Rating: 
Summary: James Carville in the Supreme Court
Review: This book provides overwhelming evidence of how unelected, Leftists Supreme Court law clerks abuse their positions to make public policy. The author clerked for the late Justice Harry Blackmun who tried his best to incorporate Leftist values into the Constitution against the will of the vast majority of the American people. Lucky for us, Justices Scalia and Thimas have neutralized this vast left wing conspiracy. Like Carville, the author holds most Americans, including those reading this review, in utter contempt.
Rating: 
Summary: Un-Closed Chambers
Review: This finely written inside look at the Supreme Court will not surprise many law students. As a student myself, I've read some of the convulated reasoning and hypocrisy that substitutes for judgment by the court. But it's inevitable. These people may be brilliant, but they're still people. The one thing I missed from this book is more background on the justices. Knowing this might have helped me understand why they vote the way they do.
Rating:
Summary: Good, intelligent look at the modern Supreme Court
Review: This is an excellent book showing the behind the scenes decision making process of the Supreme Court. It is hard to read this book and not become cynical about the Supreme Court, however, I think scrutinized under the proper wattage light, this book could be seen as having a potentially happy ending. I would recommend this book highly to anyone in the legal profession, it is an intelligent narrative of the many decisions in two areas of the law, death penalty and habeas corpus, and abortion. It is also an excellent inside look into the politics of the selection process of Justices and the politics inside the Court.
Rating: 
Summary: "Closed Chambers" is an insightful--yet biased--narrative
Review: This publication is fascinating! It reveals the secret battles from behind the closed doors of the Supreme Court of the United States (from a certain perspective). Mr. Lazarus attempts to inform the reader of knowledge that isn't necessarily in the public domain or readily available, besides Chief Justice Rehnquist's "Supreme Court" book and perhaps "The Brethren" by Bob Woodward. I would recommend reading those two publications before an reading this book. This is necessary so you may more easily spot the obvious bias of the author. However, my only objection remains thus: Mr. Lazarus wants to persuade the reader to accept the premise that the conservative justices on the Court are "evil" and that their battles and agendas need to fail. The term he focuses on is at the beginning of Justice Kennedy's Supreme Court career. He paints him as a hard-line conservative, frequently following the lead of Justice Scalia. That has been proven wrong on many occasions. Since Mr. Lazarus clerked for Justice Blackmun, he figures that Blackmun had no flaws whatsoever and every other conservative Justice (unless he or she is a turn-coat) is simply the "Devil's Advocate." The author's political philosophy is prevalent throughout. Also, as I understand it, Mr. Lazarus fills the book with half-truths or out right lies! For example, he attempts to persuade the reader that Justice O'Connor is sympathetic towards abortion because she had a daughter that had an abortion. WHAT A LIE! It is no secret that Justice O'Connor had two sons and NO daughters. Besides, Justice O'Connor openly discussed the issue with President Reagan before her appointment to the Supreme Court. He said that personally she is opposed to abortion but her judicial philosophy encompasses stare decisis, the doctrine that established law (common law and statutory) ought to be respected and relied unless there is a serious constitutional issue which would undermine the constitutionality of such a law. (Of course there are flaws with Roe v. Wade, but at least she respects the doctrine and does not allow her personal bias to get in the way of her participation on the Court.) Another interesting fact about the United State Supreme Court: it is political in nature. "Oh no! How could that be? I thought they were unbiased!" Politics is politics. The Court hears cases that have a significant impact on issues Americans face, almost on a daily basis. Sometimes you see the political process come out in the members of the Court trying to get a concensus on certain issues. Every Justice has a right to their views and interpretation of the Constitution, and we ought to expect them not change because of our personal bias and extreme partisanship. Justices give and take on some areas or issues in order to establish a more reasonable policy, law, whatever, or to allow for another case in the future to be heard in the future so that they may distinguish it from the another case. Sometimes there is a major schism on a particular issues (i.e., Bush v. Gore). Nevertheless, on the first Bush v. Gore case, a consensus was made in their per curiam opinion and the opinion was carefully crafted to a very specific issue, not a broad ruling like the second Bush v. Gore case in which the split was more obvious. Brown v. Board of Education is a case where a consensus was made after the Court had heard the case twice with two different Chief Justices. Justices have a right to have their vote count, especially when their views on certain issues are quite strong. They can attempt to manipulate the votes of other Justices. There is politics even on the Supreme Court. I simply say to those who whine: this is the nature of the Court and you can't really do anything about it. If you changed the process and nature the Court considers cases, then you wouldn't have all the cases you brag about supporting your cause because those cases involved the same process. Mr. Lazarus whines a lot about the diliberative and political process of the Court. STOP WHINING LIKE A BABY! Despite this major flaw, I would recommend the reader to enjoy the book with a cautious, open mind, understanding that there is more to the story than Mr. Lazarus portrays.
Rating: 
Summary: Terrific and Insightful
Review: This tells it all. A worthwhile read for anyone who is interested in the Court system in this country.
Rating:
Summary: James Carville in the Supreme Court
Review: We have this perception that our Supreme Court Justices as somehow John Houston-type, erudite professors of the law. This book smashes those conceptions and shows that though many are brilliant, their pre-conceived biases have a major role in their decisions. You rapidly learn to determine how a particular justice will rule on any case...before you read the facts of the case. What then becomes the interesting focus is the superb arguments of the always-liberal justices and the always-conservative justices to the somewhat-middle-of-the-road justices.
