<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Called for jury duty? Show up with this book!
Review: As other reviewers have noted, this book is not an in-depth analysis of legal issues. Rather it's an attempt to provide an informal, backstage glimpse into life on the Supreme Court from the perspective of the first woman justice. Some of her points will loom large with women who, like me, were "firsts" on a much smaller scale. For instance, she notes the significance of changing the nameplates from "Mr. Justice..." to simply "Justice..." As we might expect from a down-home woman who was brought up riding horses in Arizona, O'Connor remains modest and matter-of-fact. She recognizes her role and the respect she deserves. She describes the difficulties of women in the law, frankly and without self-pity, and acknowledges the preference for sharing experiences with other women in law. And her behind-the-scenes glimpses reflect her perspective as a woman who cares about people as well as principles. She shares wonderful anecdotes about Thurgood Marshall. And she says absolutely nothing about Clarence Thomas, even when discussing the process of confirmation to the Court. In my favorite chapter, Justice O'Connor raises strong, provocative questions about jury duty. Established 900 years ago, she says, the concept remains sound but the implementation is due for an overhaul. Why shouldn't jurors take notes? Why should they be subjected to long waits in uncomfortable rooms? And jurors surely deserve better compensation, she says. O'Connor compares US juries with those of other English-speaking countries -- England, Canada, and Australia. She notes that other countries do not send civil cases to juries as frequently, so jurors do not have to sit through days and weeks of complex testimony that leaves them so bewildered they may as well flip a coin. (Actually a coin flip would be fairer than trying to sort through half-remembered facts!) And lawyers spend so much time psyching out jurors they want to challenge that jury selection can take weeks. In Europe, says O'Connor, juries are selected in minutes! If anything, Justice O'Connor doesn't go far enough. Paying for jury service won't help a self-employed or sales person who could lose an account worth thousands of dollars. And jurors often experience serious emotional symptoms following a difficult case. However, it is refreshing to hear such honesty from a distinguished member of the legal profession. O'Connor even recalls the New Yorker cartoon where a jury foreman tells the judge, "We find the defendant guilty and sentence him to jury duty." So true! I'm told that some juries begin to identify with criminal defendants -- they're treated in more or less the same way! If you know someone who's called for jury duty, buy him or her this book -- good reading for the interminable, senseless waiting time.
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting
Review: I got this abridged audio CD from the library. I found the book interesting and enlightening. It covers topics from the history of the constitution, musings on certain supreme court Justices including Thurgood Marshall, a brief history of the women's rights movement, and problems with the law today and jury issues. Sandra read the book herself on the CD, an her voice sounds friendly but crackles a bit with age. It inspired me to want to serve on a jury someday, though with trepidation. I don't feel like I was missing much by listening to the abridged version. Of course, if you want real depth on one of the topics she discusses, look for another book. This just covers the topics, and makes everyone feel good. There is not much she says that you can argue with. I kept wondering if she wrote this to ameliorate the population ruffled at the Supreme Court's arbitrary handling of the Florida recount upset in 2000.
Rating: 
Summary: Dull and unappealing
Review: I picked up this book because I am currently in law school and I felt like it would give me some insight into the political undertones of the Supreme Court. However, I found it to be boring beyond belief. It was written like a 5th grade civics textbook. Justice O'Connor went on and on about the historical meaning of the constitution. She spent very little time on influential cases the Supreme Court has looked at in the past 20 years. It was really not at all worth the time. Even for someone who is just looking to learn the basics of the Supreme Court, you would fare better by pulling out an encyclopedia. It is certainly more concise.
Rating: 
Summary: Okay, but strictly elementary.
Review: I'm not sure what _The Majesty of the Law_ is really about. It's partly a recap of the writing of the U.S. Constitution and a few important people and decisions in the Supreme Court's history. It's partly a history of the women's movement. It's partly Justice O'Connor's personal recollections about people she's worked with. What she writes is basically okay, but there is nothing particularly interesting or challenging about it. Most of the ideas presented are civics class platitudes--people should be treated equally regardless of race or gender, and that sort of thing. Nothing much wrong with it, but it is not as intellectually stimulating as some other judges' and justices' books. Perhaps it is best compared to a junior high social studies book, which happens to be written by someone who has spent a couple of decades on the United States Supreme Court. And that's part of what makes it so frustrating: anyone could have given us this kind of runthrough of the material she covers, even without being a Supreme Court justice. Surely Justice O'Connor has more to offer than this. It's not quite a bad book. It might be useful to introduce a 12-year-old to the material, and if that is what she was aiming for, she has done well. But well read adults who have heard it all before are likely to be bored.
Rating:
Summary: Okay, but strictly elementary.
Review: I'm not sure what _The Majesty of the Law_ is really about. It's partly a recap of the writing of the U.S. Constitution and a few important people and decisions in the Supreme Court's history. It's partly a history of the women's movement. It's partly Justice O'Connor's personal recollections about people she's worked with. What she writes is basically okay, but there is nothing particularly interesting or challenging about it. Most of the ideas presented are civics class platitudes--people should be treated equally regardless of race or gender, and that sort of thing. Nothing much wrong with it, but it is not as intellectually stimulating as some other judges' and justices' books. Perhaps it is best compared to a junior high social studies book, which happens to be written by someone who has spent a couple of decades on the United States Supreme Court. And that's part of what makes it so frustrating: anyone could have given us this kind of runthrough of the material she covers, even without being a Supreme Court justice. Surely Justice O'Connor has more to offer than this. It's not quite a bad book. It might be useful to introduce a 12-year-old to the material, and if that is what she was aiming for, she has done well. But well read adults who have heard it all before are likely to be bored.
