Editorial Review

The Supreme Court is one of the most extraordinary institutions in our system of government. Charged with the responsibility of interpreting the Constitution, the nine unelected justices of the Court have the awesome power to strike down laws enacted by our elected representatives. Why does the public accept the Court’s decisions as legitimate and follow them, even when those decisions are highly unpopular? What must the Court do to maintain the public’s faith? How can the Court help make our democracy work? These are the questions that Justice Stephen Breyer tackles in this groundbreaking book.

Today we assume that when the Court rules, the public will obey. But Breyer declares that we cannot take the public’s confidence in the Court for granted. He reminds us that at various moments in our history, the Court’s decisions were disobeyed or ignored. And through investigations of past cases, concerning the Cherokee Indians, slavery, and Brown v. Board of Education, he brilliantly captures the steps—and the missteps—the Court took on the road to establishing its legitimacy as the guardian of the Constitution.

Justice Breyer discusses what the Court must do going forward to maintain that public confidence and argues for interpreting the Constitution in a way that works in practice. He forcefully rejects competing approaches that look exclusively to the Constitution’s text or to the eighteenth-century views of the framers. Instead, he advocates a pragmatic approach that applies unchanging constitutional values to ever-changing circumstances—an approach that will best demonstrate to the public that the Constitution continues to serve us well. The Court, he believes, must also respect the roles that other actors—such as the president, Congress, administrative agencies, and the states—play in our democracy, and he emphasizes the Court’s obligation to build cooperative relationships with them.

Finally, Justice Breyer examines the Court’s recent decisions concerning the detainees held at Guantánamo Bay, contrasting these decisions with rulings concerning the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. He uses these cases to show how the Court can promote workable government by respecting the roles of other constitutional actors without compromising constitutional principles.

Making Our Democracy Work is a tour de force of history and philosophy, offering an original approach to interpreting the Constitution that judges, lawyers, and scholars will look to for many years to come. And it further establishes Justice Breyer as one of the Court’s greatest intellectuals and a leading legal voice of our time. ... Read more

Reviews

Further Views on the Proper Role for the Supreme Court, September 21, 2010
This book is a continuation of the dialogue Justice Breyer began in his previous work "Active Liberty." There, he argued that the Court should implement greater participation of citizens in their government. Although he touched at points upon the originalist/literalist approach to interpretation favored by Justices Scalia and Thomas, in his typical polite and reasonable fashion he preferred to explain his approach rather than lob grenades at their dedication to text and originalism. This book too is polite and reasonable, but aims to look at a wider and more fundamental issue--how can the Court contribute to making a "workable democracy" by applying enduring constitutional values to ever-changing circumstances. The short answer in this pragmatic-oriented book, is for the Court to build productive relationships with other governing institutions, as it protects individual rights and searches for the values underlying the Constitution. In short, Breyer is again arguing for what might be termed a greater degree of "judicial modesty" which facilitates better governance.

Breyer first discusses the concept of judicial review, where it came from in Marbury v. Madison, and how history demonstrates (in the Cherokee removal, Dred Scott, and the Little Rock desegregation cases) how dependent the Court is upon ephemeral public support. Breyer is unique in his ability to explain historical and legal concepts in terms that the general reader can assimilate--a rare talent indeed. Basically, Bryer concludes, as long as the Court's opinions are "principled, reasoned, transparent and informative" it will hold public support. Once again, I was disappointed that his discussion of the Bush v. Gore case is highly polite and reasonable and does not, I am sure, reflect the intra-Court dynamics involved in that sad episode.

One of the most masterful sections of the book is where the Justice discusses why he thinks originalism, reliance upon text, and founders' history are not determinative in interpreting the Constitution or statutes. As usual, he is polite and positive, but he makes his point well. Rather, reliance upon purpose and consequences constitute a superior approach.

So, how should the Court proceed to build cooperative relationships? Breyer devotes individual chapters to answering this question as relates to Congress and statutes ("reasonable" interpretation), the executive branch and administrative agencies (recognize its greater expertise than courts), and the states and federalism (like Justice Brandeis, recognize the benefits of state and local experimentation and defer strongly). Two the best chapters in the book, for both the general reader and those better versed in the issues, address how the Court should deal with lower federal courts, and why precedent is important and when it should be followed (the current Court majority might find this discussion particularly illuminating).

The final section of the book deals with concepts such as permanent values, proportionality, "core elements," and "workable reality." These are somewhat intangible concepts, and Breyer's discussion may encourage some to embrace originalism, history and text as somewhat more substantial interpretative guidelines. He uses the Court's recent decisions in the Second Amendment and Guantanamo prison cases, as well as the 1940's Japanese relocation cases, to explore these concepts. It is quite interesting to peek into the mind of a sitting Justice (as it was with "Active Liberty") to see how he perceives the Court's role. This dimension is as helpful to the experienced student of the Court as it is to the average citizen.

The book runs some 254 pages including notes, and contains some illustrations and an appendix designed to quickly educate the general reader about the Court and how it works. Although sometimes Breyer seems to be "up in the clouds" as he tackles ephemeral concepts, there is no question that this is one of the rare books that really opens up the reader's mind to new concepts and considerations.

Enjoyable and insightful, September 24, 2010
I liked this book for many reasons, but two stand out. First, it is an interesting contextualization of the path our country has taken starting out from the basic "idea" of the role of the Supreme Court in the American political system as envisioned by the Founders, to the current manifestation of that role, replete with twists and turns along the way. Second, and very much in the intellectual spirit of his previous book (which I also really liked), it is a reminder that our government is only as good as we, its citizens, are: active, educated and engaged participants allow the engine to function as it should, with the Court serving in its role as, in Justice Breyer's words, the border patrol that makes sure nothing enacted by Congress violates the basic precepts forth by the framers. I enjoyed Justice Breyer's prose style and also found the individual cases he discusses, and his take on them, incredibly interesting in their own right. I would highly recommend this book to anyone, left right and center, who has a pulse and cares about our country ... how a series of ideas set forth a couple hundred years ago are being manifest in contemporary American society. An important book that I suspect history will look on kindly.

How government works, September 27, 2010
First, I think it's important to state that I don't think Breyer wrote this book to promote a political point of view. Quite the opposite: he shows remarkable restraint and a willingness to try and explain fairly the basis for differing opinions held on important cases.

His reason for writing this book was to educate U.S. citizens how government works and the principles that judges and justices try to follow in deciding cases. He explained his hope that, if we better understand these things, we'll have more confidence in our government and be actively interested in how our government works. Better citizens, in other words.

I'd say that there is one subject that gets Breyer up on his soapbox: he firmly believes that the courts can produce the best results in support of a workable democracy by applying a practical consideration of legislative intent, values, subsidiarity, specialization, appropriate deference to expertise and several other concepts. He makes a pretty good case for this approach. Each additional layer of guiding principles, taken by itself, seems reasonable enough, but when he guides the reader through the balancing act that judges have to go through in selecting and applying the relevant principles in appropriate proportion to a particular case, it really gave me an appreciation for how difficult and complex this can be.

I especially enjoyed his review of a number of landmark cases, including Marbury vs Madison, Dred Scott, Brown vs Board of Education, a couple of cases regarding Japanese internment during WWII and four cases involving Guantanamo detainees. Very informative.

Breyer's writing style is clear, easy to follow, and a pleasure to read. I highly recommend this book.

Aimed at non-lawyers, but lawyers who want to know how judges think will be fascinated., October 6, 2010
Any book by a Supreme Court justice is worth reading, this book is not an exception. The case discussions are at a law school constitutional law class level. In this sense, this part of the book is not new for lawyers, but non-lawyers will find it enlightening.

Where the book excels is the rich detail that surrounds cases. That detail helps to understand what justices who employed the pragmatic approach would have considered.

After reading sections such as the pragmatic approach vs. the originalism approach, I felt the book was incomplete; I needed to get a more complete view. The book's last paragraph suggests that was Justice Breyer's intent when it states "The stories this book sets forth are told from the point of view of one judge", "I hope they lead others to study and ponder their lessons about our constitutional history."

If the book gave a more balanced view, not necessitating further research on my part, I would have given it another star, perhaps I am being too grudging with the 5th star.

Suggestion for reading this book. Look over the appendices first, because:
* The text of the book doesn't mention there are photos in the back.
* The back contains a well written explanation of how the Supreme Court works.
* All the footnotes, really endnotes, are in the back of the book; in legal writing much can be gained by reading the footnotes.

A sober and thoughtful analysis of the role of the judiciary, October 4, 2010
The negative reviews of this book treat it as just another radical liberal screed. Those reviewers either have not read the book or have a huge political chip on their shoulders. Thoughtful, reasoned and sober are the adjectives that first come to my mind. If you are interested in an enlightened exposition of the proper balance between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government this is a great place to start.

An important book for our times, September 23, 2010
This book is a page turner and highlights the hallmarks of Justice Breyer: wisdom, insight, modesty and a deep belief in the US system of government.

The first part of the book highlights the Court's role in the suppression and later provision of Civil Rights for minorities in the US. Justice Breyer's storytelling is very moving and shows his depth of knowledge and understanding of the constitutional issues.

The rest of the book deals with the art of judging and duties and obligations of the Court.

This is a highly stimulating and well written book. More importantly, I believe it is an important book for our times. I highly recommend it.

Great for the laity, November 27, 2010
Justice Breyer lays out, in a clear and easy-to-follow yet convincing manner how and why "we the people" have come to regard the Supreme Court throughout the ages. By tracing the Court's origins in decisions like Marbury v. Madison all the way to the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Breyer shows us how the public's reaction to the court evolves over time and becomes the Court our forefathers envisioned.

Not only that, but he makes a compelling case for his methods of interpreting the Constitution and anyone, even those side more with Justice Scalia's methods, would be well advised to pick up this book if for no other reason than to get a better idea of his methodologies.

Thoughtful and interesting, November 5, 2010
In "Making our Democracy Work," Justice Breyer expands upon his treatise "Active Liberty" with several interesting examples of how the Judiciary established its role, and how it needs to act to maintain credibility as the guarantor of liberties established in the Constitution. Justice Breyer's uses counter examples, such as Dred Scott, showing the Court doesn't always get it right (and history may hold one of the negative reviews here correct with a couple more counter examples).

I had hoped this work would expand a bit more on the role of the citizen in making our democracy work, but Justice Breyer really only pays lip service to this in the Conclusion. Still, illuminating the role of the weakest branch of government through the lens of some of our history's most important and controversial cases provides a fascinating peek into the function of the court.

The thoughtfulness that goes into deciding cases should make us all thankful that the Founding Fathers had the foresight to implement independent checks and balances in the American form of government.

Making Our Democracy Work, October 19, 2010
Stephen Breyer presents a comprehensive history of the Constitution and beginning of our nation with the debates surrounding some of the elements of the Constitution by our founding fathers during the administration of President Washington through to today. He describes how the importance of the court system evolved over time, especially the unique role of the Supreme Court.

The areas of law that the Supreme Court reviews are outlined with different chapters discussing each area, provides examples and reasoning behind both the majority decision and dissenting viewpoint giving validity to both. It is highly readable with explanations provided in layman's terms. A must read for all who are interested or desire to learn the importance and workings of our highest court.

Trust, December 11, 2010
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer's new book, Making Our Democracy Work, presents a civics primer about how the court fits into our society and government. This practical book is accessible to all readers and can provide insight into the context in which the court operates, and the historical and current importance of securing and maintaining public trust. An ongoing question is whether or not the public will follow the court's decisions, and Breyer sees an important role of the court in helping laws work well in practice. He provides a perspective on past and current cases that is both readable and interesting for any citizen.

Rating: Three-star (Recommended)
... Read more

Editorial Review

This book was converted from its physical edition to the digital format by a community of volunteers. You may find it for free on the web. Purchase of the Kindle edition includes wireless delivery. ... Read more

Reviews

Okay collection of 10 stories, September 30, 2009
The title page says this is one volume of a six-volume collection of 101 stories, published in 1907 and edited by Julian Hawthorne. From the author dates I'm guessing this is volume 1.

This collection contains 13 stories:

The Necklace (Guy de Maupassant)
The Miracle of Zobeide (Pierre Mille)
The Torture of Hope (Villiers de L'Isle Adam)
The Owl's Ear, The Invisible Eye, The Water of Death (Erckmann-Chatrain)
Melmoth Reconciled, The Conscript (Balzac)
Zadig the Babylonian (Voltaire)
The Nail (Perdo de Alarcon)
The Desposition (Luigi Capuana)
The Adventure of the Three Robbers (Lucius Apuleius)
Letter to Sura (Pliny the Younger)

The kindle edition hase no active table of contents, no navigation at all. It is 3790 "locations" long. The formatting of the text itself seems okay, italics where italics belong, but sometimes it's not always easy to tell when a story ends and commentary for the next begins.

The stories are mostly 18th- & 19th-century European. If you like that sort of stuff. They do not strike me as mystery stories I know. These seem story first, mystery second.

Good read., July 18, 2010
I enjoyed reading this book, but was a little disappointed to find that most of the stories are not Mysteries and that was really what I wanted. The book is a good read, has wonderful stories just hardly any mysteries.

It's an old book ....., November 10, 2010
This book is dated, in both plots and writing style. Not that it's uninteresting, but the words of a modern author and one of a century ago aren't the same.

This book is priced right, and will provide some few hours of interesting reading if you don't get bogged down in the style. ... Read more

Editorial Review

In The Nine, acclaimed journalist Jeffrey Toobin takes us into the chambers of the most important—and secret—legal body in our country, the Supreme Court, revealing the complex dynamic among the nine people who decide the law of the land. An institution at a moment of transition, the Court now stands at a crucial point, with major changes in store on such issues as abortion, civil rights, and church-state relations. Based on exclusive interviews with the justices and with a keen sense of the Court’s history and the trajectory of its future, Jeffrey Toobin creates in The Nine a riveting story of one of the most important forces in American life today. ... Read more

Reviews

An intimate look at the diverse group of justices who have served our nation on the Supreme Court over the past two decades., September 17, 2007
Over the years any number of best selling books have been written about the U.S. Supreme Court. If you are an avid reader like myself then you have probably read a few of them. Of all of the books I have read on this subject I found Jeffrey Toobin's new offering "The Nine: Inside The Secret World of the Supreme Court" to be among the very best. As senior legal analyst for CNN and a staff writer for "The New Yorker" Jeffrey Toobin is uniquely qualified to tackle a topic that most Americans know precious little about and frankly find a bit mysterious. Like peeling the skin from an onion Toobin succeeds in revealing just who these justices are and how they have evolved over time. It is a fascinating study.
One notion that "The Nine" certainly reinforces is the conventional wisdom that says there really is no way of predicting how a judge is going to vote on controversial issues after receiving a lifetime appointment to the United States Supreme Court. While it seems that majority of justices remain true to their philosophies after being appointed to the Court, a fairly significant percentage of appointees veer off in totally unexpected directions. Throughout "The Nine" Jeffrey Toobin introduces us to the men and women who have served on the Court over the past two decades. Depending on your point of view you will find some of the justices extremely likeable and others enigmatic. You will also learn who the reliable liberal and conservative votes are and who tends to occupy the center. And Jeffrey Toobin spotlights a number of controversial 5-4 cases where those 1 or 2 "swing" votes would make all the difference.
It is quite apparent that Jeffrey Toobin is a huge fan of the recently retired justice Sandra Day O'Connor. In fact, on a couple of occasions he refers to her as "the most important woman in American history". Appointed by Ronald Reagan in September 1981 Sandra Day O'Connor would spend a quarter century on the bench and prove to be the swing vote in a myriad of important cases. Toobin also views Justice Stephen Breyer in a similarly favorable light. Over the past few years conservative politicians and voters alike have been extremely critical of what they perceive as a very disturbing new development at the Supreme Court. There is little doubt that a number of the justices have been increasingly influenced by both international law and by the decisions of courts in other nations in making their decisions and in writing their opinions. Indeed, the members of the Supreme Court find themselves sharply divided on this issue and Jeffrey Toobin explains which members buy into this approach and why. This is a trend that certainly bears watching.
"The Nine: Inside The Secret World of the Supreme Court" certainly qualifies as one of the best books I have read this year. Although Toobin displays his liberal leanings in some of his observations from time to time this is nonetheless an extremely well written, generally balanced and very informative book. Highly recommended!

