Rating: 
Summary: A Good "Law 101" Textbook.
Review: If all you want is a rehash of major Supreme Court cases, then this book deserves a 5. I bought it because I wanted to learn more about Mr. Starr, who is one of the most unfairly maligned figures in American history. In that regard, this book fails.While I did learn some law that I didn't previously know, what I wanted was some opinion by an author who should be nominated to the High Court. While the theme of the book is consistent with its title (that the USSCt is first among the equal branches), I have no idea if Judge Starr approves of it. (Of course, that might make his nomination more difficult.) All in all, it's a rather bland read. It lacks the pizazz of, say, Robert Bork's "The Tempting of America," or Randall Kennedy's "Race Crime and the Law," or anything Dershowitz. While blandness makes for an awesome Supreme Court justice, it makes for a rather boring book. If Judge Starr ever wants to open up, and give his feelings on the Clinton fiasco, I'll be the first on line to buy it.
Rating: 
Summary: Very interesting book
Review: Ken Starr may best be known for his role in the attempt to end Bill Clinton's presidency through impeachment, but to this book he brings a real expert's background because of his experience in the office of the Solicitor General (the chief lawyer for the U. S. Government) and on the Circuit Court for the D. C. Circuit (the level just below the Supreme Court), both of which gave him a reason to interact directly with the Justices of the Supreme Court. While Starr goes back to the beginning, especially the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, where the Supreme Court first asserted its right to make the ultimate decision as to what is constitutionally permitted and what is not, his primary focus is on the recent history of the Court, after the death of Earl Warren. He goes into what the Court has decided in the Burger and Rehnquist years, and even more importantly, the judicial philosophies of the Justices who have served in these years, and how those philosophies caused them to decide cases the way they have. The book ends with the 2000 election and the Bush v. Gore decision, which overruled what many feel was an unjustified Florida Supreme Court decision and paved the way for George W. Bush's inauguration as President. This part of the book may be controversial to some, but it certainly shows that Bush v. Gore was well within the envelope of the kind of decision the Court has made in the past, despite protests by Gore partisans that the Court was acting politically. I recommend this book to anyone interested in how the Supreme Court functions today.
Rating:
Summary: Written decidedly from the right but well worth the read
Review: Kenneth Starr's "First Among Equals, the Supreme Court in American Life" offers a conservative view of the dynamic workings of the Supreme Court. Mr. Starr was a Supreme Court clerk of Chief Justice Warren Burger. He spends some time discussing different justices approach to interpreting the Constitution. He seems to favor the strict constructionist or textual approach followed by the likes of Justice Scalia. However he points out that other justices may take a historical view and follow the rule of stare decisis. He shows the least regard for the "living Constitution" approach. The Courts approach to some of the major cultural issues of the past fifty years are covered. First Amendment free speech issues from flag burning to campaign financing are covered. There are chapters on church and state issues, abortion, affirmative action and equal representation in the political process. His views are critical of the Warren Court's expansion of the protection of criminal defendants rights under the fourth and fifth amendments as well as the Warren court's tendency to usurp the legislative function. The final four chapters cover the courts roll in defining the relationship between the different divisions of our government. Here he covers issues of federalism and the relationship of the Court to Congress and to the executive branch. He devotes very little space to his own investigation of Bill Clinton but devotes most of the chapter on the relationship of the court to the executive branch to developing the proposition that the President must stand before the bar of justice just like anyone else. The final chapter is devoted to the issues (Constitutional or not) raised by the Bush vs. Gore controversy and is very enlightening. This book is written decidedly from the right but well worth the read.
Rating:
Summary: Written decidedly from the right but well worth the read
Review: Kenneth Starr's "First Among Equals, the Supreme Court in American Life" offers a conservative view of the dynamic workings of the Supreme Court. Mr. Starr was a Supreme Court clerk of Chief Justice Warren Burger. He spends some time discussing different justices approach to interpreting the Constitution. He seems to favor the strict constructionist or textual approach followed by the likes of Justice Scalia. However he points out that other justices may take a historical view and follow the rule of stare decisis. He shows the least regard for the "living Constitution" approach. The Courts approach to some of the major cultural issues of the past fifty years are covered. First Amendment free speech issues from flag burning to campaign financing are covered. There are chapters on church and state issues, abortion, affirmative action and equal representation in the political process. His views are critical of the Warren Court's expansion of the protection of criminal defendants rights under the fourth and fifth amendments as well as the Warren court's tendency to usurp the legislative function. The final four chapters cover the courts roll in defining the relationship between the different divisions of our government. Here he covers issues of federalism and the relationship of the Court to Congress and to the executive branch. He devotes very little space to his own investigation of Bill Clinton but devotes most of the chapter on the relationship of the court to the executive branch to developing the proposition that the President must stand before the bar of justice just like anyone else. The final chapter is devoted to the issues (Constitutional or not) raised by the Bush vs. Gore controversy and is very enlightening. This book is written decidedly from the right but well worth the read.
Rating:
Summary: Great insight into the supreme court
Review: Maybe it was just me, but this book held my attention like a good novel does. Of course, I have an interest in the supreme court. Starr certainly has the experience to know what he is talking about, and he successfully wrote it in easy to read and understand language.
Rating:
Summary: Great insight into the supreme court
Review: Maybe it was just me, but this book held my attention like a good novel does. Of course, I have an interest in the supreme court. Starr certainly has the experience to know what he is talking about, and he successfully wrote it in easy to read and understand language.
