Rating: 
Summary: A Riveting and Thoughtful Story of Law and Politics
Review: I approached CLOSED CHAMBERS in response to hearing that a Supreme Court Clerk--a coveted one-year position as assistant to the Justices gained by a handful of top law graduates each year--had written a book about the experience and the Court reacted by tightening its rules. Instead of scandal, however, in CLOSED CHAMBERS I found a profound analysis of burning legal questions, primarily the death penalty and abortion. The author does not use the clerk's vantage point to sully the reputation of the Court or to give the impression of arbitrariness in the process by which the Supreme Court reaches its decisions. This unique perspective is used to show the reader the human side of the process, and show how the democratic decisions of the electorate came to influence policy through the persons that the elected, mostly Republican, Presidents could get approved by the mostly Democratic Senate. Of course, this seems genuinely interesting to me, because I realize the unavoidably subjective and political nature of much legal decision-making. Others might see the same text as debasing the sanctity of the objectivity of the law. The decisions of the Supreme Court have not been considered objective application of the law' in many decades--but, yes, the few who might read CLOSED CHAMBERS believing in objective application of the law might be surprised to find acknowledgment of subjectivity, here as in practically every other book about law written in the last 100 years.The book offers little, if any, gossip and much legal reasoning. The history of the death penalty litigation occupies the greater part of the book, and is given in rich historical detail. Somewhat less time is spent on abortion, but the analysis there is even stronger--perhaps because the author does not overextend his arguments in reaction to the outcome. The outcome in the death penalty litigation is that the Supreme Court has not only considered the death penalty proper from the perspective of constitutional law, but has also curtailed the appeals process, has approved 'victim impact statements', and has accepted the disproportional application of the death penalty. All this runs strongly against the author's beliefs and sense of justice. His response is to document each expansion of the application of the death penalty extensively and to make it appear as a morally contra-indicated political decision. While I agree that it is a political decision, I cannot see that any argument based on 'objective legal reasoning' could be made either way. The content of the Constitution's 'cruel and unusual' punishment clause is defined by the Supreme Court, and the electorate who elected a string of tough-on-crime, Republican Presidents, caused the definition of 'cruel and unusual' to not preclude the death penalty. While this may contravene the sense of morality of a large minority, it is the result of persistent democratic will, which is well nigh unassailable. The political Left would be well advised to accept the majority's decision and avoid squandering political capital on a closed issue. The author's strongest argument against the death penalty is based on statistical evidence. The death penalty is imposed more frequently if the victim is Caucasian than if the victim is African American. From this, the author concludes that prosecutorial discretion drives the difference. This would mean that prosecutors are racially biased, the same way as an employer with disproportionate hiring biases. But that is not necessarily the case. My view is that the disparity is consistent with the acceptance of victim impact statements. Juries and more generally the criminal justice system should impose different penalties for different harms to society. The statistics and the victim impact statements suggest that juries adjust deterrence by the social harm and the disruption caused by different murders. The identity of the victim matters for the degree of disruption suffered by a society and for its deterrence. It is telling that the statistical study shows that the racia bias diminishes (without disappearing) when all factors are included in the multiple regression. With this caveat that the book wails a bit much about the death penalty, its analysis is extraordinarily appealing. The reader gets history, law, facts, the social environment between the Justices and the clerks at a politically charged time. The legal scene of the eighties and early nineties is transmitted as high drama. Then, just as dramatically, the author produces the same synthesis for abortion. After the fall of the liberal cause in the case of the death penalty, the book's abortion narrative is truly suspenseful. Still, the author shares the resentment of the left at the restrictions placed on reproductive freedom and its unequal availability, as a result of the Supreme Court's upholding of federal and state refusal to finance abortions. In the abortion segment of the book, the analysis is stronger. In addition to the privacy concern, the author reveals the much more recent and persuasive argument--and an argument that appears to be the author's own--that abortion is not only about privacy but also about equality between the sexes. A policy that forces the gestation of embryos burdens women but not men. Only women must give their body, time, and freedom. The recent statistical findings of Donahue and { that legalized abortion reduced the crime of offspring without reducing the number of children that women had, adds a crucial additional argument that has recently surfaced. To conclude, CLOSED CHAMBERS is a fascinatingly thoughtful book, a rivetingly dramatic account of a tumultuous period of the legal history of the nation. If you are interested in these legal battles, you will love the book.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent book. Great controversy.
Review: I bought this book specifically because the reviews were either one star or five stars. That suggested to me that their was good controversy here, and I wasn't disappointed. I devoured this book and found it fascinating and rich with information and learning. The author should be commended for the tremendous research and insight into the inner workings of the court and understandable descriptions of the judicial issues involved. It was quite accessible to me even though I'm a layman. While being a relative new comer to history and non-fiction texts, I found the book a little less readable than "A Civil Action" by Anthony Lukas, which I think sets the standard, and I think the author could have made his point of view more effectively by being a little more judicious in giving it. However, the insights on the give and take strategy of judicial opinion making and the feeling of the culture inside the court made for fascinating and sobering reading. I'm already suggesting it to my friends.