Some Remarkable Insights into the Recent Supreme Court, September 28, 2007
The last several years have delivered a rich harvest of outstanding studies of the Supreme Court. In addition to some highly technical works by political scientists, journalists have contributed studies of remarkable value and insight. I am thinking here of Greenburg's incisive "Supreme Conflict"; Greenhouse's biography of Justice Blackmun; and Biskupic's perceptive study of Justice O'Connor to name a few (not to mention Jeffrey Rosen -- who is a George Washington law professor but who also writes for the popular press and presents PBS programs as well). The good fortune of we "Court watchers" continues in this exceptionally discerning study by Jeffrey Toobin who writes for the "New Yorker" among other publications.

Toobin covers roughtly the period of 1992 through the 2006-07 term of the Court. His focus is similar to that of Jan Crawford Greenburg in "Supreme Conflict": the frustration of conservatives at their inability to secure a Court that would implement their agenda on abortion, public support of religion, and diminution of federalism despite a conservative majority on the Court. But as both books so well explain, all that changed with the coming of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito--as some recent decisions which Toobin discusses in his final chapters indicate. What is interesting is that the same members made up the Court between 1994 and 2005; yet the dynamics of decisionmaking changed dramatically.

To trace this evolution, Toobin discusses the Federalist Society; the Thomas nomination; the pragmatism of Justice O'Connor; Jay Sekulow and his "American Center for Law and Justice";and the perplexing Clinton White House nominations of Justices Ginsburg and Breyer. Toobin uses an effective technique of discussing each Justice in detail not all at the beginning of the book, but at the point in the narrative when that Justice is the central actor. Is is obvious that the author has had the assistance of several of the Justices (in this regard, the book reminds one a bit of "The Brethren") including I would surmise: O'Connor (extensively), Breyer, Souter, and possibly Stevens and even Kennedy. He also interviewed more than 75 law clerks. Hence, the reader is privy to some rather remarkable views of the Justices as seen by their fellows--a major strength of the book. Strangely enough, Chief Justice Rehnquist, whom one would assume would be a central character in this drama, earns relatively little attention. In fact, one of Toobin's most interesting assertions (along with the contention that Souter was close to resigning after Bush v. Gore) is that in the later years of his tenure, Rehnquist really lost his fire to remake law and became content to masterfully administer the Supreme and lower courts.

One section of the book is devoted to Bush v. Gore, a topic to which Toobin has devoted an entire book, and it is a superb analysis of that unfortunate episode. In the third section of the book, much attention is paid to Justice Kennedy, a puzzling character at times, but one who has assumed O'Connor's spot as the swing vote. Also of interest is O'Connor's growing frustration with Bush and the GOP, despite her central role in Bush v. Gore. The final section focuses upon the Bush White House and its maneuvers in filling the Rehnquist and O'Connor vacancies, another outstanding job by Toobin. The most interesting concept raised in this discussion is the Roberts' Court view of stare decisis--namely, does it still exist? Geoffrey Stone (former dean of the University of Chicago law school and provost at Chicago) has spoken eloquently and perceptively about this same phenomenon.

The book runs around 350 pages; it has a number of color photographs, 8 pages of notes, and a brief three-page bibliography. By any measure, Toobin has done as insightful and thorough a job in this study as one could imagine. The writing is crisp, does not bog down in legalistic details, and directs its focus where it should--the Justices as a small group together for the long haul and entrusted with making the most fundamental decisions of American democracy.

Sneering conservatives, rational liberals, December 29, 2007
The book is decent, but I just thought that the author spent too much time describing "sneering" conservatives, and not really explaining what they stand for. The moderates on the court are always rational, and the conservatives are primitive and spend a lot of time sneering, etc. This is a bit unfair (I am willing to bet that Scalia is more intelligent and more interesting and amusing than the author states).

I also think Toobin short-shrifts some of the liberal negatives. Clinton-appointee Ginsburg once said that she wanted to integrate prisons, so that men and women prisoners would be housed together, because this would force men to understand women better, etc. This type of utopianism is not mentioned in the book (it is the mirror of the conservative attempt to remake America along the lines of the Christian Right).

I also think that in his discussion of international law, he fails to really present the conservative opposition to using foreign law in the U.S. Our legal system is based on Britain's. I highly doubt for instance, that we would want to import legal notions from Latin America and Europe, where for instance, the Code Napoleon holds sway. In Mexico or Brazil or France or Italy, the state is considered right, and the defendant in a criminal case has the burden of proof to show that he is innocent (!). This would stand our British system on its head (do the liberal justices really want to use such precedents ?). In France, the "terror csar" can hold anyone for 55 hours without charges, just by signing a piece of paper. Even the British have gone a LONG way toward an all-powerful state, and the British have even talked about doing away with trial by jury in criminal cases. I hardly think we want that. And yet, this huge issue is not mentioned in the book. Instead, the author presents the idea of importing foreign precedent into the U.S. as a purely good idea.

The book thus glosses over much of the "conservative" side of most of the issues. Moderates and liberals in the book reason. Conservatives "sneer".

The book is worth reading, but I have some pretty major issues with it.

Well-Researched, Fascinating, and Important, September 22, 2007
This is a well-written and well-documented look at our Supreme Court's decision making process. Toobin interviewed the Justices--and many of those who work with them--and has provided an important insight into the workings of this often-overlooked, but equally important and powerful, third branch of our government.

It's too bad that rightwing posters here have given this excellent book only one or two stars and (laughably) even characterize it as "far left" simply because the facts of how the Court works don't square with what they'd like people to believe. It's unfortunate for them, perhaps, but this is what research and journalism are supposed to do.

All in all, a great read--and an interesting behind-the-scenes look at a process that all Americans should know much more about--and pay much more attention to.

Good, but lacking . . ., October 7, 2007
Toobin carefully covers the main legal issues the Court has heard over the last 15 years. They include abortion, separation of church and state, affirmative action and the death penalty and more. He covers two especially deeply. They are the Clinton impeachment case and Bush v. Gore, when the Court, by a 5-4 vote, effectively decided the 2000 election.

He also goes into the Terry Schiavo case.

You'll read the portraits of the justices which gives it a distinctive flavor.

Unfortunately, most everything in the book has been covered extensively elsewhere. In addition, he doesn't tell us how the court actually works.

This is a good book if you've not read much about the court. But if you have a good knowledge of the cases of the last 15 years, save your money. And certainly if you want to know how the court works, you'll want to find another source.

A grain of salt.., September 21, 2007
As we move toward the 2008 elections, this book sheds light on a vital arm of our government, and important issues framing the debates. Yes, Toobin may be showing his liberal leanings, but is this so unsettling in our free-speaking democratic society? What Toobin does well -- and is so qualified to do so -- is to share his wealth of knowledge and perspective on that all-important yet all-too-secretive government branch. He succeeds in enlightening us -- and probably, regarding some aspects, the justices themselves -- on several influential developments. One, as pointed out by a previous reviewer, being the courts growing dependence on decisions made abroad. The book is readable and informative...take the liberal leanings with a grain of salt..

Informative and biased, November 11, 2007
The Nine is an account of the present U.S. Supreme Court. The author tries to present each justice as a personality, not just a legal entity. He delves into their personal histories, describing their families and friends. He also describes their interactions, and the day to day workings of the court. Toobin is a good writer, and the book is engaging and easy to read. It is clear that a large amount of research was done in the making of this tome.

It may be impossible to write a politically neutral book about the court. This author gives a fleeting impression of such an attempt, but by the second chapter, there is no doubt that he is a partisan observer. As he describes the major players in his narrative, the liberal ones receive high praise, while the conservative ones are mainly portrayed as hypocrites or worse. Toobin describes liberals as "distinguished," "respected," or "venerable," while conservatives earn such adjectives as "petty," "vindictive," or "reactionary." Some conservatives do receive acknowledgement for redeeming qualities, but their negatives usually overshadow the positives. He seems to be extremely fond of O'Connor, who was in the middle of the political spectrum.

When he writes about individual cases, rather than presenting the arguments, Toobin argues points of law from his own perspective. He focuses on the side that he agrees with, mentioning the opposing arguments briefly and dismissively. He occasionally argues against his own prior positions. Although he ridicules the conservative position that the federal government is too often interfering with state's rights, he is outraged by the court's interference in state's rights during the 2000 presidential election. Many people are on both sides of this argument, since ideology usually trumps principles. Indeed, Toobin writes that the justice's ideology "means everything" in the court. In The Nine, ideology trumps objectivity.

If you believe that most left leaning legal minds in America are intelligent and caring, while the conservative ones are mostly dishonest dullards or evil extremists, this book will not challenge you. I wanted a greater insight into the workings of the court, and I did not find it here.

Inside the Court, October 1, 2007
We seem to have a view that the most interesting things to read about are those that are kept secret. As a result we have the Woodward industry which periodically tells us the inside story of work of people who are in the political limelight. Nine is such a book and has all the assets and liabilities of these sorts of books.

The main asset is that a great story is told, Whether is be the development of abortion jurisprudence or Bush v. Gore we see in the inside story. Toobin is an engaging writer so the story is well told and may even as reported.

The second asset is the portraits of the Justices. They tend to be brief but we see the justices as personalities. Each has their own quirks which make them interesting. I enjoyed the stories about Thomas and Breyer passing notes. Also the friendship between Scalia and Ginsburg shows that you can be agreeable even when you disagree.

Also the story of the concerted effort by conservatives to capture the court is fascinating, especially the role of groups who brought cases.

Now the liabilities. First and foremost because the book is based primarily on interviews one really does not know who is telling the story. Justice O'Connor who seems to be the strongest character in the book may well have given the insights herself. Without giving the source one has to be a bit concerned. After all often the history is written by the winner or in this case by the most available. In comparing this book to Linda Greenhouse's extraordinary biography of Justice Blackmum,which is fully documented, the difference is clear.

Second the book is light on understanding the legal developments. This is understandable as it is not the purpose of the book.

As a final point I suggest anyone interested Justice Thomas who I think is the most interesting person on the Court to read Supreme Discomfort which gives insights into his character. ( As I am writing this Thomas' autobiography is being published which may shed more light on him.)

An Intriguing Examination Of Powerful Unknowns, October 14, 2007
I've helped chaperone high school field trips to Washington, D.C. for a couple of years, and I always find the visit to the Supreme Court building one of the most impressive, but mysterious, parts of the journey. We sit in the dignified, somber, courtroom, hear guides tell us that the Justices are at that moment at work somewhere in the building, remember the historic decisions announced in that room, but we never see the Justices themselves or get any real sense of them as people. Now Jeffrey Toobin has provided a glimpse of these powerful, private people, the world they inhabit, and the challenges they face.

The Nine basically covers the last twenty years or so of Court history. Not only is it the story of the individuals who have sat on the Court during that time, it is also a chronicle of the ebb and flow of judicial philosophy. Beginning in the early 1980s, conservatives in this country began to work to resurrect "The Constitution in Exile," or the pre-New Deal welfare state status quo which had prevailed until the 1930s, and to put an end to the progressive/liberal dominance of the Court which had been entrenched since the 1950s. Toobin writes that that effort faltered, despite the overall rightward tilt of the legislative and executive branches in the 1980s and 1990s, because of the personalities of the Justices appointed during that period. His heroine is Sandra Day O'Connor, who became the true leader of the Court because of her determination to seek a common sense centrist position rather than adhere to rigid ideology.

Toobin gives us a good picture of each Justice's personality and habits. I already knew that some were more genial or ideological than others, but it was fascinating to read about their personal quirks and the interplay of their ideas when they meet with each other or work with their clerks. I found new respect and liking for some Justices with whom I disagree and more reasons to admire others whose decisions I generally support. I have no legal background, but I enjoyed and was able to follow the ins and outs of the legal arguments. I gained fresh insight into how decisions develop and how hard the Justices and their clerks work. Sadly, I also recognized anew that the Court can go terribly wrong, as in the rushed, partisan decision in Bush v. Gore. Toobin writes in the last chapter that "the Constitution in Exile" movement may have gained new influence with the Roberts and Alito appointments. His book will be an important resource for citizens watching Court decisions and trying to discern trends in coming years.

A little short, December 22, 2007
This attempt to emulate the Woodward classic seems to fall short. The author clearly has a point of view as to how certain cases should come out and we get very little analysis of how the Court gets there. The Court is a political institution, granted, but the Constitution does matter in its decision making. The author often snipes at Scalia for suggesting the same. This book would have been better served with more analysis of the critical decisions and their precedents. Then the reader can form his or her own judgement as to whether the Court was right or wrong.
There is some interesting discussion of the personal relationships amongst the Justices. The liberal-conservative divide does not seem to preclude social activities and friendships, which do ultimately lead to a better functioning institution, something the other branches of government might want to consider.
Therefore, this is an interesting book, but if you are expecting a greater understanding and explanation of the Court's recent jurisprudence, forget it. ... Read more

Editorial Review

A riveting true crime story that vividly recounts the birth of modern forensics.

At the end of the nineteenth century, serial murderer Joseph Vacher, known and feared as “The Killer of Little Shepherds,” terrorized the French countryside. He eluded authorities for years—until he ran up against prosecutor Emile Fourquet and Dr. Alexandre Lacassagne, the era’s most renowned criminologist. The two men—intelligent and bold—typified the Belle Époque, a period of immense scientific achievement and fascination with science’s promise to reveal the secrets of the human condition.

With high drama and stunning detail, Douglas Starr revisits Vacher’s infamous crime wave, interweaving the story of how Lacassagne and his colleagues were developing forensic science as we know it. We see one of the earliest uses of criminal profiling, as Fourquet painstakingly collects eyewitness accounts and constructs a map of Vacher’s crimes. We follow the tense and exciting events leading to the murderer’s arrest. And we witness the twists and turns of the trial, celebrated in its day. In an attempt to disprove Vacher’s defense by reason of insanity, Fourquet recruits Lacassagne, who in the previous decades had revolutionized criminal science by refining the use of blood-spatter evidence, systematizing the autopsy, and doing groundbreaking research in psychology. Lacassagne’s efforts lead to a gripping courtroom denouement.

