Rating: 
Summary: An intimate look into Supreme Court politics.
Review: Closed Chambers dispels the general belief that the Supreme Court is the only branch of government whose actions are not motivated by politics. Lazarus discusses the evolving role that political ideology has played in the decisions of various cases in the areas of civil rights, abortion, and the death penalty. He focuses specifically on the Rehnquist Court of the 1980s. Lazarus criticizes both liberal and conservative Justices for sacrificing judicial review for the pursuit of political agenda, and collegiality and debate for machiavellian tactics. However, Congress and the President contributed to the polarization of the Supreme Court. The confirmation hearings of Robert Bork sparked not only nation-wide debate about American jurisprudence, but also further made the Supreme Court an armed camp by fueling ill-will between conservative and liberal justices and their respective clerks. Within this state of siege, Lazarus argues, the clerks who worked for the swing-vote Justices ,O'Connor and Kennedy, competed among themselves for the respective Justice's attention. In this ideological battle, the conservative clerks possessed an advantage over their liberal counterparts. After the defeat of Bork in the confirmation hearings, the conservative clerks formed an alliance among themselves and the conservative Justices. This alliance was used to impress upon Kennedy and O'Connor of the soundness of the opinions of the conservative Justices. The liberal Justices, finding their numbers dwindling through retirement and their influence eclipsed by the appointment of conservatives like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, could do nothing but expect the reversal of the 20-year legacy of civil rights. Their fears were not unfounded. In many areas of law such as the death penaly, prisoners' rights, and affirmative action the Rehnquist Court protected the rights of government and the principle of a "color-blind" society. However, liberals feared most the reversal of Roe v Wade. Fortunately for the pro-choice movement, in the Casey decision a moderate center consisting of O'Connor, Kennedy, and Seuter was formed to allow the liberal Justices to ward off the conservative Justices' attempt to overturn Roe. Although Roe was preserved, pro-life activists will continue to challenge Roe well into the new millenium because for the foreseeable future, the Supreme Court will continue to be divided 5-4 in important constitutional issues. And given this fact, clerks will continue to vie for influence with those Justices who hold a swing-vote. How does one evaluate Lazarus's contention of a divided Supreme Court whose Justices are politically motivated? The division of Justices along political ideology is common. However, it reflects differences in the jurisprudence of the Justices. It is hard to discern the difference between the pursuit of political agenda and the sincere expression of disagreements over constitutional interpretation. However, Rehnquist's attempt to delay hearing on Caey until after the national elections constitute an intrusion into the political process. How often the manipulation of national politics occurs is uncertain. Lazarus argues that conference sessions under the Rehnquist court are shams. There is no debate between the justices because each side is polarized. However, this is not from the justices' shirking their duties, but the reticence reflects each side's acknowledged futility of attempting to persuade the other side of abandoning its jurisprudential philosophy. Exchanges do occur but informally in private meetings and in opinion drafts between those Justices that hold decisive votes and the entrenched conservative or liberal justices. Lazarus is lauded for providing an intimate account of the relationship between the Justices and how differences in jurisprudence are resolved or are obstructive.
Rating: 
Summary: Electrifing
Review: Closed Chambers is a fantastic book. On a recent trip to Washington D.C. I took Mr. Lazarus' book with me. I, like most people, didn't know that much about the Supreme Court. Not being a lawyer I had always thought books about law were boring. But Closed Chambers changed all of that. The high point of my trip was finishing the last pages of this masterpiece in the Supreme Court cafeteria. If you've ever wanted to learn more about the inner workings of the judicial system this is the book for you. In many ways it reads like a good novel. Fast paced and lots of fun. I can't wait for the sequel
Rating:
Summary: Devastating account of a court gone amuck
Review: Edward Lazarus exposes the failure of the modern Supreme Court with clarity and precision. This book is long and requires an interest in the Supreme Court, but is accessible to the layman (which I can say since I am one!).The surest sign that this book contains great material is the host of transparently disguised one-star reviews that have been showing up here lately. A must read for any student of the modern court.
