Rating: 
Summary: Fascinating book provides inside scoop on the supremes
Review: It is about time that someone brings sunlight to the inner workings of the Supreme Court. In spite of his decidedly liberal political leanings, Lazarus provides an objective look at the inner workings of the supreme court circa 1988. Lazarus does an excellent job of showing how the polarization of the Court has been detrimental to the pursuit of justice, just as the polarization of Congress has been detrimental to the legislative process.
Although non-lawyers may find his writing a bit technical, particularly on esoteric legal issues, they will nonetheless appreciate his candid views on the justices' decisionmaking process.
And finally a challange to the critics who believe that Lazarus has betrayed his employer: Please explain why we are not entitled to know how the highest court in the land makes its decisions. Congress has public hearings that are broadcast on CSPAN. The President receives more media attention than any other person in the world (absent the late Princess Di) and his minions will write dozens of tell-all books after he leaves office. Why should the Court be exempt from scrutiny? If the justices are embarassed then maybe they should change their ways.
Rating: 
Summary: All hype, no content
Review: It was a good thing I didn't pay for my own copy. I would have felt a fool. This book fails to deliver any substance of the nature or causes of the compromises and/or non-compromises made by the Justices. The only thing this book does well is the one thing that it should not do, and that is to reveal the confidences to which the author was privy. The author seems to have forgotten that he received the confidences in his capacity as a lawyer. It is just as well that the author is now a prosecutor. No private corporation or individual would want to hire a lawyer who divulges information communicated in confidence.
Rating: 
Summary: A nice insider look at the Court.
Review: Lazarus breaks with tradition at substantial risk to his reputation to divuldge important insights about his time at the Court as a clerk to Justice Blackmun. The stories are well told and understandable, even for a non-lawyer, but the detail and seeming embellishment of some of the accounts leaves one wondering just how genuine Lazarus's insights might be.
Rating:
Summary: A balanced and depressing look inside the Court
Review: Lazarus spices up his history of the recent court with lots of insider trivia, but at its heart this is a book about legal decision making. The portraits of the Justices are fascinating--Kennedy duplicitously conning Marshall; Rhenquist (who, it is revealed, harrassed African-American voters in the 1960s and had language on the covenant of his summer home preventing sublease or sale to Jews) postponing a crucial abortion-rights decision in an attempt to influence the 1992 elections; Brennan stubbornly eroding his support through inflexibility and demands that he author opinions; etc. Sometimes the details are most revealing--that Byron White, when he met someone, would squeeze their hand as hard as he possibly could, and see if they would squeeze back. And sometimes the details are trivial but charming--Justice O'Connor teaching aerobics in the Court's gym, for example.The insider stuff, scattered here and there throughout the book, is so fun to read that the legal discussions sometimes seem a bit heavy in contrast (this is especially true for the abortion discussion, though Lazarus's portrait of a struggling Blackmun is outstanding). Still, the book provides an excellent history of the past two decades of Court decision making, and it makes clear why the Court is so terribly fractured. Finally, the book reveals just how powerful and influential Court clerks are. If you find it at all disturbing that 27-year olds are basically writing Supreme Court decisions, and that they are also enormously influential regarding last-minute death penalty appeals, then you simply must read this book.
Rating:
Summary: A restrained view of ideological splits at the Supreme Court
Review: Lazarus, who clerked for Justice Blackmun during the 1988-89 term, has written a behind-the-scenes look at the court and its decisions during that term. He focuses on abortion and capital punishment cases; somewhat surprisingly, he doesn't discuss the growth of "federalism." His overall thesis is that the overpoliticization of the Supreme Court nomination process, as exemplified by Bork's rejection, has resulted in a deep split between liberals and conservatives on the court, with the outcome in the control of Justices O'Connor and Kennedy, both of whom are too much subject to the influence of their clerks, especially a well-organized, highly partisan group of conservative clerks. The book combines the clerk-driven content of "The Brethren" with documentary evidence from the Thurgood Marshall papers and a more sophisticated analysis of the legal issues. It provides a more complete view of Chief Justice Rehnquist's work style and why he has been so much more effective than Chief Justice Burger at effectuating the conservative legal agenda. It shows how the troubling developments of that period, such as the cert pool, have grown into monsters. It looks briefly at the newest justices (Thomas, Ginsberg, Breyer) and accurately characterizes Ginsberg so as to explain her frequent alliance with Rehnquist. The book, despite its publicity, tells no tales out of school. It is much less chatty than "The Brethren." Its tone follows Justice Blackmun into sentimentality. With news reports missing or giving less space to the ideological battles occasionally revealed by the court's decisions, lay followers of the court should make a point of reading this book.
Rating:
Summary: Good explanation of an often ignored institution.