The Killer of Little Shepherds is an important contribution to the history of criminal justice, impressively researched and thrillingly told. ... Read more

Reviews

The psycopath and the professor, September 10, 2010

Very Interesting Story of Earlier Serial Killer and Forensics Methods, September 19, 2010

Science and crime solving in the 19th century, September 10, 2010

Fascinating, Thorough And Disturbing, November 7, 2010

Account of 19th Century Serial Killer's Horrific Crimes, Supplemented With History of Forensics, October 6, 2010

Very interesting, September 27, 2010

People lie. Evidence does not., September 18, 2010

"One must know how to doubt.", August 27, 2010

Very Impressive, November 24, 2010

Intelligent, thrilling and educational, November 17, 2010

Editorial Review

For two decades Civil Procedure: Examples and Explanations has helped students understand the intricacies of civil procedure. Professor Glannon, using the extremely successful Examples and Explanations format that he created, teaches students about civil procedure in an entertaining and elucidating way. Now in its Sixth Edition, this amazing study aid continues to provide clear, engaging introductions to the principles of civil procedure, together with appealing examples that illustrate how these principles apply in typical cases.

Students and professors are united in their high regard for this text that helps make a difficult subject accessible:
Professor Glannon s unique and entertaining style engages students and helps them to more easily understand difficult concepts.Clear and accessible introductions and explanations cover all aspects of the first-year course including the difficult areas of res judicata, collateral estoppel, personal and subject matter jurisdiction, and three chapters on various aspects of the Erie doctrine
The proven and popular examples and explanations format is highly effective for learning and applying the Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureExamples progress gradually from simple to challenging and build students' confidence.
The frequent use of visual aids including diagrams, charts, and documents helps students grasp complicated ideas. The Sixth Edition has been completely updated throughout, and all citations reflect the most current law. In addition:A new chapter on joinder analyzing Rules 19 and 24. Revisions to reflect the extensive 2007 stylistic amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Give your students the help they need to master difficult topics. Be sure to recommend this highly acclaimed study guide tested by students, instructors, and time. ... Read more

Reviews

The best of the first-year E+E's, August 5, 2009
I had every E+E last year and Glannon's Civ Pro was by far the best. The book does an excellent job of covering most of the first semester stuff like jurisdiction and the erie doctrine. Though it wasn't as useful second semester, it was worth it for the first semester material alone.

Excellent resource - well worth the $, May 13, 2009
This E&E is an excellent resource - it breaks down topics that can easily be daunting into manageable sections, and by the time you're finished with a chapter, the doctrine/rules make perfect sense. For a civil procedure course, going through these types of examples is probably your best bet in getting the rules to stick in your mind.
I would recommend spending the money on this book solely for the chapters on joinder, which are exceptionally well written.

Excellent supplement for Law Students, October 10, 2009
I purchased this book to help me with my Civil Procedures course. I am a first year law student, and I am in an evening program. I work a regular job in Retail Bank Management, and juggle school, hobbies, and family, so my time is precious to me. I don't have time to spend sorting through supplements and slogging through information that seems to carry me further and further from understanding what I need to 1) have good input in class discussions, 2) not make a fool out of myself when called on randomly to discuss cases, and 3) do well on my exams.

This supplement has been an incredible resource for me. As the first six weeks of class slipped by, I found myself feeling a little lost in Civil Procedures. Two weeks before the midterm I was floundering. I had briefed every assigned case, outlined course reading, and worked problems that our class tutor posted on TWEN. I was still slightly confused. Then I bought this book. Without doing all of the work, this would have never been useful to me. So please don't think that this supplement will be your "cliff's notes" for Civil Procedure. However, if you just need extra help, Glannon delivers like gang-busters. This book is well organized, easy to follow (once you have done your homework), and most of all it is effective. Having just taken the mid-term, I have nothing but rave reviews for how this book enhanced my preparation for that exam.

Overall, I highly recommend this book.

ace the exam, May 23, 2009
Buy this book at the beginning of the semester to help you through the class, and at the end of the semester before the exam to get ready. Final exam questions have been based off the examples in this book for years. Way, way better than the crunchtime review book. I would recommend this to every 1L taking Civ Pro.

Clear explanations, useful exercises and charts, August 9, 2010
This is by far the best civil procedure supplement sold. The book sheds ample light on one of the most confusing law school subjects. Glannon takes the reader through a number of hypothetical scenarios, often based on real cases, then tweaks each hypothetical slightly to help the student understand the subtle changes that affect the law.

If your exam is open-book, I would recommend flagging some charts out of this book - particularly the charts on judgment as a matter of law and summary judgment. These legal standards are difficult to grasp, and the charts provide a simple, concrete way to understand the boundaries of each.

Excellent supplement, December 3, 2009
I seldom used supplements for my 1L courses, not generally finding them particularly helpful or necessary, but this E&E was definitely an exception. It does a great job of "laying the foundation" for understanding the federal rules. The joinder section is particularly good; diagrams and examples do wonders to clear up rules that initially seemed like a bit of a mess.

I am a 2L at a law school that splits civil procedure and jurisdiction. I just opened this back up for my jurisdiction class and it does a great job of summarizing the basics of that as well. Highly recommend it.

This book is a must!!, June 12, 2010
This book takes the overwhelming and confusing topic of civil procedure and breaks it down into manageable material. Highly recommended for anyone taking civil procedure! This book helped me feel prepared, and I was able to get a B in the class!

Pros:
-Takes the complex material and breaks it down into digestable blocks. Glannon begins by explaining each key topic such as jurisdiction and venue, then he builds on these foundation blocks. He builds on these basic concepts by explaining the relation between them and delving into the more complex topics. It is necessary to understand these basic foundation blocks before you can build on with the more detailed and specific concepts.
-Examples provided in each section provide for proper understanding of each concept.

Cons:
-The questions provided in the book are very straight-forward and not extremely complex. They are helpful in getting a further understanding, but not likely the type of questions you will see on a law school exam.

I have a very detailed outline of this E&E. Contact me if you are interested!

Excellent tool for understanding challenging concepts, March 30, 2010
I bought this for a class on joinder and other multi-party litigation, and the joinder vs. jurisdiction examples alone made it worth the cost for that class. I wish I'd had this for 1L Civ Pro when learning jurisdiction the first time. I highly recommend this for any law student - it is clear and concise and the examples are extraordinarily enlightening.

While Civil Procedure is the worst..., December 19, 2009
this book makes it tolerable. It clearly and fully explains concepts such as Jurisdiction and the Erie Doctrine, among others. I wish I had discovered this book earlier in the semester so that I could have used it as a supplemental reading instead of an exam review.

Make Civ Pro Make Sense to You, December 31, 2008
Civ Pro is unlike any other first-year course and can take some getting used to. Let Glannon get you there. His examples takes a rule and dissect and apply to all possible hypothetical situations. My only wish is that he covers EVERY rule, but that would make this book in to multi-volume series we 1Ls cannot afford. ... Read more

Editorial Review

Ronald Reagan -- President of the United States: The National Center for Constitutional Studies...is doing a fine public service in educating Americans about the principles of the Constitution.

For many years in the United States, there has been a gradual drifting away from the Founding Fathers' original success formula. This has resulted in some of their most unique contributions for a free and prosperous society becoming lost or misunderstood. Therefore, there has been a need to review the history and development of the making of America in order to recapture the brilliant precepts which made Americans the first free people in modern times.

The Making of America provides a wealth of material on the Founding Father's intentions when drafting the American Constitution. It is one of the most thorough compilations of statements by the Framers relating to constitutional interpretation, and addresses the Constitution clause by clause -- providing resources on the Founder's intent of each clause. The National Center for Constitutional Studies, a nonprofit educational foundation, was created in order to revive those original American concepts in all of their initial brilliance and vitality. The very fact that many of them are becoming obscure and misunderstood emphasizes the urgency of the task. The study for The Making of America extended over a period of nearly 40 years, and an organized effort to present this information in a published text was a concerted endeavor of nearly 14 years.

It will be observed that many new insights are provided in the writings of the Founders for the solution to serious economic, political and social problems plaguing the world today. It is felt that a study of The Making of America can be of lasting value to all who have a serious concern for the general welfare of not only America but all mankind.

Reviews

Comprehensive, Reliable, Essential, March 30, 2006
I love this book. It taught me about the Constitution and its simple, exalted ideas. If you read this book you will understand America's "charter of freedom" better than you would from taking a college course in political science. (At least, that's what happened to me.)
I wouldn't say The Making of America is "bipartisan." It fully lauds the Constitution as having a "success formula" for prosperity and freedom that is unique and superior to any other political system in the world. If you want a book that regards America's Constitution as neither better nor worse than other government systems, then this is not the book for you.
The Making of America is well organized. Here is a synopsis of the contents: It begins with interesting biographical information on " the man who discovered America's Freedom Formula" - Thomas Jefferson. The next chapter explores various governments - real governments that existed, such as what the Anglo-Saxons, Israelites, and French (during the times of Napoleon) had, contrasting their advantages and weaknesses. All of these were assessed by the Founders (especially Jefferson), so the author is showing what influenced the Founders' thinking about governments. It's amazing. The third chapter describes some of the Revolutionary War battles, and the Colonial leaders, and how the existing government - the Articles of Confederation - was severely deficient and in need of replacement, which chapter 4 explores further. Chapter 5 is all about the Constitutional Convention at Philadelphia, and 7 explains, very simply, the balance of powers in government and all that complex stuff about three branches and division of powers and the Great Compromise and all that.
Chapter 8 is one of my favorite parts; it explains capitalism - not just what it is, but exactly why it works: It allows maximum freedom for people to invent, try, sell, buy, prosper, fail. It gives real examples of what happened when the government intervened in the economy, such as with price controls, and discusses whether big business is bad or good. Chapter 9 recounts the ratification of the Constitution and the reaction of the states and people, and talks about the Federalist Papers. It then examines the Preamble, its wording and principles.
Now we get to the heart of the book. From here until the conclusion, each chapter explores, in depth, every article and section of the Constitution - almost sentence by sentence. The author chose a very interesting way to do this - instead of boringly stating why this or that clause was included, he identifies the principle that the section allows. So after giving a sentence straight from the Constitution, he writes: "This provision gives the American people the RIGHT to ..." and says what it lets us do. Here's an example. On page 500, you read the text from Article I.10.1, "No state shall grant any title of nobility." The author says, "This further secures the RIGHT of the American people not to have [government] creating an aristocracy of privileged citizens." And then interesting history is given, describing how before the Constitution granted this right, King George III and the House of Lords were corrupt and arrogant and elitist because they were given special titles and considered above the common people, and so the American Founders wanted to forbid this practice to protect the people. Every sentence almost, of the Constitution is explained in this way. Throughout The Making of America, plenty of history is provided, in an easy-to-understand way, to help the reader see what life was like before the Constitution; also, the entire book is replete with quotations from the Founding Fathers - this is so that the reader knows exactly what the Founders intended, because much of the Constitution is misinterpreted now. Also, the amendments are studied in the same format as the Constitution, analyzing them in their historical contexts. After you read this book, you'll feel smart because your mind will be buzzing with philosophy, history, and political science. I can't tell you how much I've learned from this book. It has increased my understanding, and therefore, my love, for America's Founders and Constitution.
Also, there is a handy subject index, a copy of the Constitution's text, brief description and pictures of each of the Convention delegates, and a good introduction and conclusion.
My only complaint about this book is that there isn't a new edition; it seems it was written in the mid 80s. Don't worry, though - the information isn't outdated - because it only deals with timeless principles; but still, it would be nice if there were a newer edition; it has a rather plain cover - pale yellow with grey and red letters - and, for some reason, the print is huge, like it's for the visually-impaired or something. But that doesn't really matter; the text itself is fascinating.
You can use this great book as a reference tool - like if you hear some legislation is passing in the House and you want to know if it's really Constitutional or not - or you can read it cover-to-cover, as I did; either way, get this book, if you want to understand the Constitution and America's "freedom formula."

IF YOU WANT TO UNDERSTAND THE CONSTITUTION --- THIS IS #1 !!, July 8, 2002
The most complete book written on the substance and meaning of the U.S. Constitution. The first couple hundred pages or so focus on the history leading up to to the Constitution (including Biblical history relevant to the Constitution). The rest of the book focuses on the Constitution itself.

Skousen (he was actually aided by a whole team of researchers and scholars to get all the material and documentation for the book) then takes the text of the Constitution and analyzes it phrase by phrase, using actual quotes made by Founding Fathers, which describe the phrase in question or the concept that the phrase deals with. Every single phrase in the Consitiution is covered. Most phrases are covered by several Founding Fathers.

I've had a copy of this book for about 10 years now and I never get bored with it. I consider it to be one of the most important books ever written.

To understand what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution, this book is indispensible.

A Must Read, January 29, 2005
This is one of the most important books that I have ever read.

The Making of America contains some history leading up to the Constitution. The most important and unique part of the book is a dissection of the Constitution principle by principle.

The author goes through 286 separate principles in the Constitution.

If you read this book, you will understand the U.S. Constitution better than 99% of the 'constitutional lawyers' claiming to be experts.

This is a book that every elected official and every American voter should read and study.

The Making of America, July 25, 2000
Indispensable ammunition for those of us seeking to establish "original intent". Skousen's book matches provisions of the Constitution with Madison's Notes on the Convention. Very readable. Liberals hate it...that's good enough for me.

constitution very well approached and defined, December 21, 1998
This book is extremely interesting because it commenced with the development of the constitution, the inspiration of the founder's. Their total alligence and dedication to a document so vitally important to the building of a nation deemed for the freedom of all. Totally interesting and informative to scholars and lay people alike. I found it to be in easy to understand language. Tremendously interesting.

The Making of America, November 8, 2007
A remarkably clear and lucid explanation of how the Constitution was formed. The author's sensitivity to historical context is exceptional. The book is written in a breezy high-school style that makes it accessible to essentially any reader. The author quotes extensively from the writings of the Founders so that the reader doesn't have to take his word for anything. This book is a "must-read" for anyone who wants to be an informed and responsible citizen of our republic.

Great Guide to and Reference for the U.S. Constitution, September 3, 2009
We had either this book or one very similar (it might have been published earlier as the Miracle of America) growing up. Dr. Skousen writes at a level that is intuitive enough for a child and yet deep enough for an adult. It provides amazing insights into how the Founding Fathers of this nation intended to preserve our liberties and our inalienable rights endowed by a Creator through the framework of a Constitution that would keep our government chained down and restrained from oppressive actions as practically as possible.

Like the holy scriptures themselves, this book provides us with a knowledge of our god given rights and of common law as understood by our forefathers. You'll be shocked to realize just how many of our freedoms have slowly been eroded away by the collective accumulation and arising predominance of civil law over common law. One example being the advise by many judges today to juries that they are obligated to only find the facts of the case as opposed to the original power of the jury to acquit when they found the laws themselves preposterous to the situation. The predominance of personal liberty and true rule by common law is founded on the original U.S. Constitution. Dr. Skousen has done an excellent job summarizing just how miraculous the founding of this nation was and providing meaningful explanations of each clause and Amendment to the Constitution. Some Amendments to the Constitution have eroded away some of the pristine ideals of true liberty (e.g. those that paved the way to our present income tax, while others have furthered the cause of liberty by leading to more equal rights and protection under the law to all men regardless of race and/or sex.

I would recommend that every freedom loving family have a copy of this book next to their copies of the word of God where every child can have easy access to this wonderful reference and realize their god given dignity and freedoms.

A Must Read, April 29, 2008
This book is a must read for every American. This should be taught in our school system. Everyone should know the Constitution so they can see for themselves what the government is taking away. Liberty is for all not just a few.

Excellent review of the basics of the Constitution, October 28, 2001
I highly recommend this book to anyone wanting to study the original intent of the founding fathers. It pulls no punches and bursts the myths of "political correctness". It is clear these men were inspired and understood their place in history. This book takes the reader though the constitution a step at a time and is able to make even the complex parts of our system plain.