Rating: 
Summary: An Ideological Critique Masquerading As Reporting
Review: Edward Lazarus had written a rather extensive survey with the hope that his revelation of the shrouded workings of the Supreme Court's inner sanctum will possibly spur scholars and future Justices to return this hallowed institution to its proper role. Generally speaking, Lazarus contends that the Court has fallen prey to political divisiveness that has fractured the Justices into warring camps. Lazarus bemoans that the day is gone when the Court engaged in "competing arguments, however imperfect, [that] represent reasoned, dispassionate, honest attempts to decide cases in a principled way." (p. 9) The only problem with his thesis is that it's wrong. First and foremost, Lazarus repeatedly implies that there existed an earlier time in which the Court engaged in rational persuasion, advancing politically neutral doctrines of constitutional law. For instance, he decries that a "casualty" of the rollback of the Warren Court precedents in the late 1980s was the "reputation" of the Court--because these reversals allegedly confirmed the view "that legal interpretation is driven by personality and politics rather than considered judgments." (p. 287). He decries the contemporary Court for having "abandoned the power of persuasion for the power of declaring partisan victory." (p. 8) He concludes his introduction by noting that one purpose of his book is "a hopeful plea" that the Court's "character may be restored." (p. 14) But restored to what? For those who are knowledgeable about the Court's long and distinguished history, Lazarus' complaint is hardly new--or even original. President Andrew Jackson (1828-1836) often attacked the Supreme Court in heated political terms. Many Supreme Court cases before the Warren, Burger and Rehnquist Courts contained stinging dissents that accused the majority of being dead wrong, politically motivated or both, including some of the most famous Court cases, Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) and Lochner v. New York (1905). In the Legal Tender cases (1870), the Supreme Court flip-flopped on the constitutionality of paper money within a single year--simply because two new Court appointees took their seats and thus changed the majority from one opposing paper money to one in favor of it. In Nebbia v. New York (1934), dissenting Justice Roberts lamented that the "constitution as many of us have understood it, the constitution that has meant so much is gone." (Roberts was lamenting the Court upholding some of the new welfare state legislation of the 1930s.) Following the Court's 5-4 decision invalidating the federal income tax in Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust Co. (1895), Senator Tillman attacked the decision as resulting from "one corrupt vote." Oregon Governor Pennoyer argued that Congress should "impeach the nullifying judges . . . and instruct the President to enforce the collection of the income tax." Additional examples of politicians and jurists accusing the Court of making irrational or political decisions are easy to find for anyone who wishes to do the research. Thus, there was no such era in which everyone agreed that the Court engaged in "rational persuasion" bereft of political or ideological influences. Lazarus' nostalgia for this mythical non-political era of Court decisions undercuts the main thrust of his argument. Second, Lazarus overstates the power of judicial clerks. In no uncertain terms, Lazarus decries the "danger of clerk bias and the potential for real mischief" (p. 268) and he notes that "clerks express genuine surprise and concern about the breadth of their power to shape the law of the land." (p. 273) Throughout the book, the reader is repeatedly presented with Justices who are manipulated and cajoled into positions that they allegedly would not undertake if it were not for their ideologically determined assistants. In testing the veracity of Lazarus's allegations, I approached several lawyers who have clerked on the Supreme Court, and I asked them about Lazarus' view of the power they held as clerks. The universal response: poppycock! Every former clerk I spoke to rejected Lazarus' contention that they wielded any power to push their own personal views into their Justices' mouths, regardless of whether those views were legal or political. My own experience in a state appellate court confirms this fact. I have also asked several of my friends currently clerking in various federal appeals courts around the country, and, again, the opinion was unanimous that Lazarus is simply wrong. (One of these clerks poignantly suggested that Lazarus might be suffering from his own delusions of grandeur as to the role he played in American legal history.) Finally, Lazarus' book suffers from the glaring absence of any citations for almost every one of his attributed statements. Of course, Lazarus admits that he often could not cite his quotations due to privacy concerns for his sources, but this "explanation" sounds hollow. An alleged expose of the scope and breadth Lazarus attempts to pull off demands more than a generalized claim about elusive emails and personal conversations. This is particularly pressing given the damning "indictment" (his own word, p. 14) that he is delivering. You might ask: What does all of this add up to? The answer is that Lazarus' attack on the Supreme Court does not represent the objective, dispassionate thesis that he is ostensibly offering his readers. Quite the contrary, Lazarus is advancing a decidedly political attack. Quite frankly, Lazarus is one of the many liberals who is upset at the Court's attempts over the past several decades to cabin in the excesses of the Warren Court. Of course, he could not explicitly adopt this position because his book would be written off as another rant from the left. Thus, Lazarus dressed up his thesis in the guise of a "moderate" who has problems with both the conservative and the liberal "factions." Nonetheless, at the end of the day, it is the conservative Justices who principally draw his ire, and not the warmly presented Justices Blackmun, Brennan or Marshall. The unfortunate result of his hidden political agenda is that too many facts about the Court and its history are misrepresented for the sake of his conclusions. A common refrain of Lazarus' book is the "triumph of ends over means," but this applies more to his own project than it does to the alleged events that he describes in his book.
