First Among Equals: The Supreme Court in American Life

Rating:
Summary: Behind Those Momentous Decisions
Review: "First Among Equals" is an interesting book about the U.S. Supreme Court authored by an experienced legal practitioner - Kenneth Starr, who needs no introduction.

This book is intended for the lay person; it has no legal jargon and is very readable. It is organized around a set of constitutional issues as illustrated by what might be called some of the landmark cases pertaining to those issues. Starr manages to lay out highly legalistic issues in simple terms without diluting their significance, and in the process walks the reader through the history of the Court since the New Deal Court, all the way to the most recent Rehnquist Court decisions. The Court's history, as such, in large measure reflects the Nation's history as seen through the litigation of some of the most controversial issues - abortion, free speech, church and state, criminal justice, affirmative action, federalism, etc.

In telling his story, Starr puts great emphasis on the background and judicial philosophy of the individual justices, which puts a human dimension to an otherwise academic subject.

"First Among Equals" is a worthwhile effort that bridges a gap between the highly legalistic arguments and the ordinary people, whose life are profoundly affected by the decisions of the Court. For anyone who is interested in rendering after-dinner opinions on events in the political, social and legal landscapes, this book is an invaluable backgrounder.

Rating:
Summary: Behind Those Momentous Decisions
Review: "First Among Equals" is an interesting book about the U.S. Supreme Court authored by an experienced legal practitioner - Kenneth Starr, who needs no introduction.

This book is intended for the lay person; it has no legal jargon and is very readable. It is organized around a set of constitutional issues as illustrated by what might be called some of the landmark cases pertaining to those issues. Starr manages to lay out highly legalistic issues in simple terms without diluting their significance, and in the process walks the reader through the history of the Court since the New Deal Court, all the way to the most recent Rehnquist Court decisions. The Court's history, as such, in large measure reflects the Nation's history as seen through the litigation of some of the most controversial issues - abortion, free speech, church and state, criminal justice, affirmative action, federalism, etc.

In telling his story, Starr puts great emphasis on the background and judicial philosophy of the individual justices, which puts a human dimension to an otherwise academic subject.

"First Among Equals" is a worthwhile effort that bridges a gap between the highly legalistic arguments and the ordinary people, whose life are profoundly affected by the decisions of the Court. For anyone who is interested in rendering after-dinner opinions on events in the political, social and legal landscapes, this book is an invaluable backgrounder.

Rating:
Summary: Starr offers valuable insight on an institution he reveres
Review: Early in FIRST AMONG EQUALS Ken Starr describes President John Adams as a "virtuous, principled man, lacking in political skills." This characterization could easily be applied to the author himself. Starr, the independent counsel whose investigation in 1998 of the Clinton-Lewinsky mess led to the passage of two articles of impeachment in the House of Representatives, was famously demonized in a public relations war waged by his political enemies who sought to discredit him and his work as independent counsel. Four years later, Starr returns to the public arena as the author of a book about the Supreme Court, an institution he worked for as a clerk and appeared before in private practice and as Solicitor General under the first President Bush. The book opens a window through which Court observers --- casual and professional alike --- will gain insight into the Court's history, workings, and personalities.

In examining the Court over the last thirty years, Starr reviews the tools and methods the Court uses to decide polarizing cases involving abortion, criminal procedure, free speech, affirmative action and others. Starr, a political conservative, prefers decision-making processes that adhere to precedent, are firmly rooted in statutory or Constitutional text, and aspire to the unifying principles of equality and neutrality. In the 1960s, under Chief Justice Earl Warren, the Supreme Court was prone to --- in Starr's view --- the worst sort of activist decision making. The Warren Court acted not as judges but as liberal political reformers who, with "missionary zeal," sought to reshape society through a series of radical, constitutionally unsound decisions.

Although FIRST AMONG EQUALS includes no formal analysis of the Warren Court, Starr frequently references Warren for his lasting impact, especially with regard to privacy issues. For example, the right to abortion found in Roe v. Wade, which was decided after Warren left the Court, would likely not have happened were it not for expansive privacy rights first announced by the Warren Court.