Rating:
Summary: Two can play at this game
Review: I find it very curious that after months of good to excellent reviews at Amazon.com, we see a sudden spate of one-star pans, all similarly phrased. (Do these reviewers note how similar their writing is with respect to sentence construction and vocabulary choice?) I'm pretty sure that Hillary would see a right-wing conspiracy, maybe as small as one bored guy with multiple IP addresses. These book has a few weaknesses, principally it's a little long for the average reader, but it's unusually fair in explaining both sides of an issue in relatively neutral terms. It's true, it is evident that the author is rather upset by such miscarriages of justice as executing a near-retard for a homicide that may have been accidental, but if the 'conservatives' -- a gross misnomer in this situation -- want to throw the switch on guys like this, they have to pay the price when the story comes out. I should mention that besides being unusually thoughtful and fair the author is my brother. (And BTW I can spoof IP addresses as well or better than you guys out there can, so knock it off....)
Rating: 
Summary: Tedious, long-winded read; not the Brethren.
Review: I selected this book based upon Amazon's recommendation for those who enjoyed "The Brethren." The Brethren was enjoyable and accessible, for lawyers and non-lawyers alike. The writer of the Brethren didn't thrust his own ideology in your face at every turn. I devoured the Brethren in a few nights. However, "Closed Chambers" is a long, tedious read that I forced myself to finish. The book wallows in legal minutae. I'm an attorney and still find it over the top. The book takes long detours into the history of tangential issues instead of discussing the personalities on the court. The book examines only few issues from a definite political perspective. By the end of the book, you have been presented with a simple formula: 1) the court is politicized and polarized; 2) decisions reflect ideology without proper respect for precedent; and 3) the conservatives on the court have been obstacles to the issues important to the author (capital punishment and abortion) and embroiled in a legal "counterrevolution" to the Warren Court. If I wanted this kind of political commentary, I could just turn on "Crossfire" and watch the talking heads spew slogans while not listening to each other. This book is disappointing, particularly because the author appears to be so intelligent. If you liked the Brethren and are looking for a similar book on the Rehnquist court, keep looking past "Closed Chambers."
Rating: 
Summary: I would give this book no stars if I could
Review: I thought the idea of this book was to reveal the inside workings of the court. It totaly fails to do so. Obviously the author's brother has to be kind in his review. However, to say that the book has "weakneses" is an understatement. Read the Bretheren and capture the real experience of being inside the court
Rating:
Summary: Where's the substance?
Review: I was really surprised by the tone this book took after the first three chapters. I'm not a lawyer. Therefore I was not captivated by the tedious legalisms that the author got into. It's a shame. The first three chapters were very interesting and informative. I don't understand why Mr. Lazarus turned the theme of the book from his experiences as a clerk into an advocay piece. Too bad it missed the mark.
Rating:
Summary: On hardback or paperback, this book is trash
Review: I wasted my money with this book, don't make the same mistake
Rating: 
Summary: Liberals v. Conservatives
Review: I'm a big fan of the Supreme Court; I love reading about the Court, its Justices, and the workings behind the most important Court in the world. True, this book was a rather good book when it came to describing the inner turmoil of the Court, the conservative Chief Justice against the liberal Justice Marshall, Justice Scalia vs. Justice Blackmun. But it seemed as though too much was placed on the fighting, and not enough on his own experience. It seems as though his experience is all turmoil. I doubt that this was the only "good" thing that came about the experience. If anyone wants to read a good book that is fantasically written, read "The Brethren." If you've already read it, then maybe this book is worth a look/see.
Rating:
Summary: A fascinating, well-written book
Review: I'm not a legal buff at all, but I couldn't put this book down. In addition to providing interesting (and sometimes horrifying) information about how the court works, the author does a masterful job making complex legal issues understandable to the lay person. He makes a powerful case that politics and personal views have made justices abdicate their responsibility to reason together and judge cases fairly. No matter which "side" you may take on various issues, this is entertaining reading which will increase your insight into major issues.
Rating:
Summary: A great look inside the Supreme Court from one who was there
Review: It amazes me that previous reviewers have said the Brethren by Bob Woodward, the noted reporter from the Washington Post, is a more accurate portrayal of the inner workings of the court than this fine volume by Mr. Lazarus. I am a lawyer and have studied the court as much as anyone. It must be noted for these naysayers that we have no idea where Woodward's stories came from, but Lazarus was a law clerk and at the center of the court's daily workings. This is not a book that seeks to entertain the naysayers like so much gossip, but as the author plainly states in his introduction, an effort to illustrate how the court has become so factious with primary focus on certain issues such as the death penalty. If you are looking for a soap opera, by all means, read the Bretheren. If you are looking for true scholarship from someone who was there, read this book.
| 