Rating:
Summary: An inspiring view into the nuances of the Court
Review: Mr. Starr's work offers an engaging and inspiring view into the nuances of the Court and the constitutional debates defining today's US society. Mr. Starr surgical overview of Roe has placed me in the uncomfortable position of having to examine my believes. The discussion about the Court's decision to engage into the Gore vs. Bush debate and the role it ended up playing, brings to light the main element that distinguishes us from most of the nations on Earth, we are governed by our laws. The book is so good, I'm reading it again!
Rating:
Summary: Overview of the Progressive History of Constitution & Court
Review: Prominent attorney Starr writes a provacative and easy read of his take of the history of the land's highest court. His style of writing and organization show the calculated and organized reasoning of a man of the court. Starting with the history of the court and its justices, he then proceeds through the major areas of Supreme Court cases, starting with freedom of speech, moving on to first amendment concerns, then on to religion in the public arean, then parochial schools and public money, right of privacy, affirmative action, gerrymandering, mapp and miranda issues, statuatory issues, federalism and presidents and the court. One notes these trends in Starr's analysis: the inconsistency of the court in some areas, e.g. state aid to parochial and church-related schools, federalism. Starr certainly provides insight into the troubling concern of some why a conservative court doesn't quickly overturn previous court decisions, showing their reluctance to polarize country with fast moving direction decisions. As a respected trier of fact and Supreme Court advocate, Starr expresses his opinions with eloquence, compassion and clarity. It certainly shows the vastly enlarged role the highest court has taken in the life of our country in the post-Warren Supreme Court era. A great read which simplifies and explains much of what many of us don't understand nor take the time to research. Here Starr does all that in a most readable and enjoyable work.
Rating: 
Summary: Not what I thought!
Review: Star's book attempts to provide the reader with an analysis of Supreme Court decisions that have been key in American histrory. Unfortunetly, his attempt simply turns into a one sided view. Generally speaking (in Star's eyes), any liberal decision made by the Supreme Court is an overt action of "Liberal Judges" making law rather than interpreting law.
Star's views are best illustrated by his praise for the "young" Rehnquist who believes that Miranda should be overturned. However Star then berates the Chief Justice Rehnquist for subsequently affirming Miranda. All in all, the book falls far short or critically analyzing decisions the court made or the theories onvolved. The book does a good job of lambasting "liberal" judges and sanctifying "conservative" judges. However, I will give Star merit for a well written book. I would skip this book and choose a more balanced book if you are interested in learning about the Supreme Court
Rating:
Summary: A Short History of Constitutional Law.
Review: The best part of this book, in my opinion, was at the end: The Constitution of the U. S.; all ten sections, 7 Articles, 27 Amendments (newest in 1992) The first ten Amendments, in effect since 1791, make up the Bill of Rights.
One thing almost caused me to bypass a book written by Ken Starr, who'd been Supreme Court clerk for Chief Justice Warren Burger, was because of his harassment of Bill Clinton (when he was president) who wanted to use his office as chief executive "immunity" to postpone a controversial personal civil case until he had finished his term. Also, Starr seemed to be the main accuser in the Whitewater investigations as independent counsel.
This highest court in the land is composed of nine justices (guess that's why the committees and boards in Knoxville City government have only nine members), most of whom are remote from American society. They speak to the public through their written opinions. With this august group, you can't beat around the bush or stall for a better moment.
One critical issue in our last presidential election was who would choose the next person to sit on this important Supreme Court. He declares Sandra Day O'Conner, appointed by former President Reagan, as the most powerful and recognized of the present group. He calls Clarence Thomas its most original thinker. And, the most influential justice in the 20th century was Earl Warren. President Clinton appointed Ruth Bader Gingsberg in 1993.
In 1983, Ken Starr was appointed to the U. S. Court Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit, where he served more than five years. He gives a short history of this highly respectable and venerable group; created by the Constitution in 1789. At times, it has been referred to as a "revolutionary" court and upset a lot of people when the public schools could no longer allow students to say prayers or recite Bible verses, and insisted on a stricter separation of church and state.
Our Constitution which has governed laws and citizens' rights for 216 years also created the Congress and the presidency. Elections of the people decide who sits in Congress and occupies the White House. These nine justices, by contrast, are appointed by the president who is in office at the time of a vacancy, subject to Senate approval. The chief justice is answerable to the Senate.
The Court's 2000 decision in the presidential election litigation was criticized as exceeding its appropriate and legal authority by an "unelected" branch of government. It was regarded as activist by liberals and conservatives. Al Gore won that election but, because of a technicality decided on by the Supreme Court, he was not allowed to serve. These justices, most of whom were appointed by Republican presidents, overstepped the reason for their being -- to resolve legal issues, not policy-making.
Since 1986, William H. Rehnquist has been Chief Justice. During the Iran-Contra affair, his Court upheld the law through a balancing and weighing process. We may elect a president, but his Court can control him. The judiciary, not the two political branches, can weigh matters in the balance and then come to a judgment.
The Supreme Court's role as the authoritative, final voice in the framework of representative government (such as overturning affirmative action) makes it the 'first among equals.' Ken Starr teaches constitutional law at New York University and George Mason University. This book was a Main Selection of the Conservative Book Club.
| 
