 | | |
| A People's History of the Supreme Court: The Men and Women Whose Cases and Decisions Have Shaped Our ConstitutionRevised Edition | 
 enlarge | List Price: $18.00
Buy New: $10.19
You Save: $7.81 (43%)
Buy New/Used from $7.85
Avg. Customer Rating:  (based on 24 reviews)
Sales Rank: 121197
Category: Book
Author: Peter Irons
Publisher: Penguin (Non-Classics)
Studio: Penguin (Non-Classics)
Manufacturer: Penguin (Non-Classics)
Label: Penguin (Non-Classics)
Languages: English (Original Language), English (Unknown), English (Published)
Media: Paperback
Edition: Revised
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 576
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1.4
Dimensions (in): 8.9 x 6 x 1.5
ISBN: 0143037382
Dewey Decimal Number: 347.732609
EAN: 9780143037385
ASIN: 0143037382
Publication Date: July 25, 2006
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
Recent changes in the Supreme Court have placed the venerable institution at the forefront of current affairs, making this comprehensive and engaging work as timely as ever. In the tradition of Howard Zinn?s classic A People?s History of the United States, Peter Irons chronicles the decisions that have influenced virtually every aspect of our society, from the debates over judicial power to controversial rulings in the past regarding slavery, racial segregation, and abortion, as well as more current cases about school prayer, the Bush/Gore election results, and "enemy combatants." A comprehensive history of the people and cases that have changed history, this is the definitive account of the nation?s highest court.
Amazon.com Review
The savvy, chatty author of The Courage of Their Convictions brings us a scholarly reckoning of the 200-plus years of decisions made by the highest court in the land. Not surprisingly (and justifiably, given his erudite arguments), Peter H. Irons represents the court's work as a never-ending appeal of the powerless to the powerful: of the just over 100 supreme justices who have sat on the court, all but two have been white, all but two have been men, and all but seven have been Christian, whereas the supplicants to our nation's highest bar are typically racial minorities, women, and deviants in some way from the religious and social mainstream. Taking a representative (if not comprehensive) accounting of the Supreme Court's most significant decisions, Irons puts cultural and political context--and a human face--to the parties involved, painting an absorbing and involving picture of landmark cases that readers are likely to recall but not fully understand. Whether he's explicating the tortuous history of freedom-seeking slave Dred Scott or explaining the "a Jap's a Jap" reasoning behind the legal exculpation of World War II internment camps, Irons reminds us of the court's spotted history while still conveying the deep affection he has for it. (Includes a thoughtful appendix with the complete text of the Constitution and suggestions for further reading.) --Paul Hughes
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 19 more reviews...
 A Patriotic Triumph of Historiography April 3, 2008
13 out of 18 found this review helpful
Peter Irons is an ardent patriot. He believes passionately in the founding promises of America as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights: "all men are created equal" - "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" for all people - "justice for all" - "promote the General welfare" - "no law respecting an establishment of religion....or abridging the freedom of speech." With these ideals always in mind, Irons is not hesitant about passing judgement on America and the Americans, in this book on the Supreme Court, when actions are committed or decisions made which fail to fulfill these promises. In other words, Irons is not an impartial, neutral historian. If the reader has dissimilar understandings of the founding promises, she or he may react hostilely to A People's History of the Supreme Court. But that reader especially should make the effort to suspend judgement and read on. This is a very fine book even if you disagree with it. Irons knows his judicial history well, and he explains the issues of important Supreme Court decisions with amazing clarity. He also treats the key personalities of Supreme Court history with respect, recognizing the greatness even of Justices whose opinions had unfortunate consequences. The only justices he scorns are those who made no contribution.
The first seven chapters of the book describe the battles and compromises that went into the writing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and thereafter into the establishment of the first Supreme Court. We hear a lot about the "intentions" of the founding fathers these days; Irons analyzes what we can and can't be sure of, concerning those intentions, with masterful support from the available sources. He establishes very convincingly that from the start America has been polarized over the intertwined issues of racism and the proper balance of federal authority versus states' rights. Irons clearly defends his interpretation of the Constitution as a document establishing federal authority, but yielding fatal compromises with the usually less-than-admirable demands of states with peculiar institutions. Slavery is of course the biggest and most fatal such compromise, the one that most threatened to destroy the efforts of the Constitution-writers, and the one that the Supreme Court failed to resolve in keeping with the founding promises for the longest time - not making much progress until the Warren Court.
