical legal support in defending the institution of slavery. The legal battles surrounding slavery and its aftermath occupied the Court for most of the middle third of the 19th century and comprise the third section of Irons' book. Here the author focuses on Marshall's replacement, Roger B. Taney, as the main character in his account, stressing the fundamentally racist (and in Irons' opinion, unexamined) views that lay behind Taney's flawed legal defense of slavery. Irons' account of the Dred Scott case is one of the best parts of the book, offering a good introduction to the people behind one of the most controversial decisions in the Court's history. By contrast, his discussion of the Court's jurisprudence stemming from the Civil War is one of the its most disappointing sections, while his analysis of the Reconstruction-era cases over civil rights focuses more on the legislative efforts and constitutional amendments passed than on the Court's role in limiting the extension of the rights supposedly granted by these measures. With the Civil War resolving the issue of slavery (if not that of the role of blacks in American life), the Court's docket was increasingly occupied with cases involving economic rights. Irons' coverage of these issues comprises the fourth section of his book. The Court he chronicles during this period was comprised of unabashed defenders of business interests who consistently limited government's ability to regulate economic activity. Irons attributes these views to the backgrounds and connections of the justices of the period, most of whom were former railroad attorneys who maintained (unethical) connections with private interests. The generally conservative mentality also prevailed in matters of civil liberties, where opponents of unabashed capitalism fell victim to laws passed during World War I that made disloyal speech illegal - laws that were generally upheld by the Court. It was only during the New Deal of the 1930s and the aftermath of President Franklin Roosevelt's "court-packing" plan that the Supreme Court that the Supreme Court changed course and endorsed governmental regulation of the economy. This opened a new era in Supreme Court jurisprudence, one focusing more on cases involving individual rights rather than on economic matters, and is the subject of the final two sections of his book. Here the author is in his element, having written on civil liberties before (and even being directly involved in the history of one of the topics he chronicles, that of the Japanese internments) and his solid narrative ends the book on a strong note. Irons' interpretative lens offers a refreshingly different account of the history of the Court. Whereas previous historians have often written about the Court as if it were a faceless entity dispensing legal philosophy, Irons shows how the justices' preconceived legal and political ideologies often shaped the law. While some readers may disagree with Irons' ideological perspective, it does introduce a much-needed perspective into examining the impact of the Court in the context of its times. Yet Irons' work is undermined by the poor editing of the book. The text is plagued with historical inaccuracies which, though minor, often create doubts as to the veracity of the broader argument. Even more egregious is the poor job in checking the endnotes, with the reader often forced to comb through the bibliography in search of the full listing of the work cited. Again, while relatively minor, it suggests a slapdash quality that can undermine the broader insights of the book. Such problems require the reader to treat this book with a degree of wariness. Nonetheless, Irons has written an engaging account of the history of the Supreme Court, one that stimulates the reader and helps them to better understand the role of the Court in shaping the development of the nation - and how it continues to influence us today.

Interesting but Flawed:
I am struggling with my reactions to this book. I have several serious criticisms of the book, but I think many things were well done. Let me first list the positives and then all the negatives. A People's History of the Supreme Court gives a brief biography of every justice who has ever served on the Supreme Court and interwoven with this, gives a description of some of the most important cases the Supreme Court has decided. In the case descriptions, the author explains, in plain language, the legal issues involved (I think it's plain language, but I'm a lawyer, and law school is very good at teaching lawyers not to speak or understand plain language). He also often describes the history of the legal issue, why it was important to the nation, what the country thought of the legal issue at the time. Finally, he gives a brief story of the actual case itself--who the parties were, why they decided to file the suit, why they appealed their case all the way to the Supreme Court, etc. This is all very important stuff. It is great to have it all collected into one book. Too often, we don't know anything about the people who bring their cases to the Supreme Court but merely know their names. It is important to remember that the cases involved real people with real disputes or heartfelt issues that they wanted the court to resolve. We also know almost nothing about the Supreme Court justices who preceded this one. But they are, in many ways, as powerful or more powerful than the Presidents. They had real-world experience before becoming judges and sometimes cast aside that experience, but sometimes didn't. I found the book extremely interesting and read it quickly from cover to cover. But the book had many flaws: there are factual errors. Some are described in previous reviews. One that I found is that the author incorrectly describes the purposes and text of the 12th Amendment when discussing the Hayes-Tilden election in the late 19th Century. So, although it is important to know everything that is in this book, a reader can't always trust that he or she is getting correct information. Second, I do not have a problem, as others do, that the author states his political views early and often in this book. I agree with the author that it is better for the author to be honest and forthright about biases and let the reader decide if he or she agrees with the author than for the author to pretend to be completely unbiased. My problem is that the author often distorts the record of justices to fit with his opinion of them--an unforgivable sin. For instance, Irons believes that the first Justice Harlan is a great justice. So he describes his opinion dissenting to oppose segregation in Plessy v. Ferguson as a great opinion, but does not even allude to the fact that, in the middle of this great opinion, he hurls racial insults at, as Harlan describes it, the "Chinese race." His views of some of our earliest justices, Story and John Marshall are cramped because he wants to tear them down. Third, I think Irons should have left out the first couple of chapters on the framing of the Constitution. It is a bit tangential to the subject matter of the book and has been done better by more serious historians. Finally, Irons misses the biggest story of the late 20th Century with a cop out. He ends his book in 1992 but publishes the book in 1999. Between 1992 and 1999, the Supreme Court did a great many things--basically reviving doctrines that had been abandoned in the 1930s. Perhaps Irons got tired and after researching for several years, decided not to add a whole chapter on the revolutionary Rehnquist Court. But if so, he should have explained that to us. Instead, he cops out and says that nothing important has happened since 1992. All in all, if you are interested in the Supreme Court, you should read this book. My guess is that you will find it an easy read and be very interested in it, but wind up frustrated with Irons.

An Excellent Introduction to the Supreme Court:
This book provides and excellent introduction to the Supreme Court. This particular book approaches the Supreme Court's history through the lives of the individuals at the center of many landmark decisions. This includes the Justices, the individuals who brought the cases, and even the politicians of the time. The outcome of this approach is a history that doesn't simply provide a dry reading of the facts of a number of legal cases; instead, Irons' approach addresses the relevance of the cases to the above mentioned individuals which also helps develop a sense of the Court's importance in the development of the Nation. Lastly, while I find Irons' book to be a good read and a good introduction, I must concur with an earlier reviewer who accuses Irons of allowing his personal politics too much sway. While I do not have the legal knowledge to discuss the factual issues, it is clear from the outset that Irons elevates those justices whose opinions are aligned with his own viewpoint and disparages others who aren't. However, in spite of Irons' biases, the book provides an excellent view of the Supreme Court, and I would recommend it to anyone trying get a grasp of what the Court is all about.

A good start for an overview of the history of the Court:
Mr. Irons does a commendable job interweaving the history of the framing of the Constitution in the first chapters of the book, with the application of its principles through the years. The importance of the political climates in which important decisions were handed down is well covered and informs the reader of how external influences impacted certain decisions. The evolution of application of important principles such as incorporation of the Bill of Rights through the due process clause of the 14th amendment is well presented. Mr. Irons also effectively presents personal attributes and facts not only of the justices who decided these important cases, but of the attorneys and clients who brought the cases before the Court. I recommend this book to anyone who seeks to gain a greater understanding of the cases and controversies which have shaped the application of our Constitution.