It is important to know what they were thinking back then, April 28, 2009
I very much like this book and highly recommend it because the author talks about what our Founders were thinking of back then.

If you want to know what the Founders thought about separation of church and state, this book will tell you. Most of these men were religious in some way, and they put the idea of separation of church and state right into the Constitution. That phrase is used today to actually suppress the practice of religion, and to substitute the new State Religion of psychology, psychiatry, etc.

If you want to know what they meant by the Second Amendment, this book will tell you. ... Read more

Editorial Review

<p>The #1 study guide for Evidence is now in its <b>Seventh Edition</b>. <b>Examples & Explanations: Evidence</b> is the go-to resource for any student struggling to understand the concepts and rules of evidence as described in their casebook. The <i>Examples & Explanations</i> pedagogy encourages students to read the text carefully, apply what they have learned, and test their understanding of the material.</p><p><b>A leader in its field, <i>Examples & Explanations: Evidence</i> features:</b></p><ul><li><b>clear and concise introductions</b> to the concepts and Rules of Evidence</li><li><b>examples with questions</b> that start out simply and gradually build in complexity</li><li><b>thorough explanations of how to analyze the questions</b> in the examples</li><li><b>a "plain language" version of the Federal Rules of Evidence</b>, complete with new amendments to the Rules</li><li><b>generous use of visual aids</b>—tables and charts—that illustrate key concepts</li></ul><p><b>Still fewer than 350 pages, the Seventh Edition includes:</b></p><ul><li><b>discussion of <i>Giles v. California</i>, concerning Hearsay and the Confrontation Clause </b></li><li><b>analysis of newly-adopted Rule 502</b>, regarding inadvertent waiver of the attorney-client privilege, with a plain-language explanation in the Appendix</li><li><b>a flow chart</b> that illustrates the proper sequence of analysis for relevance and hearsay exclusions & exceptions as applied to an out-of-court statement</li><li><b>a new chart</b> that illustrates <b>character evidence with regard to the propensity inference</b></li></ul><p><b>Examples & Explanations: Evidence, Seventh Edition</b>, is a current and time-proven resource that you can recommend to your students with confidence.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p> ... Read more

Reviews

E&E are the way to go, September 12, 2010
I found this E and E to be especially good. The material in this supplement is comprehensive, so just read the section that apply to your prof's teaching.

Excellent hypos, clear explainations, and a good setup made this text a good addition to my evidence studies.

Evidence, October 4, 2009
Never used an appendix like I do with this book!Use it with your EZ rules and then do flashcards to see if you get it! Be self-taught when you don't get your teacher's style and you need to pass Evidence! ... Read more

Editorial Review

In their professional lives courtroom lawyers must do these two things well: speak persuasively and write persuasively. In this noteworthy book, two of the most noted legal writers of our day Justice Antonin Scalia and Bryan A. Garner systematically present every important idea about judicial persuasion in a fresh, entertaining way. Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges is a guide for novice and experienced litigators alike. It covers the essentials of sound legal reasoning, including how to develop the syllogism that underlies any argument. From there the authors explain the art of brief-writing, especially what to include and what to omit, so that you can induce the judge to focus closely on your arguments. Finally, they show what it takes to succeed in oral argument. The opinions of Justice Scalia are legendary for their sharp insights, biting wit, and memorable phrasing. The writings of Bryan A. Garner, editor in chief of Black s Law Dictionary®, are respected inside and outside legal circles for their practical guidance on the art of writing and advocacy. Together the Scalia-Garner team has produced a fresh, innovative approach to a timeless topic. ... Read more

Reviews

Persuasion from a legal point of view, May 1, 2008
I am not a lawyer, but I love reading about persuasion and influence. This book caught my attention out of left field, but it certainly added a lot of value to my understanding of persuasion from a logical and argumentative point of view.

Most of the books I've read on persuasion focus on the emotional appeals that move people and mention that you need to give a rational argument for the decision so the persuadee can feel good about it. This book teaches you how to make that rational argument, but it does more than that. It teaches you how to frame the argument before it is made so that it will be more persuasive when it is made. The portion focused on the development of the syllogism was particularly interesting.

Definitely a book that you will want to read whether your are in the legal arena or not - if you want to know how to influence and persuade.

Excellent general guide for appellate practice, but..., February 6, 2009
If you're a trial lawyer handling your first appeal, you should absolutely read this book cover-to-cover. I've practiced solely appellate law for ten years, seen hundreds of appellate arguments, written hundreds of briefs and argued nearly a hundred cases, attended national trainings on appellate practice, and taught hundreds of new attorneys how to handle their first appellate case. I agree with almost everything the authors have to say-- and what credible authors!

My disagreements:
1) Never summarize your case in the "conclusion" section of the brief. They advise this, and note that many disagree with this. I emphatically disagree with it. A conclusion in the body of the point, at its end, may do very well, but the so-called "prayer for relief" section needs to be one sentence that says precisely what you want the court to do, and nothing else. This way the court knows exactly where to flip to find the remedy you're requesting, and doesn't have to parse a page of text to find it.

2) "And its progeny" is hackneyed? What are you supposed to say? This case and all the cases which grew out of it? Sprung from it? Were decided after it and based on it in some way? Terms which they call "hackneyed" are often the quickest and most precise way to phrase something. So just ignore that paragraph.

3) They "skirt" the issue, by failing to skirt the issue, of women's dress. They only say, "wear dark colors." The new female attorneys do not believe me when I say judges expect them to wear skirt suits to court. I've seen women show up in red shirts under striped pantsuits worn with sandals. They believed they looked professional, but really, they had lost ten points in credibility already. It would have been nice to have a Supreme Court justice address female dress in the courtroom.

4) Quoting. They give the impression that you should never quote, and you should always paraphrase. I disagree. In my opinion, you should have a quote for the standard of review, and a quote for everything that might be controverted. I will summarize general case law into a nice smooth paragraph. But the standard of review is always a series of quotes and cites, and anything that I think the judges might doubt I quote (e.g., if a juvenile invoked right to counsel before being certified, that invocation went poof after they were certified, so until it was reasserted, the cops were free to read him his rights and question him-- that needs quotes.)

5) Sexist language. They disagree on how to deal with this. What you can't do, with all due respect, Justice Scalia, is use "man" for everything, because then you sound like one of those 1950's women-hating guys in horn-rimmed glasses. All the women in the room will think you a caveman. Most sexist language can be avoided easily and grammatically. Where it can't, I find it helpful to just use the gender of the main party in the controversy.

6) Drafting the brief. They assume you have a month to work on your case. They might as well advise you to have your fairy god-mother finish it for you. So, follow their advice, but squeeze it into the three days you actually have. E.g., instead of writing out an outline of your entire case, when you start your point, write your point relied on, then make a descriptive heading for each section of your case (e.g., Facts, Standard of Review, Law on admitting a breath test, the state failed to lay a proper foundation for the admission of the test results, the other evidence failed to prove intoxication, conclusion.) Then you've outlined your case and written your headings all at once.

7) In a criminal case, it's perfectly fine for the state to call the appellant, "the appellant," throughout the case. It's not "too cute," as the authors say, because the state is always "the state," so their side is already depersonalized. And, it makes it really easy for the appellate court to remember who's who.

8) Never use footnotes for anything you want the court to read. I completely agree with Scalia's writing on this issue.

9) In oral argument, if you're through, you need to sit down. Now. They talk about having a big lengthy end summary. That may be required in the United States Supreme Court, but it's pretty ridiculous elsewhere. My shortest argument was forty seconds long. (Yes, I won, and yes, they were visibly relieved.) I almost always leave half or more of my time unused. And do, do, do, say, "If there are no further questions," pause briefly and make eye contact with all judges, "we ask that you" and state what you want the court to do (remember that one sentence in your prayer for relief?). That's a much more effective close to your argument than trying to summarize your whole case for judges who just wish you'd sit down.

So, I say definitely read this book-- even experienced counsel will find something in it that can improve their practice. But also realize this book is written for a general appellate audience, and especially the US Supreme Court, and therefore needs to be tweaked to fit practice in your specialty.

If you need to persuade a judge, you need this book, June 1, 2008
Whether or not you agree with Justice Scalia's opinions from the Supreme Court, this book as a primer on briefs and oral argument is excellent. I wish that I had this book for moot court. The brief writing section was far better than any of the books I had to help me. The oral presentation section identified solutions to problems that frustrated me. If you are not a lawyer you will likely find the oral argument section interesting and helpful, but find the minutia of the brief writing section boring. As a lawyer, I will reread this book from time to time.

Justice Scalia recognizes there are other viewpoints; he discusses them but then explains why his view is better.

The book presents all viewpoints and follows with their own and why theirs is better. For example, the book points out that although they believes underlining is a crude throwback to the typewriter , Bluebook approves the use of underlining. The book states that underlining is unnecessary in the 21st century with a word processor. They follow with suggesting that Bluebook should be revised. The book suggests using italics where you would have used underlining. They add that very limited use of italics is far better than liberal use. Justice Scalia's differences of opinions extend to his coauthor.

Bryan Garner, author of Garner's Modern American Usage, The Elements of Legal Style and editor in chief of Black's Law Dictionary did not agree with Justice Scalia on all points. Some section headings state a definite rule, followed by "or not." For example: "Consider using contractions occasionally--or not." These sections take the form of majority opinion vs. minority opinion. Mr. Garner's opinion is presented, Justice Scalia follows with his opinion and his analysis on why Mr. Garner was wrong and why Justice Scalia is right.

The book is organized logically, and with brevity.
The book in its 245 pages discusses:
* the general purposes of oral argument,
* legal reasoning, brief writing, and finally
* the crafting of the oral argument itself.

It discusses these topics more thoroughly than some books that are three times its size. Subsections have a clear heading and to the point discussion. Most subsections, although fully treated, are one to two pages long, some less than a page.

Finally
The book shows how to tailor your arguments for a singular audience, the judge, distinguished even from arguing before a jury. It gives tactics to use with difficult judges, lazy judges, and their law clerks. It gives the view from the bench when the lawyer reacts to bad questions from the judge. It describes the likely outcomes, and it offers way to avoid confrontation, while still making your argument. It is a good book.

Elegant, useful, May 7, 2008
Simply the best book on legal persuasive writing ever written.

Interesting, useful, fun, full of great anecdotes. Terrific discussion of statutory interpretation. Great references to scholarly classical treatises on rhetoric. This book is wonderful both for its analysis of oral argument and for its discussion of written forms of persuasion, like briefs. I wish I had had it earlier.

My only complaint is the same one I have with virtually all modern style manuals: they advocate a simplistic prose style, characterized by short, conversational sentences, avoiding unusual words, eschewing Latin phrases. But I personally often find prose that breaks these rules a refreshing change. I enjoy reading a word or phrase I rarely see but that is perfectly chosen. And I enjoy learning new words or phrases. This book would condemn two of the greatest legal prose stylists out there: John Marshall and Learned Hand, both of whose opinions often contained sentences that would not work so well conversationally, that were full of long, convoluted sentences and classical allusions. My sense is that in this joint work Justice Scalia, who can write rich and interesting prose, pushed back against some of the simplifying strictures of his co-author.

Furthermore, I think that often too much emphasis on simple words and sentences serves to make more complex ideas too difficult to express or to understand. Thus, the book (like most books) argues against "jargon," but jargon, once learned, is often a much clearer way of expressing something than a rephrasing.

And the Roe v. Wade anecdote is great! It explains a lot...

In any case, I am hardly qualified to criticize Justice Scalia, whose writing is far beyond my own. Anyway, this is a great book.

Written for lawyers, but valuable for everyone, June 7, 2008
We all need to make arguments. Whether it is something as benign as trying to decide where to have lunch or something as serious as whether Mom needs to be place in an enhanced care facility, we need to be able to think, write, and speak clearly about what we want to do. How do we form the argument? Does our order of presentation matter? What should we know about the person or board we are presenting to?

This little book by Justice Antonin Scalia and Bryan Garner is written for lawyers who go before judges, but almost everything in here can be easily translated into everyday life. The craft of a lawyer is just a special case of the kinds of reasoning, arguing, disputing, and presenting we do almost every day of our lives.

Do not think this is a book on Scalia's judicial philosophy. The authors point out several times that you must know the philosophy and predilections of the judge you are going before and adjust your arguments accordingly. They also remind the reader several times that they are writing for lawyers presenting to judges and not advice they would give judges.

The book consists of 115 little chapters that run from a single paragraph to a few pages. These are divided into four broad groups: General Principles of Argumentation, Legal Reasoning, Briefing, and Oral Argument. While these last three are clearly legal terms, you can simply thing of them as Building Your Argument, Presenting Your Argument Through Concise Writing, and Arguing Your Case Verbally. Isn't it obvious how you can use these things at work, in your community, and even within your social settings?

While we normally associate legal writing with dry as dust and inscrutable prose, this book is light, lively, and has nice touches of humor. The authors cite wonderful authorities on language, argument, presentation, writing, and speaking and provide a nice list of works for additional reading at the end. There is also a helpful index to find just the sections you are looking for.

I think this book is terrific and have placed with my very favorite references on writing and language. If you care what I think, you should get this book, read it, and enjoy the benefits of these talented and brilliant minds.

Reviewed by Craig Matteson, Ann Arbor, MI

Like Having an Expert Looking over Your Shoulder, January 29, 2009
I am a law professor who spent 25 years as a Plaintiff's lawyer before deciding to teach. I've been before the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal many times and state appellate courts a few times. One caveat to consider: I expect to be arguing before the United States Supreme Court in the future. I hesitate to be too ebullient, lest you think that I'm trying to curry favor. However, I think that this book is great.

Why do I recommend it? First, it is short. This book will accomplish much of what other books try to teach about advocacy, but in many fewer pages.

Secondly, it is practical. It teaches writing skills, speaking skills, and how to be persuasive with limited time.

Finally, it is not just for lawyers. Anyone trying to be persuasive can apply the same skills to other situations.

For those of you who are politically opposed to Justice Scalia (which, believe it or not, includes some law professors)this is a joint effort by Garner and Scalia, and they frequently disagree. Hearing both sides of the argument on how to write or speak persuasively will help you decide how you want to present your arguments.

How do my political opinions and Justice Scalia's opinions mesh? Can I be fair? I think so. He's a Federalist, I consider myself an Anti-Federalist. He as supporter of administrative delegation, I think delegation of congressional responsibilities to administrative agencies is congressional abdication. In short, I'm not recommending this book because Justice Scalia and I agree on policy, because on many policy matters we don't. I'm recommending it because I think it will help you.

You wont be disappointed with the book.

interesting but mostly useless, July 23, 2008
As a plaintiff's lawyer who also does appeal work, this book was very interesting but little is memorable after a few days. I'm glad I signed it out from the library instead of buying it. It's just a repeat of basic (naive) advocacy principles. The image is that your judge will really conscientiuosly read things and be careful to rule properly. The book is very well-edited--so you won't read much of substance that is realistic or cynical--like about judicial intellectual dishonesty. Scalia gives no insight on how to get an honest opinion from an appellate court--how to keep appeals judges from ignoring things in the record (or making up things) just so they can come up with a very good-appearing opinion that is wrong because it has result-oriented oddities that only the parties' lawyers know about. Summary judgment (and more recently dismissal for failure to state a claim) have become procedural easy-outs that have created widespread dishonesty by judges who want to get rid of cases (usually because they are infatuated with defense counsel). Often defense counsel succeed only because they loudly and assertively repeat their propaganda--and judges (or their staff) go right along (letting perception become reality). Also, de novo judicial review is in reality deferential to the trial judge (with unwillingness to reverse--finding any way possible (dishonest) to affirm).