Review: Mr. Lazarus has done the impossible. He has taken easily the most complicated and most misunderstood of our governmental institutions and wrote a book giving the layreader access to it's inner-workings. Yes, you will have to think. It's no bed time reading, but it's much easier to follow than Rehnquist's 'The Supreme Court' and much less bitter than Iron's 'Peoples History'. Despite the reviewer below me's warnings, Mr. Lazarus is very fair in his treatment of the issues (abortion, flag burning, racism). For the record, he is liberal, but he admits it from the outset and does a great job making it obvious when his opinion is being given as opposed to fact. The reviewer below me thinks that the author has an inexcusable liberal bias, but I suspect it's just the reviewer's over-conservative bias that is to blame. Yes, he points out justices flaws, but that's no reason to accuse him of bias. Heck, if I had to guess, I'd say the justice Mr. Lazarus has the most respect for was my favorite justice, Scalia (just in case the reader below thinks I'm a liberal). No matter where you stand, it's obvious from the outset that Mr. Lazarus has a profound respect for the institution and although he points out certain flaws in their omnipotence (really the only unchecked institution in our government), he gives us many reasons to respect and admire the court. Wonderful job. Now BUY THE BOOK!!
Rating:
Summary: Good explanation of an often ignored institution.
Review: Mr. Lazarus has done the impossible. He has taken easily the most complicated and most misunderstood of our governmental institutions and wrote a book giving the layreader access to it's inner-workings. Yes, you will have to think. It's no bed time reading, but it's much easier to follow than Rehnquist's 'The Supreme Court' and much less bitter than Iron's 'Peoples History'. Despite the reviewer below me's warnings, Mr. Lazarus is very fair in his treatment of the issues (abortion, flag burning, racism). For the record, he is liberal, but he admits it from the outset and does a great job making it obvious when his opinion is being given as opposed to fact. The reviewer below me thinks that the author has an inexcusable liberal bias, but I suspect it's just the reviewer's over-conservative bias that is to blame. Yes, he points out justices flaws, but that's no reason to accuse him of bias. Heck, if I had to guess, I'd say the justice Mr. Lazarus has the most respect for was my favorite justice, Scalia (just in case the reader below thinks I'm a liberal). No matter where you stand, it's obvious from the outset that Mr. Lazarus has a profound respect for the institution and although he points out certain flaws in their omnipotence (really the only unchecked institution in our government), he gives us many reasons to respect and admire the court. Wonderful job. Now BUY THE BOOK!!
Rating:
Summary: A Balanced Presentation
Review: Mr. Lazarus is a liberal. Refreshingly, he freely admits this, and, when recounting his time on the court as Justice Blackmun's clerk, candidly describes his personal feelings about the cases on which he worked. At the same time, Mr. Lazarus takes pains to point out the shortcomings of both liberal and conservative decisions, criticizing both ideological camps. Moreover, Mr. Lazarus also attempts to explain how both liberals and conservatives could have used different, and in his view, more legally defensible arguments for their decisions. It is unusual in this age of constant partisan bickering to find an author who attempts to fairly characterize the shortcomings on both sides. For this reason alone, the book is a breath of fresh air when compared to other books in this genre, which attempt only to justify the arguments of one side or another. Despite his biases, Mr. Lazarus has made an honorable attempt to present an honest critique. More importantly, Mr. Lazarus illustrates what I believe to be the most important issue before the court today, which is the predilection for both liberal and conservative judges to decide cases based on their personal views, and then attempt to justify the decisions after the fact by using whatever convenient legal arguments happen to lie at hand. For the Court to be effective, and its decisions respected over the long term, justices on both sides of the ideological divide must scrupulously adhere to rigorous legal reasoning, and must be willing, on the basis of that reasoning, to join opinions that may conflict with their personal philosophies. The Supreme Court is supposed to be a temple of the law, not just another political branch of the government. Unless the Justices realize this, and act accordingly, they will squander their remaining respect among the American people. Additionally, the calls that have already been made to amend the Constitution to reduce the Court's independence will continue to gather support. Mr. Lazarus makes these arguments convincingly and fairly. Both liberals and conservatives who are concerned about the court should think carefully about these issues. Mr. Lazarus' book is a good start.
Rating:
Summary: First-Rate Critique of the Supremes
Review: Mr. Lazarus' command of the legal implications of several decades of Supreme Court decisions is excellent. Extremely well-researched, brave, eloquent and incisive. I recommend this book to all legal professionals and anyone interested in critical legal thought and its social implications. I especially benefited from the author's discussion of the death penalty cases and his deft efforts at making sense of them. He is able to explain the highly complex reasoning of many Supreme Court decisions without sacrificing, like many authors, by "dumbing" down the explications.
Rating: 
Summary: Could use some heavy editing
Review: Mr. Lazarus' editor clearly did not have the backbone to redact much of the tedium from this book. The text is at its strongest when Lazarus describes what he witnessed during his days as a clerk for Blackmun. In addition, much of his description of the Rehnquist Court helps contribute to his overall thesis, which is that an increasingly fractured Court is detrimental to the health of the judiciary. Although the author clearly falls on the left end of the spectrum, he does a decent job of compensating for this bias by examining issues from many different sides. Unfortunately, much of the text does little to contribute to Lazarus' point. The windy history of capital punishment and the Court could have been told in at least fifty fewer pages; the same is true of the account on the Court and abortion. Wading through this history may be worthwhile for aficionados of Court history (like me) but others will probably find it tedious.
| 
