Books Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court
Books and Publications Average Rating:

Rating: - Supreme Court Easy Reading Review
Although Ms. Greenburg is repetitious in many instances, she presents the reader an easy, informative and historically correct read. Will be excellent Supreme Court research treatist for many years to come.

---

Rating: - Tunnel Vision...
Jan Greenburg does a good job of reporting the facts around the recent Supreme Court nominations but she avoids any challenge to the narrow views of those that controlled the conservative nominations.

The notion that Justice Kennedy is not a "true conservative" --never questioned by Greenburg---because 20% of his votes are not "in-line" is a bit absurd. It might have been worthwhile for Greenburg to consider what the true conservative position on Roe vs. Wade (one of Kennedy's "liberal" votes) might be. True conservatives value stare decisis and respect the fact that after thirty years many--the majority of the nation in fact-- now view Roe as a resolved matter. Several subsquent opinions, including Casey, affirmed its findings by using it as a precedent. Imagine if the court overturned it and then ten years from now a court with several Hillary Clinton appointees re-affirmed it. The Court would have been shown to be the mere pawn of the political powers that be. It would emerge less respected and less able to do its job. So, what's the true conservative position on Roe vs. Wade?

The reality that Greenburg never considers is that the White House values Scalia and Thomas not for their true conservativism, but for their right wing judicial activism. Greenburg never scrutinizes Justice Scalia's devotion to "original intent" when it goes against the outcome that he desires. She might want to glance at Gonzalez vs. Oregon, where Scalia's dissent claimed that the Justice Dept could block implementation of an assisted suicide act duly enacted by the popular will in a state initiative. So, where is the prohibition of assisted suicide in the Constitution? What happened to the great "Federalist"? The Drug Enforcement Act--the supposed basis of Scalia's decision--was not intended to outlaw or otherwise regulate assisted suicide and was enacted without any consideration of the subject. The Gonzalez v Oregon dissent (joined by Thomas and the new Chief) shows the bald faced hypocrisy of Scalia's "strict constructionism." Some questioning of "conservative" assumptions and a broader perspective would have made this a much more thoughtful and worthwhile book.

---

Rating: - A terrible disappointment...
I thought, considering the book's title and that this reporter touted her access to nine justices, that this would detail the inner dynamics and interpersonal relationships of the justices and their clerks, like The Brethren. Instead, it was a laborious and too-detailed factual account of process the Executive and Legislative Branches used to select this court.

I see strong bias on the part of the author, who as a reporter, hopes to keep "inside access." She veritably fawns over Alito, in an effort to ingratiate herself with him and his family while, in contrast, she trashes the reclusive Souter, and the presumably uncooperative Kennedy.

Only 20% of this book was worthwhile reading.

---

Rating: - In A Class By Itself
In all respects -- writing, research, organization, balance -- this is the best book on the Supreme Court. To be sure, there'll be other (and perhaps better) books written on this always fascinating institution. For now, however, it positively towers over its competition. I've read (and enjoyed) them all -- Woodward/Armstrong's, Toobin's, Rosen's -- but Jan Crawford Greenburg's "Supreme Conflict" is, to reiterate my title, in a class by itself.

Highly recommended.