There were some very good points--like not being lured into making concessions during oral argument. There might be one detail that prevents the judges from (honestly) ruling a certain way--so you could get a question that so temptingly and nicely tries to get you to agree with an innocuous point, etc. There is a great example of how the judges will write about such a concession in their opinion. Another good point is Scalia's belief that whatever doesn't help your case hurts it (i.e., don't fill your briefs, etc. with unhelpful things).

There could have been some mention of realities like that most judges and staff never in their lives had to prosecute a civil case (or never had a burden-of-proof in their lives) or never had to deal with defense counsel in a contentious manner (e.g., trying to get discovery through a motion to compel)--and how to work with that in the justice system (those judges and staff).

I also didn't like Justice Scalia's pompous "dissents" on some points by Bryan Garner. They stand out in hindsight as ugly parts. It appears that Bryan Garner did the heavy lifting in writing the book.

A joy to read, May 21, 2008
This book is a fantastic product by America's wittiest Justice and one of the foremost legal writers today (Bryan was entrusted with revising the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure).

It is really a product that means different things to two different audiences. First, it serves as an exemplary checklist for the legal advocate. No matter what forum an attorney appears in - your local town adminstrative agency all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, this functions as a comprehensive checklist of things that we were taught in law school - and promptly forgot.

For the lay person, it offers more than just a highly entertaining read. First it demystifies the judicial process for a public whose perceptions of the justice system have been unfortunately based on half-baked Hollywood products, from L.A. Law to Ally McBeal.

But in the classical sense, it is also a treatise on decision making, rhetoric, and the balancing we all perform as humans. In this, it follows, perhaps consciously, the great classics to which it repeatedly alludes.

A great read.

A Solid Book for the Student of Advocacy, June 12, 2008
A good (quick) read overall. The majority of the advice is pretty orthodox, but there are some very interesting isolated topics throughout the book, including the sections on the logical sequencing of writing and Garner's push to move substantive citations away from the text.

Nothing New for Practitioners, August 5, 2008
If you are a practitioner seeking insightful wisdom from a Supreme Court Justice to improve your advocacy skills, this book is not for you. Those who have taken a basic legal writing and/or moot court course will not find any new information here. Essentially, the authors have compiled highlights from a legal writing textbook, added a few quotes from famous judges and a few examples from their own experience, and billed this as a book of wisdom. It appears that most of the book was written by co-author Bryan Garner, drawing on the material from his past publications on the same subject, with Justice Scalia merely placing his name on the cover in order to sell more copies. This is evident by comparing the writing styles of the co-authors when they disagree at a few points in the book. Garner's entries read like the rest of the book; Justice Scalia's entries read like one of his court opinions. Overall, if you are a practitioner, you likely already have a legal writing book stashed away in a box from law school that will serve you just as well. ... Read more

Editorial Review

The famously teachable casebook, Civil Procedure, by Stephen C. Yeazell, features a flexible organization, expertly selected and edited cases, a manageable length, and eminently readable introductions and notes.

The leading casebook for Civil Procedure features:

a clear and straightforward writing style

a helpful overview of the procedural system

techniques for statutory analysis explained in plain English

a manageable overall length

a flexible organization that adapts to a variety of teaching approaches

a comprehensive Teacher s Manual with detailed teaching guidance, case analyses, and sample syllabi

a companion CD with complete text of all of the cases in the book

an Annual Statutory and Case
Supplement available for adoption
a Companion Website with additional teaching materials, including the full text of every case discussed in the book

Updated throughout, the Seventh Edition incorporates the restyled rules from the December 2007 Amendments to the FRCP, as well as material on recent developments, including:

contemporary pleading systems and problems, incorporating recent Supreme Court pleading cases

discovery: spoliation of evidence, E-discovery, sanctions

resolution without trial: emerging trends in judicial regulation of arbitration

former adjudication: preclusion & arbitration

Always a pleasure to teach from, Civil Procedure gives you perfect teaching flexibility, even providing a complimentary CD with the complete text of the cases. At the same time, you know you are totally supported by a Teacher s Manual that provides day-to-day guidance for structuring each class, instructions and analyses of every case, and a selection of sample syllabi to choose among. ... Read more

Reviews

Most Confusing Casebook that I used as a 1L, July 29, 2007
Yeazell's casebook gets off to a good start with a very well written intro, but after that it is obvious that the first chapter was the only chapter in the book that Yeazell put any effort into. As other reviewers have stated the cases have been edited quite poorly, the Erie doctrine section confuses, more than it helps and the overall flow of the textbook is poor. Also the note sections, which usually serve to help students make sense of the case that was just read, are more often than not filed with unhelpful questions with no guidance on how to answer them or what the answer would be.

I ended up buying the Hornbook by West and that easily became the text that I used (along with the Fed Rules book) to understand Civ Pro.

I fell sorry for you if you have to use this book.

*Note review is for the 6th edition.

A Necessary Evil, August 14, 2001
When you first pick up the book, you feel exhilirated that you, too will be learning all about Civil Procedure. The case in the introduction is fun, but it is all down hill from there. The cases are important cases, but the editing took out parts of the opinions that should be there so you can understand the rest of the opinion (I could mention Erie, but nobody understands that on a good day either...). It is a necessary evil that we mut struggle through in our attempts at world domination...I mean our attempts to become lawyers...

Good but limited utility., May 20, 2010
I have mixed feelings about this book. On one hand it is pretty good for teaching the basics of civil procedure. If that's what you're planning on doing, buy with confidence. On the other hand, if you are hoping to use this as body armor or some sort of fortification you will be disappointed. I can say without reservation that this book will completely fail to stop even 9mm rounds. They went clear through. Predictably, it did even worse against 7.62 NATO rounds. To summarize this book can teach you civ pro but will be of little use in a post-apocalyptic survival scenario.

Pretty much worthless, January 4, 2008
I actually liked my Civil Procedure class, but I hated doing the reading for it because it meant I'd have to use this book. The layout is thus: You read a case, and then you are presented with a series of questions that apparently you're expected to be able to answer on your own - in effect, you have to teach yourself Civil Procedure as you read. Interspersed with the meaningless (at least to the confused 1L reader) questions are little facts and tidbits related to Civil Procedure which aren't that important, but since they're the only information in the discussion section not presented in question form, you glom onto them in the hope that knowing said facts and tidbits will help to clarify Civil Procedure for you. All in all, easily one of the worst textbooks I've ever had.

A good casebook on all points., December 14, 2007
This was my favorite casebook of my 1L classes. I have no complaints about it. Things I like: Plain English writing style, use of modern cases (Internet, etc.), extensive use of hypos as questions after cases, thought-provoking and difficult questions - many of them with answers or hints. If you can do these, you'll be prepared for whatever issues appear on exams.

Better have a good Civ Pro Professor, December 10, 2010
My review will mirror many of the reviews for this edition of Yeazell's Civil Procedure: Good intros, but difficult explanations to wade through for the rest. Which is where a good Professor/TA comes in.

Here are the best methods in successfully deciphering this book (and in general for law school):

Before class:
-Read Yeazell's intros (they set up the cases well)
-Read each case then read over his notes (if any exist) and any FRCP rules/sections from the Rules supplement
-Do the problems in the notes (take your best shot)
-**Optional** - For the really motivated students, you can look up the cases in law reviews or de minimis for further explanations/context. I never did this, but I've heard it helps when there's confusion.
-Prepare a case-brief while re-reading the case, incorporating the knowledge obtained from the notes
-Review 1/2 hour before class

During class/TA sessions:
-Take detailed notes! Fill in anything you might have missed/misunderstood, and anything else you deem important (especially anything the Prof. puts on the board, or writes on projectors, or asks hypos of, or gives out handouts for)
-Refer to your case-brief, and be courageous in your answer when called upon (the Socratic method is for your benefit, though it may feel like torture)
-Pay attention to how Prof/TA goes over the problems and answers
-Ask questions about anything you might have missed

After class/TA sessions (directly after-wait too long, and this stuff might fly out of your brain):
-Add condensed and important points into outline (which you will use as your study tool for finals)
-Add answers to problems into outline
-Mark up rules/sections in the FRCP Yeazell supplement pertaining to important class discussions
-**Important** - Attend office hours for Professor (or TA - but not as important b/c TA not testing you) and discuss ANYTHING you might be hazy on - Students rarely go to office hours. Those that do, get the top grades. Go figure.
-**Optional, but important** - Form study groups to go over class material/outlines/complain about CivPro
-Review material weekly

After this is complete, rinse and repeat.

Before finals:
-Finish up outline (should be almost finished before end of classes), and read over repeatedly until you're confident with materials
-Take practice exams (especially essays)
-If you have time, go over practice exams with Prof/TA/study group

Law school casebooks like Yeazell's are almost never straightforward so they require all these steps so you actively learn. If most of these steps are not taken, it will probably lead to confusion, panic, just overall bitterness from a nebulous source of education.

---advice from an overachieving 1L

The worst casebook I have ever used., November 28, 2010
I think my title sums it up. If you are a professor deciding on a book to use for your class, PLEASE do not use this one. Thank you.

Easy read, October 4, 2008
I had to get this book for civil proceedure class at law school. I had a copy of the 6th edition form a buddy but it was too different form the required 7th edition so I dropped the $90. School was selling them for $140 so get it here instead. I really wanted to save the $90 and use an older edition as I am doing in torts but the books were just too different and it was not worth it. If you need this book for next year or next semester you might want to wait and get a used copy.
The book is very easy to read and the most similar to my undergrad textbooks.

Do not 12(b)6 my advice., December 22, 2008
If you remotely understood the humor in my header than this book is fine for you. The truth is Civil Procedure is not exactly the stuff that made us want to be lawyers, but when we finish law school, who is going to forget Asahi, or Erie!, or World-Wide Volkswagen, or hmm... Gibbs! Yeazell has all the cases you need in here. I do think Semtek in the Erie section is odd because preclusion has not been introduced. And I think it is the odd placement, if you read the book linearly rather than jumped around, that makes some of the reviewers here hate this book. But this is one of the better books. Couple this sucker with Glannon and presto you will be screaming "There ain't no subject matter jurisdiction under 1331--it is all a lie!" In no time. Also, do yourself a favor and remember Kroger v. Owens Electric--it will come to bite you in the you know what if you don't.

Get a hornbook to learn Civ Pro!, May 3, 2008
This was the most confusing subject I've ever endured in my life. Unfortunately, this case book only added to it. There are cases after cases that are supposed to help you understand civil procedure, but there is little discussion of the law itself or about why the court decided the first case the way it did but did the polar opposite in a second, similar case. The questions that are provided after the cases are designed to help you analyze the law, but they are of little help when you have no foundation. Most people will probably need to consult at least one other source to understand civil procedure. If your law library provides a hornbook, make it your best friend. It is too late for me. ... Read more

Editorial Review

Sit back and enjoy a collection of verbatim exchanges from the halls of justice, where defendants and plaintiffs, lawyers and witnesses, juries and judges, collide to produce memorably insane comedy. ... Read more

Reviews

A great read and very funny too!, January 19, 2000
When I decide to review a book, I try to pick subject that interest me and law is one of those subjects. This book has very little to with the practice of law and very much to do with the lighter side of the law. It will entertain you for hours as you read through the pages.

In just over 250 pages you will find some of the funniest things ever said in a courtroom. You'll read what lawyers; witnesses, jurors, judges, defendants and plaintiffs have said if you pay attention you'll find yourself on the ground laughing.

A book that took just one hour to complete from cover to cover has provided a very bright start to the New Year. The sidesplitting questions and answers are sure to make everyone laugh. A certain must have for everyone in the legal field.

Written by a practicing lawyer and taken from actual court transcripts you'll get a first hand look at not so serious side of the system of jurisprudence. Congratulations on a job well done! This book makes a great gift for those hard to buy people as well.

Goofy Things Said in Court, December 4, 2006
The book is a collection of things people actually said in court, word for word, taken down by court reporters. It must be tough to record some of these exchanges without laughing out loud. Fun reading for anyone, but if you have a friend who's a lawyer or a judge, it might be the perfect gift for them.

Here are some samples from the book:

ATTORNEY: What is your date of birth?
WITNESS: July 18th.
ATTORNEY: What year?
WITNESS: Every year.
_____________________________________

ATTORNEY: How old is your son, the one living with you?
WITNESS: Thirty-eight or thirty-five, I can't remember which.
ATTORNEY: How long has he lived with you?
WITNESS: Forty-five years.
_____________________________________
ATTORNEY: What was the first thing your husband
said to you that morning?
WITNESS: He said, "Where am I, Cathy?"
ATTORNEY: And why did that upset you?
WITNESS: My name is Susan.
______________________________________
ATTORNEY: Now doctor, isn't it true that when a
person dies in his sleep, he doesn't know about it until the next morning?
WITNESS: Did you actually pass the bar exam?
____________________________________
ATTORNEY: The youngest son, the twenty-one-year-old, how old is he?
WITNESS: Uh, he's twenty-one
________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Were you present when your picture was taken?
WITNESS: Would you repeat the question?
______________________________________
ATTORNEY: So the date of conception (of the baby)
was August 8th?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And what were you doing at that time?
WITNESS: Uh....
______________________________________
ATTORNEY: She had three children, right?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: How many were boys?
WITNESS: None.
ATTORNEY: Were there any girls?
______________________________________
ATTORNEY: How was your first marriage terminated?
WITNESS: By death.
ATTORNEY: And by whose death was it terminated?

Disorder in the Review, April 30, 2003
The 2nd book of 2 by Charles M. Sevilla that takes a humorous look at the goings on in courtrooms around the country. I'm sure that a lot of you have gotten the e-mail with excerpts from this book (which is what prompted me to buy the book and the 1st "Disorderly Conduct"). I enjoyed this book and got some chuckles out loud. Anyone in or around the legal professions should find this book amusing. Amusing illustrations illuminate some of the quotes. There are bits of this book that are more amusing than others, but what I find amusing you may not. I still feel that there is enough in this book to make everyone smile (if not chuckle). An interesting addition to this book are the names and cities of the people who submitted the quotes to Mr. Sevilla (there was even one from my home town of West Chester). Which I guess now would be a good time to add - the author originally wrote a column that used this type of humor (and quotes) prompting people from around the country to start sending him their additions. After a while he had enough for 2 books. Over all this is a good book. It would be great for the beach - pick it up, put it down and pick it up again, no worrying about loosing your place in the story.

The snippets I've seen sound good, October 11, 1999
Haven't read the whole thing. But some quotes from the book are circulating on the net. Samples:

Q: Do you know if your daughter has ever been involved in the voodoo A: We both do. Q: Voodoo? A: We do. Q: You do? A: Yes, voodoo.

Q: You were not shot in the fracas? A: No, I was shot midway between the fracas and the navel.

Hilarious, March 25, 2007
My cousin, who is an attorney, loves this book. She said that she can't put it down. Makes her look forward to her job. Great.

A good little book., January 10, 2007
What a great book for carrying with you on visits and reading it to a shut-in or sharing it with a bunch of friends to perk things up on a cold winter's evening.

