American Law in the 20th Century

Rating:
Summary: A must for anyone with any interest in American law.
Review: Due to a somewhat nasty review by an Amazon customer - probably some obscure and jealous colleague of Lawrence Friedman's, angry at the writer's success - I hesitated to purchase the book. I have a PhD. in law and a Master's degree from Georgetown law but I still learned a lot and I enjoyed every chapter, paragraph and line. Friedman's erudition and mastery of the subject is obvious. He writes clearly, eloquently and is never boring. His tongue in cheek systematic use of the feminine is pleasantly ironic. He keeps referring to a hypothetic lawyer as "she" instead of the politically correct and tedious "he or she".
From the point of view of a civil law lawyer (or indeed anyone wanting to learn more about the American legal system) this book is compulsory reading. Friedman's assumption that laws are shaped by society and its changes may be discussed and some of his views one may or may not agree with. But that is irrelevant, because here are 607 seven pages of superb quality and interest. ...

Rating:
Summary: Enjoyable, But Certainly No "Treatise"
Review: Friedman's survey of 20th Century American Law is an accessible, enjoyable read. The reader untrained in constitutional law, however, should note the following remarks with care.

This is not an objective survey of 20th Century American Law. It is, in my view, but a legal commentary written with a political slant which undermines the value of this work. (I recently read a review by Elaine Cassell of this piece, in which she refers to this commentary as a "treatise." That comment is, to put is mildly, laughable. Cassell's glowing review as a whole is, of course, merely an approval of Friedman's politics rather than an appraisal of its scholarly value) Make no mistake, Friedman has every right to write such a book, and perhaps I didn't research the book thoroughly enough prior to my purchasing it (mine was encased suspiciously in shrink-wrap on the shelf, by the way, and the scholarly-looking cover bears no information whatsoever about the book's substance), but I received a clear impression that this was a book of legal history (i.e., an objective (and probably dry) assessment of legal development in 20th Century America) when I bought it.

To the contrary, this book is dripping with sarcasm throughout, be it when Friedman rips into various unnamed constitutional scholars (anti-intellectual cheap-shots, im my opinion), when he mocks the role of traditional homemakers (evidently not one of Friedman's target audiences), or when he gleefully points out whenever Congress reacts to Supreme Court decisions he doesn't like by (gasp!) legislating (evidencing Friedman's eerie contempt for our system of government, that is, our representative democracy and its written Constitution).

To be sure, this book accomplishes much by cultivating the notion that the Supreme Court sits as some sort of "super-legislature" with Platonic Guardian-like wisdom (to borrow Judge Learned Hand's description) and power to make laws where democratic processes fall short. Friedman's thinking, while morally splendid from a relativist perspective, simply ensures the continuous politicization of the Judiciary. While such is indeed instant gratification for righting societal moral ills (i.e., effectuating social justice in the eyes of (at best) nine Justices), one cannot help but wonder where this usurpation of legislative power will end.

What made this all rather offensive to me is that anyone simply looking to pick up a comprehensive book on 20th Century American Law might grab this one assuming, as I certainly did, that it would reflect a sober survey of the legal developments of the United States during the 20th Century. A "treatise" this book is woefully not. Despite Friedman's tone, the book is, again, a very easy, enjoyable, albeit quasi-educational, read. Let the reader beware, however, that one receives only the bits and pieces Friedman wants you to receive, and that, for a more complete and educational account of 20th Century American Law, one will need to purchase another book (to his credit, Friedman does supply an absolutely fabulous bibliography in the rear of the book for, perhaps, precisely that reason).

Rating:
Summary: Excellent follow up to his "classic" history
Review: Mr. Friedman has written the excellent follow up to his "classic" history of American law. I'd recommend the first book, if it's still in print, and if not check the used book sites.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent follow up to his "classic" history
Review: Mr. Friedman has written the excellent follow up to his "classic" history of American law. I'd recommend the first book, if it's still in print, and if not check the used book sites.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent follow up to his "classic" history
Review: Mr. Friedman has written the excellent follow up to his "classic" history of American law. I'd recommend the first book, if it's still in print, and if not check the used book sites.

Rating:
Summary: Biased Is As Biased Does
Review: To understand Stanford law professor Lawrence M. Friedman's worldview one only has to look at pages 541 and 542 of his book "American Law in the 20th Century". On page 541 he writes regarding the increase in workers' compensation liability, "In one case, from Massachusetts (1985), Helen J. Kelly worked for Raytheon for twenty-two years; then she was told she would be laid off. She immediately `began to cry' and `was unable to compose herself.' A few days later, the company gave her a transfer to another department; but there she `became depressed, developed chest pains,' was hospitalized, and was ultimately declared disabled. She asked for, and got, workers' compensation, over the objections of the insurance carrier."

Then on page 542, Friedman goes on to describe the efforts that state legislatures made to turn the tide on such claims, "Idaho amended its statute to bar any claims arising out of conditions `generally inherent in every working situation or from a personnel related action,' including `changes in duty, job evaluation or employment termination.' Helen Kelly would have had no chance at all in Idaho." Friedman's implication is that Ms Kelly having no chance in Idaho is a bad thing, not the sane situation that the state made it.