Rating:
Summary: Informative
Review: Like other books from Supreme Court Justices, this one is informative and interesting. It is very easy to read, probably more so than some of the others. The sections on law and history are very interesting. The section on women was not quite as interesting, but that was to be expected (focusing on a special interest as opposed to the broader scope of the court). The explanations of how the Court works is very good and something about which the public is often wrong. Overall, a good Supreme Court book.
Rating:
Summary: Well written, but unfufilling
Review: Sandra Day O'Connor has the wonderful ability to make the intricacies of the nation's highest court intelligible to the layman. Unfortunately, she doesn't take that ability very far to provide insight into the complex inner workings of the Court. For the most part, the book sticks to very basic concepts, many of which are well known to those with a basic understanding of the Supreme Court. The first two sections of the work, "Life on the Court" and "A Bit of History," cover topics such as how the justices interact, how opinions are assigned, and what jurisdiction the court has. These issues may be interesting to those who are unfamiliar with SCOTUS, but for those with working knowledge the first quarter of the book will be very unrevealing. In addition to the basic subject matter, there is no single thematic element that drives this book. It is essentially a collection of many different stories and subjects centered around, for the most part, Mrs. O'Connor's encounters with the law. That makes for an interesting read (she has some really great anecdotes), but it means that no issue gets much attention. There is not the deep, probing examinations of issues such as due process or judicial reform that are provided in William Rehnquist's work, "The Supreme Court." These issues receive very little attention in "The Majesty of the Law." As can be expected, O'Connor does a great job with the section on women in law. Much of this segment charts the history of women's rights and the history of women as lawyers and judges. O'Connor often gets asked if she thinks women adjudicate differently than men. She gives some very interesting commentary on this question before ultimately deciding that gender does not impact the application of law. The most interesting section is the last one: The Rule of Law in the 21st Century. O'Connor finally starts to make arguments about the role of the court, and the future of the judicial issues. She examines international law, and the lessons that the Supreme Court can learn from other high courts. O'Connor makes some very interesting arguments, but the discussion is very limited and seems like an afterthought. I imagine that this is not the last work from our nation's first female Supreme Court Justice. Hopefully the next offering will be more analytical, and will provide more of the great explanatory style that makes this work an interesting, although introductory, examination of law in America.
Rating:
Summary: Well written, but unfufilling
Review: Sandra Day O'Connor has the wonderful ability to make the intricacies of the nation's highest court intelligible to the layman. Unfortunately, she doesn't take that ability very far to provide insight into the complex inner workings of the Court. For the most part, the book sticks to very basic concepts, many of which are well known to those with a basic understanding of the Supreme Court. The first two sections of the work, "Life on the Court" and "A Bit of History," cover topics such as how the justices interact, how opinions are assigned, and what jurisdiction the court has. These issues may be interesting to those who are unfamiliar with SCOTUS, but for those with working knowledge the first quarter of the book will be very unrevealing. In addition to the basic subject matter, there is no single thematic element that drives this book. It is essentially a collection of many different stories and subjects centered around, for the most part, Mrs. O'Connor's encounters with the law. That makes for an interesting read (she has some really great anecdotes), but it means that no issue gets much attention. There is not the deep, probing examinations of issues such as due process or judicial reform that are provided in William Rehnquist's work, "The Supreme Court." These issues receive very little attention in "The Majesty of the Law." As can be expected, O'Connor does a great job with the section on women in law. Much of this segment charts the history of women's rights and the history of women as lawyers and judges. O'Connor often gets asked if she thinks women adjudicate differently than men. She gives some very interesting commentary on this question before ultimately deciding that gender does not impact the application of law. The most interesting section is the last one: The Rule of Law in the 21st Century. O'Connor finally starts to make arguments about the role of the court, and the future of the judicial issues. She examines international law, and the lessons that the Supreme Court can learn from other high courts. O'Connor makes some very interesting arguments, but the discussion is very limited and seems like an afterthought. I imagine that this is not the last work from our nation's first female Supreme Court Justice. Hopefully the next offering will be more analytical, and will provide more of the great explanatory style that makes this work an interesting, although introductory, examination of law in America.
Rating:
Summary: Let's Here it for the Court
Review: This is an excellently written volume about the basic story of the Supreme Court with some historical as well as personal stories related by the esteemed justice. This is hardly a scholarly work but I don't think it was intended to be and I feel that Joe and Jane Public would find it extremely interesting. Justice O'Connor is a talented writer and I heartily recommend this book for your early summer reading lists.
Rating:
Summary: Occasionally a little light on scholarship but a great read
Review: While occasionally suffering from a rose colored view of the world this is an immensely enjoyable and informative book.
Broken up into several different sections this book ranges from a look at the progress of women in society in general, within the law in specific as well as an overview of several areas of jurisprudence. I must admit that I wasn't expecting too much from this book after reading the initial chapter. Thanks to a teacher who I very much respected, Professor Kobylka, I received an excellent in-depth look into several areas of Con Law so I didn't think that this would offer much to it - but I was wrong! While I really enjoyed those classes there is much that could be gained from getting wide view of everything in it's contact in addition to having had those areas of in depth study.
O'Conner, in her unique position as the first female justice on the supreme court, also provides great insight into the position of women in the law today. While personally I prefer the jurisprudence of Ginsburg in this area to that of O'Connor's I was still able to get new insight into those areas which I as a man am so often unaware of.
The only real time that I felt something was really left out of the legal history provided here was that Ex Parte McCardle was left out of the discussion of habeas corpus jurisprudence.
While one shouldn't go into this work with the expectation that it is a scholarly piece it is both enjoyable and informative and whereas other works are better suited to academic purposes getting to read the thoughts of an actually justice is highly valuable.
<< 1 >>
| 
