I got this book for a class in college and I completely thought that the men and women put on the Supreme Court were intelligent, thoughtful, fair and able to suspend themselves from society in order to have an unbiased opinion on the decisions that affect the whole country. This is the first popular book of Supreme Court history I have read, so its hard for me to say if they are all this dryly written, but seriously, my constitutional law casebook has got more razzle dazzle. It was especially cool to have finished it on the very day that the Court upheld the Affordable Health Care Act. The Supreme Court has changed America and Irons supports this without question. Irons modeled his book after Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States, so he's pretty clear on what side of each issue he leans flamingly liberal? Another explosion will soon come -- ch. War on the Constitution -- Brown v. The book is thick, and dense with information, but one comes away from it with a more well rounded understanding, not only of the political realities of the Supreme Court; but also a better comprehension of the social and ideological shifts in the country.
You can tell how he came across his opinion and I don't fault him that. It was very enlightening to read about cases whose lessons can still be applied today. The document created by the Founding Fathers was born of intense conflicts of race and class, yet there has always been a certain aura of disinterestedness around the decisions of the Supreme Court, notwithstanding the adversarial character of the cases before it. But my reservations stem from errors, like referring to Nixon as a former governor of California, or stating that 39 men met to hash out the Constitiution, when more than 50 did, but 39 signed it. The book does a great job explaining the history of the Court and the background of the justices who compose it. The chapters on the origins of the Constitution and Supreme Court, though, Unlike Zinn's similarly-named book, this one is cogently argued.
The work was light and healthful -- Allgeyer v. Truly a Pandora's box -- Regents v. But these flaws start to drift away once Irons hits the post-Civil War era, which is the strongest section aside from the Dred Scott treatment. If the point is to show how corrupt or racist they were he does a fine job I already assumed that about the Supreme Court though and didn't need it proven in detail. Peter Irons starts the book by making a full admission of his ideological leanings and his interpretation of the Constitution through the lens of that ideology. Missouri 1990 -- Washington v.
The main problem I had with it is that it's billed as a book about the people behind the most influential Supreme Court cases, which sounded fascinating: Plessy, Brown, Roe, Dred Scott, and all the other lesser known figures who were part of , sometimes unwittingly or unwillingly. Illinois 148 -- Engel v. In addition, Irons provides fascinating insight into the lives of the parties to the cases as well as into the lives of the Justices, looking beyong the usual historical blurbs one sees. The book does a great job explaining the history of the Court and the background of the justices who compose it. As the author states, a man of Marshall's position who surely wasn't afraid to wield his authority might have done more to end slavery. To save the Constitution from the Court -- Carter v. There were other errors as well, which left me wondering if he got all the facts of the court cases correct.
On the whole I found this book more enlightening than any Con Law class I took in law school. Evans 91996 -- Lawrence v. This author was a civil rights activist, so slavery is getting special focus. Glucksberg 1997 -- Vacco v. If the author felt that some case needed historical illumination from the convention then a couple of paragraphs when needed could have been added here and there. In prison, Irons discovered the books of Howard Zinn.
Part of their argument was based on self-esteem. This book is a great read. This revised and updated edition includes a foreword by Howard Zinn. New York 1934 -- Schechter Poultry Corp. On the whole I found this book more enlightening than any Con Law class I took in law school. The events and people who crowd this audiobook guarantee that this is no mere local history. He is, however, not a historian, and his bias, like that of his mentor Howard Zinn, is open and overt.
Kraemer 1948 -- Sweatt v. While in most books I find ideologically driven narration off-putting; in this one, I came to admire Dr. Irons does put together a compelling picture of strange times and strange cases, involving rightous grievants and grumbly, witty, twitchy justices -- hell I kinda think an illustrated version of this would become a bestseller. This book is a great read. The main problem I had with it is that it's billed as a book about the people behind the most influential Supreme Court cases, which sounded fascinating: Plessy, Brown, Roe, Dred Scott, and all the other lesser known figures who were part of , sometimes unwittingly or unwillingly. Recent changes in the Supreme Court have placed the venerable institution at the forefront of current affairs, making this comprehensive and engaging work as timely as ever.
For a history teacher this book is excellent. Vitale 1962 -- Abington Township v. Short Synopsis A comprehensive history of the people and cases that have changed history, this is the definitive account of the nation's highest court. The raw edges of Human existence -- Roe v. That omission forces me to omit a star. For those with an interest in the Supreme Court, this book is for you. Sometimes, both assumptions were proven correct.
The Supreme Court at its very mention is something that silences people just as readings from a bible or holy illuminated text. I do not know how he did it but the author was able to fill in a lot of background on the justices, who appointed them, why they were appointed and how. The book did indeed give me some of the back story for many of these cases and it gave me a whole lot more that I wasn't expecting. This was Howard Zinn's messy specialty, and his foreword here is a benediction. The Mueller Report is essential listening for all citizens concerned about the fate of the presidency and the future of our democracy. After all, this is the age of Citizens United. This book is a very dense, informative history of the Court, filled with details of the backgrounds of the Justices and the cases under consideration.
Halberstam offers portraits of not only the titans of the age: Eisenhower, Dulles, Oppenheimer, MacArthur, Hoover, and Nixon; but also of Harley Earl, who put fins on cars; Dick and Mac McDonald and Ray Kroc, who mass-produced the American hamburger; Kemmons Wilson, who placed his Holiday Inns along the nation's roadsides; and more. This book is a very dense, informative history of the Court, filled with details of the backgrounds of the Justices and the cases under consideration. Discrimination against minorities was as much an issue then as it is today. Rumsfeld 2005 -- Padilla v. Many authors look at the Supreme Court as a lifeless body of nine members who make decisions based on Ivy League educations and experience sitting on a bench. Bakke 1978 -- Bowers v. It's clear it was not proofread after they converted it to the Kindle format.