I was dismayed to find that some justices who were selected for politically-correct reasons or even for superb pre-Supreme Court work, suddenly became lazy louts who let their Clerks have the ultimate power. I was frightened by the fact that young clerks who haven't really TASTED life are entrusted with so much power in RULING our lives. I remember my idealistic views in my youth contrasted to my more crusty, life-experienced views now, and would hate to have had my untried youthful life to be in charge of the country.
The book showed me that it would be far superior to have a system of legal powers working as Assistants to the court.....to have well-known legal professors doing a locum tenums for a year or two, rather than some ultra-bright kids doing the work.
One justice in particular stood out as a do-nothing justice..a joke to the court. One justice stood out as a vote-liberal-no-matter the case. One justice stood out as a vote-on-the-winning-side.
It's somewhat sad, because after reading the book, I realized that I could predict almost every Supreme Court ruling before it was handed down. The liberal wing ALWAYS votes liberal, ALWAYS pretends to find a legal flaw in death penalty cases, the conservative wing ALWAYS votes conservative and seemingly doesn't care for the rights of individuals, whereas the middle-court it usually predictable in which way they will swing. Usually their is a personal agenda involved, rather than the rule of law.
The one prevailing concept, however, that over-ruled these was precedent. I was surprised how powerful precedent was and how strongly the justices tried not to change precedent.
This book is a must read for anyone in the legal profession, and a must read for anyone who cares a hoot about how their country reads.
I have mixed feelings about the Clerks who violated their oaths of secrecy to write this book....I feel the Freedom of Speech argument and the Public's Right to Know outweighs that consideration, but still, they lied.
Rating:
Summary: Closed Chambers, a Spectacular secret Supreme Court look
Review: We have this perception that our Supreme Court Justices as somehow John Houston-type, erudite professors of the law. This book smashes those conceptions and shows that though many are brilliant, their pre-conceived biases have a major role in their decisions. You rapidly learn to determine how a particular justice will rule on any case...before you read the facts of the case. What then becomes the interesting focus is the superb arguments of the always-liberal justices and the always-conservative justices to the somewhat-middle-of-the-road justices.
I was dismayed to find that some justices who were selected for politically-correct reasons or even for superb pre-Supreme Court work, suddenly became lazy louts who let their Clerks have the ultimate power. I was frightened by the fact that young clerks who haven't really TASTED life are entrusted with so much power in RULING our lives. I remember my idealistic views in my youth contrasted to my more crusty, life-experienced views now, and would hate to have had my untried youthful life to be in charge of the country.
The book showed me that it would be far superior to have a system of legal powers working as Assistants to the court.....to have well-known legal professors doing a locum tenums for a year or two, rather than some ultra-bright kids doing the work.
One justice in particular stood out as a do-nothing justice..a joke to the court. One justice stood out as a vote-liberal-no-matter the case. One justice stood out as a vote-on-the-winning-side.
It's somewhat sad, because after reading the book, I realized that I could predict almost every Supreme Court ruling before it was handed down. The liberal wing ALWAYS votes liberal, ALWAYS pretends to find a legal flaw in death penalty cases, the conservative wing ALWAYS votes conservative and seemingly doesn't care for the rights of individuals, whereas the middle-court it usually predictable in which way they will swing. Usually their is a personal agenda involved, rather than the rule of law.
The one prevailing concept, however, that over-ruled these was precedent. I was surprised how powerful precedent was and how strongly the justices tried not to change precedent.
This book is a must read for anyone in the legal profession, and a must read for anyone who cares a hoot about how their country reads.
I have mixed feelings about the Clerks who violated their oaths of secrecy to write this book....I feel the Freedom of Speech argument and the Public's Right to Know outweighs that consideration, but still, they lied.
Rating:
Summary: Good but not a "tell all"
Review: Well written. Would have liked more juicy insider info, but can understand that the author needed to preserve certain confidences. Interesting too to see where some of the conservative clerks mentioned in the book have ended up -- as Kenneth Starr's protégés after Clinton got elected. (From the National Law Journal 8/31/98 "K&E's appellate group is now led by partners Paul Cappuccio and Christopher Landau, who joined the firm as Starr protégés in 1993 and have since learned to fly solo.")
Rating:
Summary: Clearly a very liberal view of recent changes in Justices
Review: While a generally very enjoyable book, Mr. Lazarus gets overly bogged down in case specific details not necessarily pertinent to the new overall direction of the present Court. Moreover, the constant criticism of the new direction of the Court, represented by Justices Renquist and Scalia began to be redundant. Clearly, Mr. Lazarus is diametrically to the left of Court's present make-up. Unfortunately, while indeed a fan of the Warren Court, a more balanced analysis would have offered the reader more valuable substance. All-in-all, however, a very worthwhile read.
Rating:
Summary: An expose' on how the "High Nine" dispense (in?)justice.
Review: While in law school, I spent a short time as an extern law clerk for the chief justice of a state supreme court. Contrary to David Garrow's (New York Times) debunking of Lazarus' experience, I found it to be right on point--at least as far as the basic operation of a supreme court goes. Readers will be appropriately shocked to learn that this "court of last resort" is not interested in the outcome of a case as it pertains to the individual parties' constitutional rights; rather, it's the legal principles that an individual's case might be used as a vehicle for the current court to make changes in the law. This book will accurately alert the reader to some "unhealthy" Court practices that ultimately can--and already have affected every individual's rights in the country. The book is easy to read, although the pace is somewhat slower than necessary in some parts. DO read this book!
|