Taking a poke at Lawyers - my favorite kind of jokes, April 14, 2009
So there I was peacefully sitting out on my mother's veranda when I decided that some reading was in order. I had just received my copy of "Disorder in the Court" and settled down. As expected there were moments of great mirth and just good old fashioned belly laughs. I soon had to be reading the entire book to my mother who laughed until "her laughing bag buss" ( a Jamaican terminology)and speedily depleted my cell phone credit calling friends to read jokes to them.

There were a few flat moments - but you can't have everything. An excellent compilation nonetheless

Great Fractured (WITH DEEP FISSURES!!!) Moments In Courtroom History, March 19, 2009
This book is GREAT!!! Not only in content, but in construction!~!~! It is NOT one where you have to sit and continue through the whole thing at one time. Just bits and pieces at a time are great because some people don't have the time to consume the entire book! You don't loose anything reading it that way. . . . Waiting on the sequel!

Reasonable Prudent Person Standard does not apply!, December 6, 2008
While reading the excerpts you will be in shock and awe. When that state subsides, you will likely realize how smart you look and sound in comparison! This one is worth lots of laughs and unforgettable scenarios!

Norman Cousins should've used this book for therapy!, April 5, 2008
My husband is eighty-seven and faced with many physical problems... AND depression. A friend sent an e-mail containing excerpts from this book. Laurits laughed like he hadn't in months, so I located this book and bought it for him. He's read it over and over.
A great book for a person who's down in the dumps... or your favorite lawyer! It makes a nice little gift for ANYONE! ... Read more

Editorial Review

"Can we get some reality in here?" asks Judy Sheindlin, former supervising judge for Manhattan Family Court. For twenty-four years she has laid down the law as she understands it:

• If you want to eat, you have to work.

• If you have children, you'd better support them.

• If you break the law, you have to pay.

• If you tap the public purse, you'd better be accountable.

Now she abandons all judicial restraint in a scathing critique of the system--filled with realistic hard-nosed alternatives to our bloated welfare bureaucracy and our soft-on-crime laws. ... Read more

Reviews

Common sense served on a platter, December 15, 2004
People don't like Judge Judy because she's a "b" or a tyrant. As an ER doctor, I can tell you that what she really is: fed up. Both of us are tired of the vast amount of human garbage we deal with on a daily basis. What is the common factor amongst all these people?

The unwillingness to take *personal responsibility* for your own life.

Simple.

This book is a great collection of situations and solutions for those who cannot manage to wade through the mire of moral choices they are faced with. It's also immensely amusing and right on target.

You will find yourself nodding and laughing. Perhaps you will even wonder why this has to be written down in a book...when it's all just common sense. This is a great present and a quick read. Read her other books as well.

Tough reality from a tough lady!, August 20, 2000
To sum this book up in one sentence is reality with no excuses allowed. This book chronicles Sheindlin's experiences as one of NYC's top family court judges. Sheindlin gives the lowdown on how those who have appeared before her always try to find a scapegoat for their misfortunes and shortcomings. However, Sheindlin is no fool because she can see these people for what they are. Most of them are just ordinary people who fail to take responsibility for their mistakes. People who constantly blame society for their own problems. People who run the gamut with excuses for everything that has gone wrong in their lives without once looking at themselves. From deadbeat dads to irresponsible moms and everything in between, Sheindlin can tell the truly misfortunate from the con artists. I couldn't put this book down. It was such an awesome piece of work. I totally recommend this book to anyone. After reading about Judge Sheindlin's 20+ years as a lawyer and judge, you'll see why it's titled "Don't Pee On My Leg and Tell Me It's Raining."

WHAT YOU SEE...IS WHAT YOU GET, June 24, 2001
I have to admit that I am in complete agreement with Judge Judy. She is a tough talking, no nonsense, commom sense oriented individual, who believes in personal responsibility and acountability. What you see on the television screen, if you watch her show "Judge Judy", is what you find between the cover of this book.

The book covers a variety of social issues in the context of her legal and judicial experience, and she does a full court press in giving her opinions. Not given to judicial restraint, she speaks out on those issues to which her nearly quarter of a century experience as a judge has entitled her. I only wish that she were running for public office. She would certainly have my vote.

The only issue that I take with the book is that it is really not a cohesive entity. It is a somewhat disjointed collection of essays or opinions on various social issues that repeatedly came up during her years on the bench. There is no attempt to put them together into a broader context, so that one segues into the next. This is the one shortcoming of the book. Nonetheless, it is still an interesting read.

Judge Judy for President!, July 7, 2003
Judge Judy, once again, tells it like it is. If you've seen her on TV then you know exactly that she's no pushover. A lot of "bleeding hearts" would never agree with her statements, but I was pleased to read that someone has the courage to stand up and say that things need to change. Being a family court judge, she's seen it all. Women abusing the welfare system by having numerous kids, men hiding from paying child support, people on welfare refusing to work on the basis that it is "below them" and so many other mini case studies fill this book.
I say "Judge Judy for President!!"

Oh this book will fire up your blood for sure, August 12, 2004
OK, for anyone out there who is tired of people who make excuses, people who can not take responsibility for their own actions, and people who use and abuse the system, THIS BOOK IS FOR YOU!

Judy Sheindlin takes the same approach in this book as she does on her TV show. No punches are pulled and no one is spared as Judge Judy lashes out in a strong argument against the types of people mentioned in the above paragraph.

For instance, Judy insists that America's legal system must crack down on juvenile offenders, especially the repeat ones. Many Americans, myself included, are fed up with the way criminals have life easy, and people that make their living as parasites off of a welfare system that taxpayers fund.

This book may cause some readers to write to their Congressman and demand that as an American citizen, and honest, hard-working taxpayer, these criminals (I'm encompassing all the people in Judy's book) must be stopped and common sense must have a place in the life of government and society.

Whatever You Do, Don't Mess With This Lady!, March 25, 2003
I don't normally read books that are ghostwritten. This one, however, was not only informative but wildly entertaining. See Judge Judy skewer self-proclaimed victims, lazy attorneys, callous bureaucrats, unwed teen mothers, craven foster parents, and in general anyone who while serving themselves degrades the lives we all lead in this land of ours.

The only negative I can think of is that, too often, points that need more detail end up as truncated sound bites. By making her points as succinctly as possible, Judge Judy has justifiably won for herself quite a following -- although the book's trenchant style is not dissimilar to her TV appearances, so I can't blame the ghost writer. I guess I'm just too much of a detail wonk to feel comfortable with short shrift on major subjects. Give me facts, footnotes, and all those other scholarly trappings that take me beyond the level of the merely anecdotal.

But this book is not meant for people like me, though I can enjoy it as much as anyone. Judge Judy's elevation of COMMON SENSE to a principle of jurisprudence is guaranteed to make you think, even if it doesn't satisfy all bases.

The book was "BAD! " (meaning great!), November 18, 1999
This book should be on EVERY book shelf in America! I've read it twice. matter of fact, I purchased both books that were written by Judge Judy. I have so much respect for her because she tells it just like it SHOULD be told. As I watch her t.v. program, it amazes me to see how families could sue one another! I would NEVER sue any members of my family. I've learned many things from watching her program. Among many, these are at the top of the line: NEVER, EVER loan family members money and NEVER, EVER co-sign for ANYBODY to buy anything! I strongly practice these two important lessons. If I choose to help a family member, you can bet your last dollar, it will be a gift! This way, I'll never expect repayment, and our friendship will remain in tact!

CHEERING FOR JUDGE JUDY!!, October 25, 2006
This book made me want to cheer out loud!! Judge Judy points out, as so many in society do, that there is a lack of responisbility out there. So many people in our county refuse to take responsibility for their own stupid mistakes and the rest of us pay for it. There is too much reliance on people who live by the law and live their lives responsibly.
I did feel rather sad to realize though, that she is just ONE judge who takes action in her own little corner of America. If more people thought like her, and followed her actions on getting tough with the deadbeats of the nation, this country would not have the severe problems it has. I wish more people in a position of power could see things how she sees it.

Common sense at last!, September 18, 1999
Judge Judy offers some real solutions to real problems in this book. It is about time someone took task with the inadequacies of our legal system and social system. While not a comfortable read at times, it was well worth hearing her views and solutions and I would reccomend this book to anyone. The world needs more people like Judge Judy.

Judge Judy for president, July 29, 1999
What a brilliant woman! At the end of each page...I found my self saying...YEAH!! IT'S ABOUT FREAKIN' TIME!! There are great no-nonsense solutions in this book to very real problems. Not to mention some scary stories of mainstream America. The amazing thing about this book is that the stories are true! Nobody could make this stuff up. ... Read more

Editorial Review

"The legal thriller of the decade." --Cleveland Plain Dealer

Now a Major Motion Picture!

In this true story of an epic courtroom showdown, two of the nation's largest corporations stand accused of causing the deaths of children. Representing the bereaved parents, the unlikeliest of heroes emerges: a young, flamboyant Porsche-driving lawyer who hopes to win millions of dollars and ends up nearly losing everything, including his sanity. A searing, compelling tale of a legal system gone awry--one in which greed and power fight an unending struggle against justice--A Civil Action is also the story of how one determined man can ultimately make a difference. With an unstoppable narrative power, it is an unforgettable reading experience. ... Read more

Editorial Review

A plain-English primer on crime scene investigation that's a must for fans of CSI or Patricia Cornwell
Since the O. J. Simpson case, popular interest in forensic science has exploded: CBS's CSI has 16 to 26 million viewers every week, and Patricia Cornwell's novels featuring a medical examiner sleuth routinely top bestseller lists, to cite just a few examples. Now, everyone can get the lowdown on the science behind crime scene investigations. Using lots of fascinating case studies, forensics expert Dr. D. P. Lyle clues people in on everything from determining cause and time of death to fingerprints, fibers, blood, ballistics, forensic computing, and forensic psychology. With its clear, entertaining explanations of forensic procedures and techniques, this book will be an indispensable reference for mystery fans and true crime aficionados everywhere-and even includes advice for people interested in forensic science careers.

D. P. Lyle, MD (Laguna Hills, CA), is a practicing cardiologist who is also a forensics expert and mystery writer. He runs a Web site that answers writers' questions about forensics, dplylemd.com, and is the author of Murder and Mayhem: A Doctor Answers Medical and Forensic Questions for Writers, as well as several mystery novels. John Pless, MD, is Professor Emeritus of Pathology at Indiana University School of Medicine and former President of the National Association of Medical Examiners. ... Read more

Reviews

An Excellent Resource, July 30, 2004
Forensics for Dummies is a quick reference for a multitude of Forensics issues. It is well organized and easy to read. Concepts are explained clearly.

A wide range forensic topics are explored, including: Investigating the Crime Lab, Assessing the Scene of the Crime, Getting a Grip on Fingerprints, Analyzing Blood Stain Patterns and What's the Deal with DNA. There are several real life cases in the back of the book, which are useful, as well as a section on common myths dispelled.

If you need basic information about a wide variety of forensics issues, then I would highly recommend this book. I am using it for research in writing mystery fiction, and I think it's an excellent tool for writers.

Great starting reference, February 28, 2005
As with all the "for Dummies" books, Forensics for Dummies is a great, quick reference and a wonderful starting point for anyone interested in the field. Written by a doctor and full of information that will surely entice anyone who is a fan of crime investigation shows, the book is laid out well and progresses through the entire method used by forensic scientists.

However, this book is only a starting point for anyone seriously interested in pursuing a career in forenics. It makes a handy reference for writers, as well, but those who are interested in making their crime-oriented stories come to life would do well to find another source for in-depth information.

All you need to know, June 24, 2004
Any "for Dummies" book is a helpful tool for the subject you are interested in; so when I reached the end of this one, it came as no surprise the feeling of satisfaction and excitement that I had about this particular purchase. Being a current student of forensic science myself, any basic information and knowledge that I received from this book will help with my future plans in this field.

EDGAR AWARD NOMINEE!!!!!, February 11, 2005
"Forensics for Dummies" has been nominated for an Edgar Award. This is no surprise as it is the very best reference published.
This book will answer all of your questions and entertain you every step of the way!

Great For Classroom Use, July 8, 2009
As instructor of criminal justice, i find this book remarkable for its clear, simple yet thorough explanation of the basics of forensic science. This book makes a somewhat complicated subject easy for the student to grasp and comprehend. A great supplement to any textbook on this subject.

A book I will use for all my writing!, May 23, 2009
This book is an absolute necessity for me as I am a mystery writer. Dr. Lyle uses a forthright, yet somewhat humorous, approach that makes the reading and understanding easy. I keep this on my desk at all times as I write about those murder scenes and autopsies!

Forensics made easier, April 13, 2008
This book is great for anyone who is interested in the forensic field, or anyone who is just interested in how the whole process works. It breaks the timeline down and the tools used to solve the crime. It also has a great section in the back, that tells you about 10 famous crimes and how they were solved. I loved reading this book. It is a must have for any future CSI's.

Great reading, December 14, 2007
I found this book and love this type of thing and found it to be very well put together and organised.

It is ideal as a reference if you are writing crime or simply want to impress your friends!

Very good for people who are training either in police, crime scene attendance and obviously forensics.

A must have!

Forensics Primer, November 15, 2007
Great intro book to a fascinating specialty. Fun for CSI junkies like myself. A good read.

Great information, easy to read, September 4, 2007
I'm writing a romantic suspense. I used this book the first day I received it. A great reference, easy to understand and non-forensics-person-friendly. ... Read more

Editorial Review

Evidence Under the Rules, Sixth Edition, frames engaging problems and seminal cases in an eminently clear organization that adapts to a variety of teaching approaches.

Smart and unassuming, Evidence Under the Rules continues to feature:

a respected and well-known author team Mueller and Kirkpatrick are experts and trusted authors in the field of evidence

a logical and clear organization structured around the Federal Rules of Evidence

effectively balanced pedagogy lucid exposition, problems, and carefully edited cases

numerous and engaging problems that give students practice applying the Federal Rules of Evidence

focused case excerpts that hone in on the relevant evidentiary aspects of the case

a flexible organization that adapts to a variety of teaching approaches

a detailed Teacher s Manual

a new guide to excerpts from the media demonstrating the FRE being applied or misapplied

a companion 2008 Statutory and Case Supplement

The Sixth Edition offers renewed timeliness and excellence, through:
numerous new and highly teachable problems, a new DVD compilation of the best excerpts from movies and television shows illustrating and dramatizing important points of evidence for classroom discussion,
new material on post-Crawford developments regarding the right of confrontation, coverage of the 2006 amendments to the FRE 404, 408, 606, and 609, revised treatment of scientific evidence, recent and significant case law.

For a well-constructed problem-based casebook that won t throw a veil over the Federal Rules of Evidence, examine the Sixth Edition of Evidence Under The Rules. You ll discover that it supports your teaching. ... Read more

Reviews

really 2 1/2 stars...not the best text I have come across, March 9, 2004
Out of all the texts I have read and used in my first two years of law school, this is one I would rank on the lower end.

First of all, I recognize the fact that it is a difficult job trying to put together a comprehensive study of evidence. It contains some of the law's more difficult areas including hearsay and character evidence, both of which could be (and are) multi-volume studies unto themselves. That being said, I encountered more than a few problems with this book having nothing to do with the topic.