Rating:
Summary: Well-written and engaging look at the politics of the S. Ct.
Review: Fascinating account of the current make-up of the Supreme Court. Mr. Lazurus' perspective and ability to write make this a book I just could not put down. The most difficult aspect of this book is that many of our lofty ideals about the Court are destroyed as Mr. Lazurus uncovers the political agendas of the Justices and the ideological basis of their appointments. I fear for the future of Individual rights as clearly the Court's interpretation of Constitutional values is much narrower and less comprehensive as most of us have come to expect. A must read book for lawyers and other interested in the Constitution.
Rating:
Summary: Better Alternatives Elsewhere (like "The Brethren")
Review: Finally, after about a year of alternatively reading and shelving this book, I have completed it. What a waste. First. This book simply does not stack up to any of the other books on the Court. I have read "The Brethren" by Woodward and Armstrong, and "The Center Holds" by Simon, as well as biographies of Earl Warren and Thurgood Marshall. In my opinion, this book comes close to none of them. It borrows heavily from these other books, often summarizes or quotes cases that anyone can read for themselves in a law library, and is extremely lengthy for what it gives the reader. For those who are die hard Court fans like me, steer clear! For those who want their first Court book, go get "The Brethren." Second. Mr. Lazarus writes in a convoluted manner. This is not surprising when one considers that he clerked at a court that constantly produces convoluted opinions. His chapters read in a predictable way: summary of facts, then critique, summary of facts, then critique. The factual parts were agonizing enough given that I had read them in the aforementioned books or cases. The critique was awful in terms of clarity and conciseness. Often I found myself bleary-eyed and wondering when some of the meandering criticisms were going to stop. He could have chopped his critiques in half, in terms of length. Third. Most damning is the fact that Mr. Lazarus (or maybe his publisher) is dishonest. This book is billed as an "eyewitness account" -- it says so in bold letters on the cover. But DO NOT be fooled, becuase this book is 50-75% rehash. In Closed Chambers, I read about the Scottsboro case. That happened in the 1930s -- Mr. Lazarus was not there. I read about Warren McClesky. Those cases were in 1987 and 1991 -- Mr. Lazarus was not there. I read about Roe v. Wade. That was in 1972-73 -- Mr. Lazarus was not there. I read about Casey v. Planned Parenthood. That case was in 1992 -- Mr. Lazarus was not there. It goes on and on like that. In my view, it takes a lot of guts for an author to regularly accuse the justices of "intellectual dishonesty," (he said this about Justices Brennan and Scalia both at least once) while at the same time misrepresenting to his readers what the book really is (and taking their money while doing it). To resort to a cliche, that's what I refer to as the pot calling the kettle black. In my opinion, Mr. Lazarus should have axed the book down to 200-300 pages of real eyewitness account and taken $5-10 off the cover price. That would have been fair. Finally, my recommendation: forget this book and get a paperback copy of "The Brethren" for the $6 or whatever it runs these days. It is far better, more original, and much juicier -- to the benefit of the casual reader. A final note. The reason I give this book two stars is that it has one advantage over the other books on the Court: it has substantive legal content, disseminated by someone who knows the legal aspects of these "battles." This deserves some credit. Hence, two stars.
