The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court

Absolutely brilliant book - couldn't put it down. The author manages to draw you in with tidbits from court life and also, at crucial points, gives you backstory to the justice's that in context explain their court decisions well.The book itself isn't just full of the decisions either; it runs over maybe a dozen of the most important over a period of years but does so without being stuffy or boring: a must read for anyone interested in the Supreme Court.

As an American lawyer who has been away from US law school (and lived outside the US) for more than 20 years, I found this an excellent and accessible overview of relatively recent politics within the Supreme Court. The discussion of the 2000 Bush vs Gore case alone is enough reason to read the book, but don't skip immediately to this story. Toobin nicely sets the stage to explain the dysfunctional atmosphere within the Court well before it intervened in the US presidential election process.Tobin's Court is a sad place for a lawyer to visit. Gone is almost any consideration of the law as a discipline that binds member of the Supreme Court in any meaningful fashion. In its place the author describes a decade of jurisprudence that seems to be summarised as, "Whatever Sandra Day O'Connor believes will be significantly less disruptive." I'm not enough of a Constitutional scholar to confirm or deny Toobin's thesis. I'm also not criticising Justice O'Connor. The story did leave me feeling rather empty about the Court as an institution, and less certain of the predictability of its jurisprudence. As a lawyer who believes in the value and necessity of "law" as an expression of predictable social moderation, this is a cause for sadness.Drawing on my memory of Bob Woodward's "The Brethren" (which I read i the 1980s), Toobin tells a more compelling (and easier to read) story than Woodward although Woodward is probably more comprehensive in telling the (now old) story of the Burger Court. Of course Woodward's book broke new ground in its day by having the temerity to suggest that the Court could be thought of as a "political" institution. Woodward also seemed to err on the side of forensic analysis, trying to prove his points and to make sure he was believed. This was critical in those days as Woodward also broke new ground by the almost exclusive use of un-named sources. Toobin has reaped the benefit of Woodward's work, and as a result has been able to use a more relaxed writing style.My only hesitation (and what held me back from a 5 star review) was the fashion in which the book concludes. Having worked hard to create a narrative around the major decisions of the age and the personalities who created them, the last few chapters of the book seem to run out of steam and start to resemble the usual sort of quickly written journalist reports of individual cases. By the end of the book, Toobin has abandoned the wonderful description of a forest he had painted, and has replaced it with a series of small, and less satisfying, descriptions of individual trees.I recommend this book whole heartedly to lawyers and non-lawyer alike.

A very readable and informative view of the politics behind the Supreme Court, its more recent members and the basis of some of their major decisions.

Once I started reading this book it became more and more difficult to put down. Fortunately, it was a semester break and I could spend more time reading without disturbing my college homework routine.

Brilliant written; the narrative was addictive - I couldn't put it down!

The paragraphs are well structured with very insightful remarks made about each judge. Although Toobin does infer slightly too much at times.Nevertheless, I would recommend it.

When The Brethren came out in 1979, it was a blockbuster for two reasons: Previously those who had worked at the Supreme Court kept mum about what had gone on there, and we learned that the justices didn't think very much of Chief Justice Warren Burger. Instead of seeing court opinions as fine works of excellent legal minds, those opinions now began to look more like "opinions" of those with differing philosophies. Since then, we have been blessed with many back-stage looks at the Supreme Court.In The Nine, Jeffrey Toobin finishes undressing the Supreme Court so that we see it as an extension of political partisanship, rather than as the guardian of the Constitution and liberty against the tyranny of government. What's changed? It's pretty simple: Presidents have gotten good at finding nominees who will continue to adhere to the president's philosophy after joining the court. Previously, conservatives turned into liberals and vice versa. That won't happen in the future.To me, two parts of the book were most revealing: the political partisanship among Republican Supreme Court justices involved in Bush v. Gore in wanting to make President's Bush's first election look as free of taint as possible (now, that's a good trick if you can do it), and the willingness of the Roberts-led court to reverse earlier decisions without even bothering to observe that they are doing so.If you want certain kinds of precedents that control behavior (on abortion, minority rights, school prayer, and executions), just vote for a president who has the same views . . . and keep that president in office for 8 years so that he or she can appoint a majority that agrees with you.It's a tawdry end to what was once an important branch of government.Mr. Toobin is to be commended for being able to attract so many people to interview with him. It's a lot of work to gather so many details about the personalities, backgrounds, and decisions of the Supreme Court in recent years (mostly focusing on the time during which the same nine justices served without change until the death of Chief Justice Rehnquist).I have had enough interaction with one of the justices reported on to be able to say that Mr. Toobin's account of that justice's characteristics seems right on. I'm assuming that the others are equally accurate from having seen how well this one was done.The book does have a weakness: I thought that Mr. Toobin was a little too narrow in his assessments of the impact of past decisions. For instance, in Bush v. Gore, Mr. Toobin accurately points out that even if Gore had prevailed in the case the Florida election had already been certified. I think that's too narrow a view: With a Gore win (if accompanied by a win in the recount), I believe that the legal process would have found a way to reverse the certification and bring Al Gore to the White House. Otherwise, it would be clear that justice wasn't being done.