Warren Burger sat as Chief Justice from 1969-1986. As a young lawyer, Starr clerked for Burger and he provides unique perspectives on opportunities missed by that Court. Burger, unpopular among his fellow justices, was a poor consensus builder. And Starr, to his credit, does not fail to harshly criticize his former boss for perceived failings. For example, Starr bemoans the fact that Burger was unable to muster the votes required to overturn the famous Miranda decision, which mandated that people in custody be provided with warnings aimed against self-incrimination. Starr almost relegates Burger to an insignificant figure when he indicates that it was Lewis Powell, not Burger, who commanded the most respect on the Burger Court. Powell, Starr claims, was the driving force shaping the issues at the time.

Starr himself served as a judge for five years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. He says he learned that honorable, disinterested judges are the ones who can vote against the people who helped put them on the bench. However, the current Supreme Court justices for whom Starr has the most praise --- Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas --- are the ones who consistently fail this test. Scalia and Thomas usually vote on the same side of most issues, and they almost always vote in a way that accords with the beliefs of their judicial patrons. Thomas is alleged by Starr to be an original thinker, brimming with ideas.

Yet Starr fails to provide examples of his originality. Rather, Starr cites numerous cases where Thomas predictably comes down on the conservative side of a given dispute. By contrast, Justices O'Connor, Kennedy, and the once ultraconservative Rehnquist have established credentials as innovative thinkers, capable of voting in ideologically surprising ways. Rehnquist, for example, adheres strictly to the principle of upholding precedent --- his instincts generally tell him to support existing case law for the sake of judicial consistency. To this end, he has a proven record of voting to uphold cases, like Miranda, which run contrary to his core political philosophy.

Starr clearly has personal preferences among members of the current Court, and he is not afraid to make plain his disdain for Justices Souter and Stevens. In a chapter discussing the Bush/ Gore election dispute, he relates an anecdote in which Souter comes across as unprepared and almost foolish, as one of the advocates for then Governor Bush corrects Souter on an obvious fact in the record. Starr has great respect for Justice Breyer's intellect and his ability to build consensus. Justice O'Connor is another favorite, who Starr calls the "most influential and powerful woman in America."

In the end, however, Starr's real favorite is the Court itself. FIRST AMONG EQUALS is his love letter to an institution he reveres. And this authoritative telling of some of its history adds greatly to the rich tapestry of Supreme Court literature.

--- Reviewed by Andrew Musicus

Rating:
Summary: First Amoung Equals: The Supreme Court in American Life
Review: First Amoung Equals: The Supreme Court in American Life written by Kenneth W. Starr is a book that looks into the Rehnquist Court as he offers the reader an incisive and unpreedented view at paradoxes, power and the people who serve on the highest court in the land.

When reading anything about the law, lawyers tend to loss readers because they are lawyers and can't speak in simpler terms and understandable English... they used too much lawyerese. This book was refeshing in that it is highly readable and understandable making for a enjoyable read.

This book is divided into three parts and each part has chapters, all organized to get the reader up to speed. Starr begins this book with a thirty year evolutionary history of the Supreme Court with the Supreme Court then and now and then a chaapter on the Justices. We see that the Court decisions are fairly consistant... which I found to be surprising since the Warren Court and Burger Court were quite different in make-up.

The Rehnquist Court is different still... all stemming from the human side of the court as it shaped our laws.

Part two of the book looks at freedom of speach, the first amendment and politics, religion in the public square, parochial v. private schools, abortion, affirmaive action, gerrymandering, the exclusion of evidence from criminal trials, and Miranda. Granted there is a lot to cover here, but Starr makes the reading cogent and lucid so you can understand the complecxity and why things happen the way they do. Ever aware that his audience here are not lawyers, he gives us a compelling and supremely readable book.

Part three is about the powers and structure of American Government. Here we find out about the statutory conversation between Court and Congress, the Rehnquist Court and the Federal Republic, Presidents: the Court and the Executive Branch and of course, Bush v. Gore. Here again, Starr makes this enjoyable to read as he explains in a very readable terms as he sheds light on one of the most frequently misunderstood legal pillar of American life... as the Supreme Court goes, so goes much of our nation's culture, society and politics.

