The American Judicial Tradition: Profiles of Leading American Judges (Oxford Paperbacks)

Rating:
Summary: A historical surgey of how judges viewed their office
Review: G. Edward White provides a fascinating and engrossing examination of how American judges have viewed their powers and responsibilities throughout history. He does so through a series of biographical essays examining each judge, or group of judges, and their jurisprudential views. While each chapter is capable of isolated reading, the whole really begins to come together only by the end of the whole book. We see the demise of the 19th century oracular theory of judging, seeing the judge as only discoverer and not creator of the law, and the various difficulties that 20th century judges have experienced in trying to replace this discredited theory.

My only caveat is that this book probably should not be read by beginners. While a thorough knowledge of the law is not strictly necessary to enjoyment of this volume, having a basic knowledge of torts, contracts, and property law truly helps to get the full impact of the judges, especially the state judges. Of course, some knowledge of constitutional history is necessary because roughly 2/3 of the judges studied were U.S. Supreme Court justices. Probably one of the best times to read this volume is after completing the first year of law school.

Rating:
Summary: Jurisprudential Themes in American Courts of Appeal
Review: Institutional characteristics of appellate judges are followed through the social and intellectual changes of America. The first eight chapters follow the oracular theory at work in the 19th century. The final eight chapters witness the falling away of the judge as an oracle, declarer of the law, and the rise of the judge as maker and justifier of the law in the 20th century. Rather than a biography of the judges per se, the book looks to capture their "habits of mind, impulses of thought and feeling, style and influence". In the 1976 edition White covers the following judges and the historical context of their terms (I have included the approximate number of pages given to each discussion):
Marshall (27p)-- "retained an oracular style, but grounded decisions on appeals to first principles of American civilization. blend of independence, sensitivity to political currents, and appearance of impartiality. Kent, Story, and Shaw (28p)--scholarship, clarity, and flexibility. Taney (19p)-- Limits of Judicial Power. Miller, Bradley, Field (44p)--Reconstruction of the Constitution. Harlan I (20p)--result-oriented, precursor to New Deal reform. Holmes and Brandeis (27p)-- Origins of Judicial Liberalism. Van Devanter, Butler, McReynolds, and Sutherland (21p)-- Four Horsemen; resisters of New Deal reform. Hughes and Stone (29p)--efficiency and moderation; continuity and order. Jackson (20p)--realistic approach; Personal and Impersonal Dilemmas. Cardozo, Frank, Hand (40p)--Dialectic of Freedom and Restraint. Traynor (24p)-- Rationality and Intuition. Warren, Frankfurter, Black, and Harlan II (51p)--"increasingly broad definition of rights attached to citizenship. conflict between professionalist and humanitarian strands of modern liberal impulse."