Well written but almost impossible for the UK reader.

The book is very good, as it gives an insight of the Supreme Court politics. Some parts of the text could be a little more concise, but it is overall very well written.

Libro intenso ed interessante, per me sta diventando motivo di approfondimento della lingua inglese. Trovo che sia un peccato la mancata traduzione in italiano di questo volume, a me avrebbe fatto senz'altro comodo. O magari esiste tradotto e non lo ho trovato io, non saprei. In ogni caso lo consiglio per chi ha dimestichezza con l'inglese e per chi vuole intraprendere un viaggio non solo nella Corte Suprema americana ma anche nelle vite dei Giudici che la compongono. Un racconto a tratti divertente, capace di far spuntare un sorriso in chi lo legge.

x-mas present, son found book interesting. K

This book is a page-turner, not just for political junkies like meor even lawyers interested in what goes on with the "Supremes". It'sa great study of personalities and professional ethics in law and politics.Toobin is a brilliant writer. I've read several books by him.I even read his book about the O.J. Simpson case. Occasionally,I feel sorry for him when on CNN they ask him to comment onstuff like Britney Spears and O.J.'s latest adventure. Herehe is discussing much more important things and strikes a perfectbalance such that non-lawyers can enjoy this work even if they maynot understand some of the legal issues as well as we lawyers can.This is by far the best book ever written on the Supreme Court.More importantly, Toobin has warned us that if the GOPwins in 2008, we may be able to keep our guns--until some "national security" crisis comes up--but you can forget about the rest of theBill of Rights. Some of you may have noticed that theFourth Amendment is already pretty much gone. TheRepublicans are now arguing that measures to restoreit are part of a "far-left agenda".The general thesis of the book is that there is areally tenuous situation now. The vast majorityof Supreme Court nominees in the last forty yearshave been Republicans, yet most of the Warren Court"liberal" decisions are hanging on--barely.What is really remarkable is when you realizethat the only "liberal" Justices since Nixonput Rehnquist, Powell, Burger, and Blackmun onthe high court are the Clinton appointees Ginzburgand Breyer. Yet the "liberal" rulings on civilrights are still with us. They won't be much longer ifthe GOP wins in 2008.It's not a major theme of the book, but Toobin's analysisof Souter is most interesting. He places Souter in thetradition of Harlan II, particularly on the issue of"unenumerated rights", something I have argued aboutextensively on the internet.To put it succinctly, when the framers were draftingthe Constitution, there was an argument about theBill of Rights. Some said that by enumerating specificrights, the Constitution might be read as granting onlythose rights to states or to individuals.So to guard against that argument, the Ninth Amendmentwas added. The gist is that rights do not derive fromgovernment and that by enumerating specific rights,the Constitution does not mean that other rights donot exist. It's pretty clear, but it has not been widelyaccepted. Most of today's so-called "conservatives" argue thatthe only rights we have are those that are "granted"by the Constitution. This is totally antithetical tothe intent of the framers.Today, though most of the Republican candidates arelawyers, including Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, and RudyGuiliani, the prevailing view of the so-called "conservatives"seems to be that you only have the rights that are explicitlygranted by the Constitution. Toobin rightly predicts thatthe right to privacy will disappear if there are one or twomore justices like Roberts and Alito.After Bush v. Gore, Souter apparently was so disgustedthat he considered resigning. Had he done so, one of thelandmark decisions of the past few years, Lawrence v. Texas,might have gone the other way. And that decision, which builton the privacy rights of Roe v. Wade to overturn laws againstprivate sexual conduct, is in real danger just as abortion rights are.I cannot recommend this book highly enough, particularly forlaw students and lawyers. I started reading it late at nightand just could not put it down.To those who complain about Toobin's "liberal" bent, I say "rubbish".He is sympathetic to all the human qualities of the nine justices andexplains the way the court works from that perspective.He could easily have concentrated on a point that he makesvery subtly--it's the so-called "conservatives" on the courtthat are the truly "activist judges".

アメリカ人ならば、記述してある歴史的事実を興味深く読めたと思いますが、私にはこのバックグラウンドが欠けているので面白味は味わえませんでした。