I found this book, first to be highly readable and understandable, next perseptive and brimming with insight. If you are looking for a book on recent history, (thirty years), about the Supreme Court this is your book.

Rating:
Summary: Great Primer On Judicial Conservatism.
Review: First, who the author is should not be an issue to a reviewer or potential reader. Those liberals that loathe Starr would be well-served to read this book if they want to understand how a judicial conservative thinks. Those liberals wanting mindless rhetorical support of their judicial philosophy, look elsewhere.

But for what it's worth, Starr has been discribed as a "moderate" by the legal titan Judge Posner. As the title of my review indicates, if one wants to understand judicial conservatism, then this is a great start--for the liberal or conservative or indepedent.

Starr draws on a lifetime of experiences--Supreme Court Clerk, Federal Judge, Solicitor General, Indepedent Counsel, and private attorney--to write this highly informative and illuminating work.

This book is a perfect primer for someone who wants to understand judicial conservatism--liberal or conservative alike. While Starr is certainly a judicial conservative, there is no attempt to cloak his bias as objective fact. It's clear at every point when Starr criticizes a decision why he thinks it's wrong. One is free to critique his analysis on their own.

This book covers the big Warren Era decisions and why many conservatives were concerned and dismayed with many of the Court's rulings during (and after) that era. Perhaps more important than the judgments themselves is the methodology the Warren Court employed. That is, the Court seemed unwilling to put the Constitution itself in the foreground, instead preferring to implement their political whims and specific social agenda. Mapp v. Ohio. Miranda v. Arizona. And, of course, Roe v. Wade are discussed.

Starr then goes on to discuss how the Court has changed--to a distinctly more catious, deliberative, lawylerly, and scholarly direction. He discusses the individual justices as well, which are the most influential, etc. One gets a feel on how each justice approaches constitutional interpretation.

The Rehnquist Court and its jurisprudence are discussed in detail, and the author's many personal experiences during this era (Judge, Solicitor General) provide many useful tidbits of information. Speaking not of what he read heard, but what he personally experienced makes this book more readable than many others in the same category.

Recent Rehnquist Court decisions on Affirmative Action, abortion, criminal procedure, gerrymandering, First Amendment rights, and much more are discussed. Starr probes the central question: how is the Rehnguist Court different than the Warren and Burger Courts? He provides many useful insights and analysis on this question.

First Among Equals is light on meaningless rhetoric and heavy on facts and analysis, but always eminently readable. Strongly recommended.

Rating:
Summary: Great Primer On Judicial Conservatism.
Review: First, who the author is should not be an issue to a reviewer or potential reader. Those liberals that loathe Starr would be well-served to read this book if they want to understand how a judicial conservative thinks. Those liberals wanting mindless rhetorical support of their judicial philosophy, look elsewhere.

But for what it's worth, Starr has been discribed as a "moderate" by the legal titan Judge Posner. As the title of my review indicates, if one wants to understand judicial conservatism, then this is a great start--for the liberal or conservative or indepedent.

Starr draws on a lifetime of experiences--Supreme Court Clerk, Federal Judge, Solicitor General, Indepedent Counsel, and private attorney--to write this highly informative and illuminating work.

This book is a perfect primer for someone who wants to understand judicial conservatism--liberal or conservative alike. While Starr is certainly a judicial conservative, there is no attempt to cloak his bias as objective fact. It's clear at every point when Starr criticizes a decision why he thinks it's wrong. One is free to critique his analysis on their own.

This book covers the big Warren Era decisions and why many conservatives were concerned and dismayed with many of the Court's rulings during (and after) that era. Perhaps more important than the judgments themselves is the methodology the Warren Court employed. That is, the Court seemed unwilling to put the Constitution itself in the foreground, instead preferring to implement their political whims and specific social agenda. Mapp v. Ohio. Miranda v. Arizona. And, of course, Roe v. Wade are discussed.