The case selections are standard, most were on point as far as I can recall. The real problems came in the case notes and explanatory sections. I found myself having to refer to my hornbook again and again in an effort to find some lucid passages on the topic. Instead of explaining in plain terms how the evidentiary rule works, they rely on the cases. Where there are such explanatory sections, they are often far too short for such complicated topics. However, the book's most glaring fault comes from its treatment of the post-case note sections. For most, these passages are extremely important since they show how the law has evolved in the wake of the preceding case. They also frequently offer guides to help the reader interpret the law as applied and give hints as to which points in the opinion have been the most influential. This book offers little in the way of such help, opting instead to ask open-ended questions. These questions quickly become aggravating and are almost totally useless as a learning tool. I realize that the law is not black and white, but there is such thing as a majority rule or prevailing law. I want to read something that I can hang my hat on; I don't want to read "How ought such a case be resolved?" Such questions are neither thought provoking nor helpful.

I also am not a fan of the entire Mueller/Kirkpatrick series. The books are smaller than most, which I like since law books tend to be a pain to carry around. However, smaller dimensions also mean smaller margins, which are difficult to take notes in. This annoyance outweighed the benefits of its size.

Overall, I think there are better evidence books out there. My professor apparently agreed since she announced at the end of the semester that she will be switching to a different text.

abones80, June 10, 2005
I am in complete agreement with the very thoughtful review provided by "abones80." This casebook provides a disproportionate amount of questions rather than answers for those trying to glean some grasp of black letter law. On the subject of hearsay, I recommend A Student's Guide to Hearsay by Clifford S. Fishman.

great book, January 30, 2007
I have to disagree with the two reviewers below. This was one of my favorite texts as a law student, and I repeatedly refer back to it as a practicing lawyer. The hornbook version is probably the best practice guide out there. I understand the criticism about too many questions, but I've seen many books with far more. The quality and clarity of analysis here is unparalleled. I don't write in the margins, so I guess I don't fully understand that criticism.

Annoying, April 29, 2010
Chances are reading this book is not your choice. However, allow me to suggest buying and reading a few commercial outlines and an E&E instead. Talk about hiding the ball. There is almost no specific or clear black letter information anywhere. After the authors pose a problem, they offer no answer. Furthermore, the misleading "notes" are phrased in passive-aggressive rhetorical question form. For example. This isn't a very good way to impart information to students, is it? It is repetitive, and annoying, when every sentence ends with a question mark, isn't it? I was irritated every time I tried to read this book for information, wasn't I?

perfect, October 12, 2008
Book was brand new when received and received fast. I would order from this vendor anytime ... Read more

Editorial Review

Inspired by problems that spring from real life, Evidence presents the intricacies of evidence law in a way that law students will find both intellectually compelling and enjoyable. The author covers materials in detail, including relevance, reliability, and privileges. Whenever possible, problems are based on facts quoted from cases or news articles, complete with citations. This fact-based approach piques student interest, causing them to ask, How would a good lawyer attack this problem rather than What is the professor driving at. Written with the belief that students typically prefer to look at the courtroom world through the criminal law lense, the casebook emphasizes the criminal context, while using civil cases when illustrating rules that apply mainly in the civil context. ... Read more

Reviews

Excellent Evidence Textbook, December 18, 2006
This is the best legal textbooks I've ever used. The writing is straightforward and clear, and the examples are interesting and well-written. Really a marvelous tool for teaching and learning evidence.

Hapless law student, May 11, 2009
This is a fantastic textbook for teaching evidence. It is divided up very clearly and goes through the rules and doctrines one by one with cases that are on point and well edited. The font size is nice. The book also lays out charts and well-organized discussions to explain some of the more complex areas. And thankfully, it doesn't waste your time with philosophical discussions about the nature of truth/proof or a "more perfect law" that are of littleinterest to the student seeking to prepare for the exam. Nor does it have little notes directing you to hundreds of other cases that you will never read.

I highly recommend this book

Great help in Evidence class, September 21, 2005
This book is set up great. I like how there are cases, but no little like "notes" at the bottom of the pages. It explains the specific area of Evidence well in relation to the cases and gives good problems to work out so you can make sure you understand the topic. Great book!!

What I wanted just not in the condition advertised, September 17, 2010
I ordered this Evidence book, which was advertised as being in good condition, for my second year law class. When it arrived it was filled with highlighting and ink pen, which covered the body of the text in many places. I emailed the seller about the disparity between the actual condition of the book and the condition as advertised. They were very prompt in their response and offered to grant me a refund upon return of the book. Unfortunately, my class had already started and I was unable to send the book back. Great seller but beware that book may not be in condition advertised.

great seller, March 25, 2010
great book; item as described... really appreciate seller making a "rush delivery" to accommodate me!!

Order Direct From Amazon, October 6, 2007
I ordered this book directly from Amazon and delivery was prompt with the book fully intact, condition as expected and without any problems. Amazon also, promptly answered any questions I had regarding the order. ORDER DIRECTLY FROM AMAZON.

Fast and efficient, March 18, 2007
I had the item expedited and it arrived within the disgnated 48 hours. One drawback - since I was not home, UPS left a note and I only received the book the following day.

Bit more writing in the margins than I expected., January 18, 2007
Bit more writing in the margins than I expected. ... Read more

Editorial Review

A distinguished and experienced appellate court judge, Richard A. Posner offers in this new book a unique and, to orthodox legal thinkers, a startling perspective on how judges and justices decide cases. When conventional legal materials enable judges to ascertain the true facts of a case and apply clear pre-existing legal rules to them, Posner argues, they do so straightforwardly; that is the domain of legalist reasoning. However, in non-routine cases, the conventional materials run out and judges are on their own, navigating uncharted seas with equipment consisting of experience, emotions, and often unconscious beliefs. In doing so, they take on a legislative role, though one that is confined by internal and external constraints, such as professional ethics, opinions of respected colleagues, and limitations imposed by other branches of government on freewheeling judicial discretion. Occasional legislators, judges are motivated by political considerations in a broad and sometimes a narrow sense of that term. In that open area, most American judges are legal pragmatists. Legal pragmatism is forward-looking and policy-based. It focuses on the consequences of a decision in both the short and the long term, rather than on its antecedent logic. Legal pragmatism so understood is really just a form of ordinary practical reasoning, rather than some special kind of legal reasoning.

Supreme Court justices are uniquely free from the constraints on ordinary judges and uniquely tempted to engage in legislative forms of adjudication. More than any other court, the Supreme Court is best understood as a political court.

Reviews

Judges Rule: Are American Judges Political or Pragmatic?, April 17, 2008
Richard Posner, one of America's leading Legal Scholars, has breathtaking range: from Aging (Aging and Old Age) and Intelligence (Uncertain Shield: The U.S. Intelligence System in the Throes of Reform (Hoover Studies in Politics, Economics, and Society)) to Sex (Sex and Reason) and Terrorism (Countering Terrorism: Blurred Focus, Halting Steps). In this book Posner returns to one of the main themes of his scholarship - the failure of Formalist judging and the possibility of Pragmatism as an alternative. This is a recurring theme for Posner (see my reviews of "Sex and Reason" and Overcoming Law, and especially Posner's The Problematics of Moral and Legal Theory) and one on which he can speak from experience: He's a Judge of the US Court of Appeal for the 7th Circuit.

Posner's book is a collection of articles published elsewhere; Its main theme is constructed from Law articles, a survey of the Supreme Court's 2004 term, various book reviews, and even, I think, Blog posts. The end product offers fascinating discussions of many topics, but it feels somewhat disjoint, as if Posner was constantly being sidetracked, albeit in interesting directions.

Posner's main argument, one that would find no disagreement from me, is that American Judges are not Formalists. Formalists argue that legal decisions are (or should be) made in an algorithmic fashion - that there is only one right answer, and that it is independent of the Judge's personality and politics.

That judicial decisions are not Formally determinable, at least in the most interesting cases, has been argued for centuries. Posner demolishes some of the tropes of Formalism old ("reasoning by analogy" pp. 181-190) and new-ish ("Originalism" pp. 343-345) and offers statistical evidence that US judges are not Formalist: the opinions of judges appointed by Democratic administrations differ from those of Republican appointed ones.

But if judges are not Formalist, what are they? Are there only two choices - Formalist(unfeasible in many cases) or political (As Justice Scalia suggests in an article titled "Originalism - the Lesser Evil")? In this and other writing, Posner offers an alternative: Pragmatism.

Pragmatism can help constrain Judges and decide cases in ways that would not seem to be political. A Posnerian Pragmatist should judge cases in which the Formalist apparatus breaks down in three ways:

First, in some fields there exists a "limited... field-specific ideological consensus" (p. 373). In contracts and torts, property law and bankruptcy law - the traditional domains of the Common Law - the basic ideological issues are agreed upon. Therefore judges can use instrumental reasoning as to how best achieve agreed upon goals.

Second, in areas upon which there is little consensus, such as Constitutional Law, the Posnerian Judge would be a minimalist. Subjecting oneself to Oliver Wendell Holmes's " "Puke Test" - a statue is unconstitutional only if it makes you want to throw up... a conviction of error is not enough - there must be revulsion" (p. 288). Judges would be mostly deferential to the "political" branches.

The third, most interesting element of Posner's Jurisprudence is the reliance on Social Science. Posner believes that by immersing oneself in the facts of the case, and in relevant scientific knowledge, one can sometimes transcend the personal dimension of the decision. Essentially, the social sciences can help move an issue from the second category - that of contested moral principles - to the first, thus achieving
an "apolitical" or Pragmatic, ruling.

Pragmatism is not a cure all for legal dilemmas; They can have more than one pragmatic answer. Take the Kelo case (Kelo v. City of New London, pp. 314-320). New London used its power of "eminent domain", forcing landowners to sell land to it at market prices, and then gave the land for public contractors to use in an urban development project. This appropriation of private property was understandably unpopular among owners, who probably estimated the land at a higher value than its market value - otherwise, they would have sold it willingly.

The economic justification for thus appropriating land is the `hold out' problem - sometimes, particular lots are necessary for a project. If they are, the owners, facing no competition, can hold out for a very high price. The power of "eminent domain" is thus an anti-monopoly device.

One pragmatic solution to the case would have been asking whether the situation in Kelo was a `hold out' situation. If so, justification existed for the use of the eminent domain. If not, its use was essentially subsidizing private contractors at the expense of the owners.

Instead of thus resolving the case, the Supreme Court refused to intervene in a political issue. That result, Posner reports, was a pragmatic triumph also. By refusing to defend owners against government action, the Court pushed owners to the public sphere, where they can fight the government's power "The responses of Congress and the states will constitute a series of social experiments from which much will be learned about the proper limits on eminent domain" (p. 319).

Is Posner's prognosis, limited as it is, only normative or also positive? Are US Judges really pragmatic? I think that, unfortunately, they are not. First, the Justices in the Kelo case showed little interest in the Social science behind the use of eminent domain. Application of social sciences in other cases is faulty and undisciplined (pp. 297-299). All the current Justices had been Court of Appeal Judges - did they forget their pragmatism when promoted? The Justices are not a representative sample of US judges, but is there any reason to think they are less empirically inclined?

Indeed, despite Posner's assurance that "Judges are curious about [social reality]... they want the lawyers to help them dig below the semantic surface." (p. 228), I wonder why we can't see that in practice. Law is a highly competitive business. If social science would give lawyers an edge in winning cases, one would think competition would teach lawyers how to use it. Factual, "Brandeis", briefs have been around... well, since Brandeis. Why aren't they making more of an effect?

My guess is that Posner is still an anomaly. Most American judges are not Pragmatists. Maybe we will "overcome law" some day, but we aren't there yet.

Brlliant and fun analysis of how judges actually decide cases, June 12, 2008
This man is *cold*. Fortunately for the reader, it is this icy wit that makes reading Posner's books such a joy. Watch how he rips into inconsistencies:

'In discussing a case that invalidated the exclusion of homosexuals from the military, Beatty approvingly remarks that the court "noted the lack of `concrete' and `actual or significant' evidence that allowing gay men to enlist in the armed forces would prejudice its morale, fighting power, or operational effectiveness in any way." He does not require that there be "concrete" and "actual or significant" evidence that homosexuals are harmed by the exclusion. Nor is he bothered by a lack of concreteness when he says that "laws that establish a broadcasting spectrum [must] guarantee that the full spectrum of opinion in the community will be heard." What is "the full spectrum" of opinion, and who is to decide? Must every lunatic have access to a broadcast studio? Beatty contends that government has a constitutional duty to subsidize religious schools but "may make funding conditional on religious schools agreeing to teach the same curriculum that is used in state-run schools." If the curriculum is identical, in what sense are they religious schools?' (internal footnotes omitted)

The point, here as throughout How Judges Think, is to drive a spear into the side of judicial and scholarly hypocrisy. The particular target here, Beatty, is no more or less hypocritical than the rest of us: judges and legal scholars, as much as anyone, pretend that their opinions are more than just opinions. Judges -- especially Supreme Court Justices -- have a fancy term for this, which we as Americans have come to sanctify as The One True Way Of Judging. The fancy term is `textualism' or `originalism' or (as Posner calls it) `legalism.' Legalism is meant to keep the judges out of judging: they're supposed to read the facts of the case, read the relevant precedents, read the text of any relevant statutes, maybe read the legislative history, then decide the case syllogistically. A judge becomes an automaton lacking independent will. This is supposed to keep politics out of the court, and keep us closer to the ideal of "a nation of laws, not men." The law, after all, shouldn't depend on who's enforcing it. This isn't the way actual judges or actual courts work, says Posner; he spends the next 350 pages crisply and efficiently taking down any number of legalist conceptions of judging. He replaces them with his own description of how judging actually works.

Judges also don't spend much time at all deliberating -- at least not in groups. A judge may be internally conflicted over a case, and at times he may actually change his mind on the basis of what others say. But not normally. Normally -- like poor Mr. Beatty, above -- he's either deliberately or subconsciously deploying judicial reasoning, or the appearance of judicial reasoning, in the service of what he already believes to be true. The ultimate source of judicial opinion is emotion: the race you were born into, the economic class you inhabit, whether you worked as a prosecutor or a defense attorney before you reached the Court.

If judges find sophisticated-sounding justifications for conclusions that they reached at the start, what's to stop them from running totally off the rails? Why can't a judge say whatever he wants? Here Posner walks through the range of `judges' -- from paid arbitrators through Federal appellate-court judges, all the way to the Supreme Court. An arbitrator has certain economic motivations: if he's known as thorough and unbiased, he'll get more business; if he tends to land on compromises that make both sides happy, he'll get still more. District court judges are subject to review by the appellate courts. Federal appellate judges have life tenure, insulating them from public opinion -- but they're subject to review by the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Justices themselves have a cushy job with limited caseloads and no possibility of review. So where do Supreme Court justices get *their* constraints? The public: if the Court veers too far into cloud cuckoo land, it can expect that the people will revolt and clamor for overriding legislation. The Supreme Court still has constraints.

Judges are "constrained pragmatists," in Posner's terminology. They must choose among conflicting interpretations of the common-law and statute history; a pragmatist chooses by considering the consequences of each interpretation in the light of the law's *intent*, if not its wording. A pragmatic judge doesn't get overly bogged down in the words of the law, when those words are an imperfect guide to what the law was supposed to achieve. This sounds similar to objectives-based regulation: specify the outcome and the intent, and focus less on the implementation. The realization behind this is that society changes quickly, and laws that fixate on the present moment's circumstances will quickly become obsolete.