Friedman's book is a look back at the growth and changes in the legal profession and in law in general throughout the 20th century. He starts with a look at the United States in 1900 and carries it up to approximately the time that the internet grabbed its unrelenting foothold. For Friedman it is clear that the high point of the preceding century was the New Deal and the massive expansion it fostered in federal government powers. In fact, he refers to the Reagan and Bush 41 presidencies as an attack on the welfare state, not as they really were: the single greatest expansion of federal powers ever seen in peacetime.

This, of course, is leading me to my main point, this is definitely not an unbiased look at the book's subject. It is as if Friedman goes out of his way to vilify conservatives and anyone who has any kind of positive impressions about "the good old days." Friedman at least has the foresight to almost admit his bias. As close as he gets is in acknowledging the inherent political nature of his subject and the biases that permeate the legal system.

His bias aside though, this still could have been a good read for those of us smart enough to overlook where he is obviously wrong. Instead "American Law in the 20th Century" reads as if it were written by a high school senior. There is no flow to the text. Friedman constantly interrupts his prose with asides and parenthetical expressions, which he mostly uses to castigate conservatives and Republicans.

As a general topic legal book, "American Law in the 20th Century" is, at best, a subpar effort. There are enough solid parts to it though that it is not a complete failure. It is just good enough that it might turn you on to some aspect of the law and send you on to a more specific work on that particular subject.

Rating:
Summary: Biased Is As Biased Does
Review: To understand Stanford law professor Lawrence M. Friedman's worldview one only has to look at pages 541 and 542 of his book "American Law in the 20th Century". On page 541 he writes regarding the increase in workers' compensation liability, "In one case, from Massachusetts (1985), Helen J. Kelly worked for Raytheon for twenty-two years; then she was told she would be laid off. She immediately 'began to cry' and 'was unable to compose herself.' A few days later, the company gave her a transfer to another department; but there she 'became depressed, developed chest pains,' was hospitalized, and was ultimately declared disabled. She asked for, and got, workers' compensation, over the objections of the insurance carrier."

Then on page 542, Friedman goes on to describe the efforts that state legislatures made to turn the tide on such claims, "Idaho amended its statute to bar any claims arising out of conditions 'generally inherent in every working situation or from a personnel related action,' including 'changes in duty, job evaluation or employment termination.' Helen Kelly would have had no chance at all in Idaho." Friedman's implication is that Ms Kelly having no chance in Idaho is a bad thing, not the sane situation that the state made it.

Friedman's book is a look back at the growth and changes in the legal profession and in law in general throughout the 20th century. He starts with a look at the United States in 1900 and carries it up to approximately the time that the internet grabbed its unrelenting foothold. For Friedman it is clear that the high point of the preceding century was the New Deal and the massive expansion it fostered in federal government powers. In fact, he refers to the Reagan and Bush 41 presidencies as an attack on the welfare state, not as they really were: the single greatest expansion of federal powers ever seen in peacetime.

This, of course, is leading me to my main point, this is definitely not an unbiased look at the book's subject. It is as if Friedman goes out of his way to vilify conservatives and anyone who has any kind of positive impressions about "the good old days." Friedman at least has the foresight to almost admit his bias. As close as he gets is in acknowledging the inherent political nature of his subject and the biases that permeate the legal system.

His bias aside though, this still could have been a good read for those of us smart enough to overlook where he is obviously wrong. Instead "American Law in the 20th Century" reads as if it were written by a high school senior. There is no flow to the text. Friedman constantly interrupts his prose with asides and parenthetical expressions, which he mostly uses to castigate conservatives and Republicans.

As a general topic legal book, "American Law in the 20th Century" is, at best, a subpar effort. There are enough solid parts to it though that it is not a complete failure. It is just good enough that it might turn you on to some aspect of the law and send you on to a more specific work on that particular subject.

Rating:
Summary: Social history of America
Review: When I first got this book, I expected a relatively dry read about the law; instead, this is a fun and informative social history of 20th Century America, with a focus on how the law influenced society and vice versa.

This is a vast subject, so even in 600 pages (plus notes), Friedman cannot be comprehensive, but he does cover a lot of different subjects. Although the biggest chapters involve crime or civil rights, he also looks into the evolution of the American family, transportation and communciations. He also deals with the development of the legal profession.

This is very well-written, with more than the occasional bits of humor. Although generally objective, he does come down hard on political conservatives at times (especially in the last part of the book). Even if disagree with his politics, however, there is still enough good material in this book to make it a really good read.

Rating:
Summary: An Easy Read on a complicated subject
Review: While the subject is vast and extremely complicated, Lawrence Friedman digests it down into sizeable chucks that most people could understand. I am only a sophmore in college, with no formal legal training and I could easily follow and understand this book. Its a very interesting read, it charts the progression of various fields of law from the end of the 19th century and through the end of the 20th. I found it particularly good that the book was divided into chapters based on time and then subdivided by area of law. Its a great book, I recommend it to anyone who has the slighest interest how law in the 20th century evolved.