Starr then goes on to discuss how the Court has changed--to a distinctly more catious, deliberative, lawylerly, and scholarly direction. He discusses the individual justices as well, which are the most influential, etc. One gets a feel on how each justice approaches constitutional interpretation.

The Rehnquist Court and its jurisprudence are discussed in detail, and the author's many personal experiences during this era (Judge, Solicitor General) provide many useful tidbits of information. Speaking not of what he read heard, but what he personally experienced makes this book more readable than many others in the same category.

Recent Rehnquist Court decisions on Affirmative Action, abortion, criminal procedure, gerrymandering, First Amendment rights, and much more are discussed. Starr probes the central question: how is the Rehnguist Court different than the Warren and Burger Courts? He provides many useful insights and analysis on this question.

First Among Equals is light on meaningless rhetoric and heavy on facts and analysis, but always eminently readable. Strongly recommended.

Rating:
Summary: First Among Equals: The Supreme Court in American Life
Review: Having read the other reviews, I have begun to wonder if we all read the same book!

Starr addresses the problems of the Supreme Court in dealing with the chasm between Common Law and Statutory Law... an area for which American attorneys are apparently poorly prepared by law school or subsequent training and work experience.

Starr obviously holds in high regard the legal approach of Justices Scalia and Thomas (who focus on the text of statutes in their interpretation), but does a poor job of explaining why THAT approach to judicial interpretation is fundamentally superior to the other approaches discussed.

While Starr speaks well of the other Justices, when addressing their personal traits or personality, he can hardly conceal his contempt for their judicial acumen when their opinions or decisions diverge from the "textual" approach of Justices Scalia and Thomas.

I bought the book in hopes of gaining insight into how the Court makes it decisions, and Starr's analysis was useful in some respects. But, that said, I came away wanting to find a more balanced perspective, as this book made me feel Starr's objectivity and value as a guide has been badly crippled by his partisanship.

The book was not what I had hoped it would be. Rather than a scholarly analysis, it was a polemic in scholarly trappings.

I do think I have a better understanding of Kenneth W. Starr's approach to the world.

Rating:
Summary: High Court Analysis With Out Equal
Review: How and why the Supreme Court impacts our lives is exposed. The negative impacts are great. Unfortunately, the book details numerous instances where even the Rehnquist court leaps above the constitution (a contract between the people and the government) and becomes the constitution in ways that a majority of citizens would be in opposition-if informed. This book may start the monumental task of informing. Hence, the title of the book. At the same time a significant minority favors the liberties and physical safety lost through the court. On page 184 is the following sentence. "The world of appellate judging is light years away from the realities of law enforcement on the street." In so many words, the observation is made about the high court in many other areas.

The people speak most powerfully to the government through the amendment process. Since the first ten amendments, the bill of rights, amendments have averaged one every 15 years. Amendment requires three quarters of the state legislatures to approve-- this is to limiting. This constraint could be modified by amendment or more unnerving-eliminated.

Considering the subject this book is shockingly easy to read and bursting at the seams with meaningful insights and authority. Decades of experience (in, around and before the high courts) entitles Starr respect on the subject. On Amazon.com the professional reviewer Ben Fein says: "Kenneth W. Starr's credentials for examining the U.S. Supreme Court are matchless." Clerk to Chief Justice Burger, solicitor general, five years on court of Appeals, practicing before the Supreme Court are the highlights of his authority. Reviewers that leap at the opportunity to brand the author of political right wing bias are not serving you well. No one is obliged to read only one book on the subject; this book should be on everybody's short list of worthy books on recent history. This book is not about Ken Starr. The book is about what the supreme court has been doing to you and other citizens and why you should care.

The individuals on the Rehnquist court are discussed in considerable detail. On average one or two justices are appointed each four-year presidential term. Once on the court their views frequently change defying presidential ability to influence the long-term. The changed Senate view toward rejecting nominees for political reasons may suffer the same fate. He observes that in the short run, objective review of the nominees has suffered.