Irons plainly believes that "states' rights" has most frequently been a pretext for reneging on those founding promises of justice and equality. He makes a very good case throughout the book that the federal government has frequently operated just as Madison hoped in his Federalist essays, eventually though painfully imposing justice for all when one or several states denied justice to some. The implication is that the federal government, with its awkward checks and balances, is indeed the guardian of the Constitution and of the American aspirations of liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The very best section of the book is Section IV: Liberty in a Social Organization. These seven chapters deal with economic justice, beginning with the distressing misuse of the 14th Amendment by the courts and the Supreme Court to impose a feudal system of employer/employee relations on the whole country, to legislate a "laissez-faire" ideology from the bench. Irons makes no bones, by the way, in finding that the Court has always been staffed with "activist" justices. The turning point in modernizing economic democracy - in fulfilling the promise of promoting the General welfare - comes in the New Deal court confrontations between the "horsemen of reaction" and the agents of reform. FDR's threat of `stacking the court' is usually portrayed as one of his most embarrassing failures, but Irons sees it rather as a piece of the drama, an effective tactic perhaps, of compelling the Court to change its ways, to stop representing only the economic interests of capitalists and to address the needs of the whole American people. Irons is not waging a propaganda campaign, however. His accounts of the crucial Court decisions of the 1930s outline the arguments for both sides with precision and balance.
Section V presents the remarkable tale of the Supreme Court turning its attention from issues of property and labor rights to issues of civil liberties. This is the drama of our lifetimes, isn't it? Obviously Irons is fully partisan to the promise of "liberty and justice for all, but once again he depicts the conflicts on the Supreme Court with marvelous clarity.
Section VI will inevitably offend those readers who define themselves as conservative. It narrates the demise of the great consensus of the Warren Court and the subsequent bitter division of the Supreme Court from Nixon to Clinton. Irons quite openly regards the Republican appointed reactionary justices as attempting to renege once more on those lovely founding promises. Still I urge conservative readers to let Irons make his case before ranting against it. He writes very well. It's an entertaining book to hate, if that's your choice after reading it.
A mostly enjoyable read February 12, 2008
I found this book to be very enjoyable for the most part. I particularly liked his coverage of the Marshall and Taney courts. I also like that he is very clear about his political beliefs thus allowing the reader the chance to properly frame his opinions.
I do think that he started to allow his personal biases to overcome his scholarly work once he reached his own professional experience. By the end of the Warren Court it became difficult to read much of it.
None the less an enjoyable book for anyone who is interested in the topic.
Excellent Progressive History of the Court February 2, 2008
3 out of 3 found this review helpful
Don't kid yourself into thinking that this is a disinterested history of the Supreme Court of the United States. It isn't, it is a highly politicized look at the history of the cases heard before the highest court in the land, with a special emphasis on the cases that dealt directly with individual rights. The Dred Scott decision, which reinforced the slavery and Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion both get a lot of play in this book. As do lesser known cases involving the internment of American's of Japanese decent, and early cases involving slavery issues such as the little known Antelope case.
It's a well written book, full of telling details about not only the justices who heard these cases, but also the people behind the case names. We learn what Earl Warren, the Chief Justice during some of the most important years in the court's history was like as a person. But we also learn about Earl Gideon, the man whose case created the right to an attorney for anyone arrested for a crime.
Still, while I appreciate the need for a progressive history of the Supreme Court, I wish Iron's had played down his politics a little more. A more evenhanded approach that did not disparage everyone who does not share Iron's politics would have made for a better, and more convincing book.
 A Difficult Read April 17, 2007
2 out of 10 found this review helpful
I think that most of the reviewers of this book must be lawyers who are accustomed to over developed and complicated sentence structure. This is a writing technique well practiced by the legal profession and insurance policy writers.
Slogging through this book is just plain tortuous. It is very detailed and is probably a good book for pre-law or first year law students. Anyone else will find it to be painful.
The author is definitely a lefty but presents his viewpoints honestly and very well. The subject matter is fascinating but the execution is excruciating.
Interesting read March 12, 2007
2 out of 4 found this review helpful
Although it drags a little at the beginning, once you get to the
history and the cases, it gets interesting. It's writtin in plain
english, except for the legal terms which are usually explained.
Someone not interested in the Supreme court probably would find
it rather boring, but then why would they be reading it? Author
writes with a pro-civil rights anti-business sentiment which
is most often justified (considering past civil rights abuses),
but it is not too overly done.
Just be ready for this slant on the cases (an opposing opinion
is not presented). All in all I enjoyed the book and think it is
well written.
|
|
|
Included with most items on sale are editorial reviews and customer reviews | | |