Rating: 
Summary: Better Alternatives Elsewhere (like "The Brethren")
Review: Finally, after about a year of alternatively reading and shelving this book, I have completed it.... First. This book simply does not stack up to any of the other books on the Court. I have read "The Brethren" by Woodward and Armstrong, and "The Center Holds" by Simon, as well as biographies of Earl Warren and Thurgood Marshall. In my opinion, this book comes close to none of them. It borrows heavily from these other books, often summarizes or quotes cases that anyone can read for themselves in a law library, and is extremely lengthy for what it gives the reader. For those who are die hard Court fans like me, steer clear! For those who want their first Court book, go get "The Brethren." Second. Mr. Lazarus writes in a convoluted manner. This is not surprising when one considers that he clerked at a court that constantly produces convoluted opinions. His chapters read in a predictable way: summary of facts, then critique, summary of facts, then critique. The factual parts were agonizing enough given that I had read them in the aforementioned books or cases. The critique was awful in terms of clarity and conciseness. Often I found myself bleary-eyed and wondering when some of the meandering criticisms were going to stop. He could have chopped his critiques in half, in terms of length. Third. Most damning is the fact that Mr. Lazarus (or maybe his publisher) is dishonest. This book is billed as an "eyewitness account" -- it says so in bold letters on the cover. But DO NOT be fooled, becuase this book is 50-75% rehash. In Closed Chambers, I read about the Scottsboro case. That happened in the 1930s -- Mr. Lazarus was not there. I read about Warren McClesky. Those cases were in 1987 and 1991 -- Mr. Lazarus was not there. I read about Roe v. Wade. That was in 1972-73 -- Mr. Lazarus was not there. I read about Casey v. Planned Parenthood. That case was in 1992 -- Mr. Lazarus was not there. It goes on and on like that. In my view, it takes a lot of guts for an author to regularly accuse the justices of "intellectual dishonesty," (he said this about Justices Brennan and Scalia both at least once) while at the same time misrepresenting to his readers what the book really is.... To resort to a cliche, that's what I refer to as the pot calling the kettle black. In my opinion, Mr. Lazarus should have axed the book down to 200-300 pages of real eyewitness account.... Finally, my recommendation: forget this book and get a paperback copy of "The Brethren" for the $6 or whatever it runs these days. It is far better, more original, and much juicier -- to the benefit of the casual reader.
Rating:
Summary: An Amazing Perspective
Review: For anyone interested in the way the Supreme Court functions, this book is a must have. In taking people behind the only branch of the federal government not open to public access, the book helps us understand not only what the Court should be, but what it has become. It is also indicative of the general function of politics, showing that where once we had people engaging in debate, open to new ideas, we now have too many closed-minded blowhards! The Supreme Court is an enourmously important branch of the federal government, and deserves the utmost respect, however, this book is a must have for all people concerned with the true way our republic functions. A defninite must for all Americans!
Rating:
Summary: compares favorably to Brethren, but focused on law
Review: Given that a fairly large number of my classmates at Harvard had high aspirations of clerking on the Supreme Court, it was always surprising to me that none of them had read this book. Reading through the (often unfair) reviews here, it is not surprising why.
Several complaints of Lazarus' 'unfair' attitudes are evinced: Lazarus focuses on abortion, discrimination, and death penalty 'snapshots' from a legal historical perspective then turns to the inner workings of the court.
Shallower readers more interested in Grisham or other fiction might object to Lazarus' description of the Scottsboro case: a legal reader wouldn't begin trying to understand death penalty litigation without that critical starting point. Lazarus describes death penalty obstructionists as dueling with death penalty hawks - such as law clerks who threw parties when executions were carried out, while Marshall/Brennan clerks conducted vigils.
After Woodward/Armstrong's scathing reviews of Blackmun in 'The Brethren,' one cannot fault Lazarus for striving to resuscitate Blackmun's career. After all, the man read deeply, thought profoundly, and cared tremendously about his legacy (which comes down, for better or worse, to Roe v. Wade).
And this drives the large number of deprecatory reviews: people who hate Roe v. Wade will hate anything written about Blackmun with the slightest degree of fairness, deriding the author unfairly and underscoring his claims that closed, prejudiced (or at least, pre-judged) minds dominate, and only a few are willing to stand up to them.
Particularly telling is the origin of the 'centrist' coalition - O'Connor, Kennedy, and temporarily, Souter - which stood against Marshall/Brennan/Stephens (the liberal wing) and Rehnquist/Scalia (the conservative wing).
All of which is dull, tiresome reading for those looking for journalistic treatments of wheeling and dealing. Those looking for such writing should turn to Woodward/Armstrong's 'The Brethren.' Those looking for more informed history should turn to Morton Horwitz's treatises.
But for understanding the role of a clerk - the power and limits - as well as precious insights into Blackmun, an enigmatic jurist unloved by liberals or conservatives, and to read these treatments along with concise, and quite balanced legal history - this is a fine book.
Rating:
Summary: Informative and accessible
Review: I agree with most of what the other reveiwers have written about this book. It is a very well-written and accessible account of the Supreme Court and its development in recent times. As another reviewer mentioned, Mr. Lazarus is honest about his liberal views and biases, and he is quite clear about which of his observations are accurate historical accounts and which are colored by his poilitical view. I found the book to be enjoyable and informative, and to contain some good basic explanations of how the Supreme Court works.
|