Ken Starr shows us how the Supreme Court carved out its power over the law of the land. In chapter 5 (Religion in the Public Square.), Starr helps one understand how the supreme court, has taken its tortured journey in trying to define the First Amendment segment on religion. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The supreme court's micro management of religion issues at the lowest local level takes some explaining as the book does. The effort may not be satisfactory to you. It appears to be the way it happened. Polls show that most people are religious in some form though frequently not participating in and organized religion. Religion studies are about seeking the unanswerable questions that are on every persons mind with usually searing interest. We have seen that the unprepared tend to leap at literal interpretations of ancient texts for easy answers. There ought to be a way to allow for the study of the seven great religions generally at an early level in our schools. This reviewer suspects the reckless ban now in place will not last.

The first amendment rights of the press are well articulated and deeply established in law and in USA culture. While the major media feigns accuracy in reporting, it goes no further than the immediate facts and leaves its premises and biases intact. One can dream of the day when the average citizen understands this protected and exalted position set forth in the constitution for the most lowly of media outlets and the most exalted. When most understand the rule of reader beware, much cultural progress could be made. As this book observes there is little room to see it otherwise under the constitution as it has been interpreted. The tyranny of the press will remain unchecked except by the consumer turning away from each entity one by one. While the press seems to have as a primary goal to tear down individuals in and out of the government and sell conspiracy and intrigue for the sake of readership, its potential for good were it more deeply informed remains considerable. It has had its periodic great moments in history. Moments that could come more frequently with a more meaningful education then journalism by most reporters.

The Supreme Court is trying to find that line of distinction between what the media does in its everyday treatment of "news" and information disseminated during a political campaign. The Court seems to be grabbing onto the slogan "money is not speech". The trouble with that slogan is that the media dissemination of speech also has to be paid for by the media owners or indirectly the consumers of media. Neither court nor congress has the lofty god like ability to define good money from evil money. If the press can speak with out being accountable to any one other then another media form, surely another source of speech should be held to no higher standard then being accountable to media disclosure and harassment. The chapter on politics, money and the first amendment is exquisitely timely.

My main complaint it lacks a solid explanation for the courts commitment to stare decisis as opposed to setting rulings right where the current court sees it differently. After all it is the highest court in the land. Numerous other topics are detailed in the book. School vouchers, separation of church and state, Gore Vs Bush, exclusion of evidence, abortion, and affirmative actions are a few. Gerrymandering to create minority safe congressional districts is fascinating and raises many questions. This book is a high quality offering on vitally important issues by someone that reveres the Supreme Court.

Rating:
Summary: A Must Read to Understand Our Supreme Court
Review: I bought this book after seeing Starr on T.V. in a speach/question and answer forum about the book. In the forum, he spoke of how his editor kept sending the manuscript back to him insisting he remove the legal jargin that the general public would not understand. It was a success. As a non-student of law or courts, I got a huge education from this book. It was very readable and useful to understanding the Supreme Court and it's decisions for the last half of the century. He brings it all together showing how a series of decisions throughout the years led to the court taking the Bush Gore case and asserting itself as the most powerful branch of government as "first among equals."

Note: this is not a history of Starr or his involvement in the Clinton years. But he does draw on his experience as a law clerk, soliciter general, and appelate court judge to show his personal insight into the court.

I personally couldn't put it down until I was done reading it.

Rating:
Summary: A Must Read to Understand Our Supreme Court
Review: I bought this book after seeing Starr on T.V. in a speach/question and answer forum about the book. In the forum, he spoke of how his editor kept sending the manuscript back to him insisting he remove the legal jargin that the general public would not understand. It was a success. As a non-student of law or courts, I got a huge education from this book. It was very readable and useful to understanding the Supreme Court and it's decisions for the last half of the century. He brings it all together showing how a series of decisions throughout the years led to the court taking the Bush Gore case and asserting itself as the most powerful branch of government as "first among equals."

Note: this is not a history of Starr or his involvement in the Clinton years. But he does draw on his experience as a law clerk, soliciter general, and appelate court judge to show his personal insight into the court.

I personally couldn't put it down until I was done reading it.