This was the weakest part of Posner's argument: legislation, says Posner, moves more slowly than the courts do, so it's natural to place some of the burden of its interpretation on the courts. The process of amending the Constitution is tortuous, but Posner never makes it clear why this is a bad thing, or whether legislators actually desire to make the judicial branch a second branch of execution. Posner's argument isn't absurd. Even pragmatist judges operate under constraints, after all: if they strike down perfectly constitutional legislation, remedies up to impeachment are theoretically available. And the public has been trained to be on the lookout for `activist judges'. But to base a large part of the argument for pragmatism on a bare assertion that "it works out better that way for everyone" is odd.

His analyses of how a pragmatist would resolve any number of cases are fascinating. Take the Kelo case, for instance, which allowed the city of New London, Connecticut to seize land by eminent domain for private development. A pragmatist assesses a claim of eminent domain by looking at the original intent of the law, and the economic consequences of granting or withholding the seizure right. The original intent, says Posner, was to prevent individual people from holding a big public-works project hostage: if I'm building a several-thousand-mile-long road, everyone in its path knows that their cooperation is vital. They have, in other words, something like monopoly power, and they can demand exorbitant sale prices for their land. If there's no danger of "holdouts," as these are called, there's no reason to grant the state eminent domain. Moreover, a pragmatist would examine the consequences of granting eminent domain in these cases, would realize that the market is better able to assign just compensation to land sales than the state itself is, and would in effect hand the case over to the market for resolution.

A pragmatist judge, it seems to me, is expected to exercise remarkable foresight. Not only must he know enough about the common and statute law to genuflect appropriately at the law's majesty, but now he must also be able to guess the long-term consequences of a particular taking. This means he must be rather thoroughly educated in economics and statistics. Posner might reply here that it's six of one, half-dozen of another: a non-pragmatist judge only has to convert his gut feelings into the language of precedent, but the outcome of this simpler process is decidedly worse than what a pragmatist -- with his wider scope -- comes up with. If I have Posner right, there's little evidence for this claim in How Judges Think. Indeed, Posner repeatedly critiques judges for a lack of interest or skill in the exact sciences. So what's to make us think that an unschooled pragmatist judge would come up with better decisions overall? Maybe "unschooled pragmatist" is a contradiction in terms?

This reliance on economics, statistics, and science makes it all the more jarring when Posner throws down bare assertions -- as, for instance, when he asserts (p. 306) that the "total misery of the wrongly convicted was not lessened" when the Court increased the rights of criminal defendants in the '60's. Total misery decreases if the average wrongly convicted defendant spends less time in jail, or if fewer people are wrongly convicted to begin with. Posner asserts (with evidence) that defendants spent more time in jail after the '60's, in part because of a legislative backlash against the courts. (It could also be because violent crime increased. Posner himself doesn't engage in much convincing heavy-duty statistical analysis, though he cites plenty.) For his claim to hold, he has to show that the probability of wrongful conviction didn't fall enough to compensate for increased jail time. This he does not do. In general, the pretensions of economists invite skepticism during their falls from the empiricist wagon.

One final note from Posner that I found especially interesting: academics, he says, have grown increasingly distant from the actual practice of judging. One consequence is that law students learn the very artificial academic view of how judicial decisions are made. Law students, in a word, are trained to be legalists. They come to expect that judges are the automata they read about in class. Students learn that if they want to convince judges of anything, all they need to do is read a long litany of precedent; the judge will be forced, through logic alone, to accept their conclusions. They import this conceit into the courtroom and get nowhere with it. If legal academia were more in line with how judging actually worked, law students would learn to address judges pragmatically. As it is, even a decorated legal scholar like Larry Lessig -- a man who clerked for Scalia and Posner, in fact -- didn't understand quite how to talk to Supremes:

"Here was a case that pitted all the money in the world against *reasoning*. And here was the last na�ve law professor, scouring the pages, looking for reasoning."

Posner the Judge on How Judges Think, June 7, 2008
I found this to be a very significant volume by Judge Posner, since he is writing on several of his strongest areas--legal philosophy, American judges, and theories of judicial decision-making. As the title indicates, this is an enormous topic and even to cover all of Posner's topics in a brief review is impossible. But this is what he is up to:

First, he wants to review existing explanatory theories of judicial behavior: the attitudinal; sociological; economic; organizational; pragmatic; legalistic; and policy choice. Posner here seeks to demonstrate that no one of these theories can wholly explain judicial behavior, and that some other approach he suggests is better suited to do the job.

Posner is quite a creative fellow, extremely well versed in a variety of literatures in addition to the legal. For example, he discusses judges as workers in the judicial system, quite an innovative approach. Next he focuses on judges as "occasional legislators" and what ideology a legislating judge employs. Unconscious preconceptions and intuitions are major topics in this discussion. Posner then shifts to what external and internal constraints limit judicial freedom of decisional action, including precedent, tenure and salary issues, and internal constraints (what we political scientists refer to as "role theory" and small group analysis). Along the way he takes some effective potshots at folks such as LLoyd Weinreib (who argues analogy as the key to legal analysis), the legal process school, "neutral principles" and the Scalia approach to constitutional interpretation. Interestingly enough, law professors are not a major constraint, because they have segregated themselves out of studying and interacting with judges. This is one of the most perceptive chapters in the book.

By chapter 9, Posner is zeroing in on one of his favorite topics--pragmatic adjudication. He argues that pragmatic policy concerns often are the best device for explaining judicial actions because Posner believes these considerations should guide judges. Of course, Judge Posner has written literally reams on this topic, but I found this one of his best discussions. Finally, Posner targets the Supreme Court, "a political court" as he terms it. The limited impact the Court has in policing the Courts of Appeals constitutes an interesting theme here. Posner follows this up with a fine review of Justice Breyer's "Active Libery" and a fascinating discussion of what he terms "judicial cosmopolitanism," or how much foreign legal concepts should play a role in American judicial decision making. This chapter includes highly critical discussions of Beatty's "Ultimate Rule of Law" and Israeli CJ Aharon Barak's "The Judge in a Democracy." Posner can throw critical right jabs with the best of them.

This is a very long book (at around 377 pages). But is it packed with thought stimulating material and arguments, as well as exceptionally useful bibliographic references in the notes (which are actually at the foot of each page). Anyone interested in American judges and what they do, and why they do it, would consider this volume as essential reading.

Nailed It, July 6, 2009
If you have been inside the world Judge Posner writes about, you will know how extraordinarily practical this book is. This is how judges think - not how they think they think. Legal decisions arise in real contexts and judges almost always react in part to that context. If they did not, then our law would be the same as it was in 1242. Posner illuminates the pragmatic truth clearly while providing ample theoretical background for the budding philosopher.
At a time when the merely thoughtless insist that the "law be applied as written" (how, exactly, does one apply the phrase "equal protection" as written and divorced from context?)this refreshing burst of candor and common sense presented by the greatest legal mind of the past 50 years is critically important reading.

Excellent Analysis But Needs Some Editing!, July 10, 2008
I would agree with many of the reviewers that this is Posner at his finest. Although I tend to be skeptical of his articulation of pragmatism (especially via his selective use of economic theory), I found that this book really destroys the false binary that posits a clear split between activist and legalist judges.

Going beyond that, Posner also takes clear aim at the legal academy for mistaking the stated reasoning in legal opinions as the cause of a particular decision, rather than its effect. He makes it abundantly clear that legal scholars have lost connection with the judiciary and potentially the legal profession as a whole.

However, I can only give the four stars because the book desperately needed a good editor. Because the chapter are mostly previously published material, they are quite repetitive and probably make the book fifty pages longer than it needs to be. It would have been much better if Posner could have made the argument flow more coherently into a single argument instead of a dozen stand alone claims.

Posner and Judges, April 11, 2008
Posner and judges
Crispulo Marmolejo --
Universidad Santo Tomas, Chile

Amazon.com placed in my hands the last book by Richard Posner, called "How Judges Think". Richard Posner is one of the most famous public intellectuals of the United States, who is enjoying years of global reputation as a pioneer of the movement Law and Economics, Judge of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and Professor at the University of Chicago, having published more 30 books and hundreds of articles specialized. It's hard to find an author who combines excellence in the categories of lawyer, economist, academic and Judge Posner as those exhibits.

His latest book is a stark analysis of the judicial function and surely will make famous the 9 theories of judicial conduct that suggests there, which include the prospect sociological, psychological, practical, organizational and phenomenological.

A rational approach to judicial functions assigns judges the role of providers judicial allocators of property rights, sanctions and custodians of various freedoms. Judges up - according to Posner- a labor market specific, highly regulated and classified, sensitive to many externalities in which it operates, at least in legal systems in Latin America- an excessive legalistic environment.

They are subjected to the pressure of time to resolve cases, forcing them to decide on multiple subjects and trial and face criticism from civil society, scholars and politicians, which increases a natural propensity to inefficiency in the assignment of rights, eventually corrected by higher Courts.

The economic theory of judicial conduct, according to this famous jurist, analyzes the judges acting as maximizers their benefits, as their own job stability and projecting climb hierarchy. In his peculiar style, Richard Posner argues that the excessive legalism tends to stifle the judicial function, restricting creativity and novel approaches suffocating, allowing lawyers, legislators and non innovators scholars tend to exercise only old arguments, blocking new realities interpretative and denying a complete understanding of technical realities that globalization imposes today with a very different approach to the rigid legalistic.

According to Posner, the incentive to reduce that legalism, is the pragmatic analysis of court decisions, which often reveals how many false conflicts were brought into the procedural state apparatus, imposing a social cost and institutional benefiting.

Finally, Richard Posner did a really good job again, explaining how is the current relationship between pragmatism and the role of judges

A Must Read for Any Trial Lawyer, May 21, 2008
Posner brings his esteemed credentials as a circuit judge and authorative author to tackle the ultimate question: how do judges really make their decisions. Is it based strictly on the law and the facts of the case, or, as we are taught in law school, does it sometimes depend on what mood the judge is in.

Posner enlightens naive lawyers who might be tempted to believe that judges decide cases in a vacuum based on which side has submitted the best brief. He also uses his humor and exceptionally clear writing to show how judges reach decisions based on different types of cases.

In particular, every trial lawyer must answer the question, how will the judge influence my case, or how will he decide it if there is a bench trial (no jury). On appeal, the trial lawyer must also factor in how appellate judges will review his/her case. Posner gives invaluable insight in a very well-written and entertaining book.

Posner style unleashed!, May 15, 2008
Posner's economics background weighs heavy in his analysis of How Judge's Think. His insight makes for a very interesting read which I found helpful in my approach with the various levels of the judicial branches. The comparison of his various theories of judical thought make for lively discussion. I would recommend this to any practitioner or law student.

How Judges Think, May 28, 2008
My god, what a boring book this was. It was written like a law review article and nothing is more boring than a law review article (unless you are doing research). I was hoping for some down to earth conversation about how judges think, something that was an easy read. This was NOT an easy read was just BORING. I didn't even finish it. It was like a lecture on paper. ... Read more

Editorial Review

The Tenth Edition of this popular casebook explores cutting edge issues and incorporates new Supreme Court cases that impact subject-matter jurisdiction (Grable), pleading (Twombly), joinder (Pimentel), and other important topics, and also explores the effect of recent federal statutes such as the Class Action Fairness Act. The casebook covers all of the major topics that a professor might wish to teach in a first-year course, and can easily be adapted for courses of one- or two-semesters, of different credit hours, and with varied practical or theoretical emphases. ... Read more

Reviews

Good Luck, September 27, 2010
The publisher of this book has done a absolute awful job or organizing the material. If your professor assigns you this reading as your primary text for Civil Procedure may god have mercy on your soul.

I have two recommendation both in the form of supplements

The first which is designed to follow this casebook. "Learning Civil Procedure" by: David Dithfurth
The Second, a more general but just as valuable. "Examples and Explanations" by: Aspen Publishing, make sure to get the latest edition.

Good Luck in Law School!

Great buy!, September 13, 2010
Delivery was fast and the product description was accurate. Would recommend to any law student wanting to save money off the bookstore price. ... Read more

Editorial Review

The Brethren is the first detailed behind-the-scenes account of the Supreme Court in action. Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong have pierced its secrecy to give us an unprecedented view of the Chief and Associate Justices -- maneuvering, arguing, politicking, compromising and making decisions that affect every major area of American life. ... Read more

Reviews

Behind-the-scenes look at the Burger Court, July 29, 2003
Although "The Brethren" was written a quarter of a century ago and it covers the Supreme Court sessions from 1969 to 1975, there are two reasons to hunt down a used copy of this book and read it today. The first is its examination of the important Court decisions of Warren Burger's early years, all of which still reverberate with their controversy and implications. The second is to learn how, in spite of its famously left-of-center decisions, the Court began taking a sharp turn to the ideological right, spurred by the appointment of Burger and by the ascent of the young William Rehnquist.

"The Brethren" gave the Burger Court a reputation from which it never quite recovered. Although the Supreme Court has historically had its share of in-fighting, incompetence, and inanity, its internal meltdowns in the 1970s were occasionally beyond the pale. Woodward and Armstrong portray Burger as a well-meaning but ultimately misguided man obsessed by the legacy of Earl Warren, concerned far more with image than with principle, unskilled in management techniques that would have helped bring the Court to a consensus, and unashamed of his repeated attempts to assign the Court's decisions in a fashion insured to thwart the will of the majority. Even today, most historians, regardless of ideological bent, view the Burger years as a mediocre and often inconsistent transition between the liberal Warren Court and the conservative Rehnquist Court.

It's not a perfect book, by any means. Woodward and Armstrong are at their page-turning best when they examine in detail some of the more famous decisions and controversies faced by the Court (busing, obscenity, abortion, the death penalty, and--especially--Watergate). And the account is surprisingly balanced: anyone expecting a "liberal" flogging of an increasingly conservative court will be surprised, on the one hand, by the authors' depictions of the increasingly unfit and ornery Douglas and the unsophisticated yet affable Marshall and, on the other hand, by their open admiration of Rehnquist, who comes across as (by far) the most likeable and amiable of the justices. Nevertheless, their account is a bit too heavy on office gossip. True--this journalistic style brings the fourteen justices who served during these years to life, but what's lacking is the necessary detailed legal background that would make sense of the Court's day-to-day work rather than its scandalous backbiting and personality conflicts. Overall, though, it's an admirable piece of journalism that makes the Court seem as human as it really is.

An Inside Look at the Supreme Court, July 11, 2004
Despite being a bit dated, The Brethren, by Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong, remains one of the most illuminating looks at the inner workings of the Supermen Court. And certainly it will remain a very interesting historical look at the court it examines.

The Brethren attempts to present the reader with what "really" goes on in the Supreme Court. It describes the conferences, the personality of justices, and how justice's feel toward each other, items which are generally hidden from the public. Covering the terms from 1969-1975, Woodward and Armstrong gives us a look at the fourteen justices and how they dealt with the major issues facing the court. The book describes how Burger changed his conference votes so he could assign the majority opinion of the court, angering William Douglas and William Brennen. He also describes how Thurgood Marshall greeted Burger "Hey chiefy baby", getting a kick out of making him feel uncomfortable. The reader sees how Harry Blackmun agonized at being considered Burger's "boy" which eventually led to his breaking away from the conservative wing of the court. Woodward also tells of the lack of respect the justices had for the abilities of Chief Justice Burger, who wrote poorly reasoned opinions that embarrassed some members of the court.

The main thesis of the book is how the moderates control the opinions of the court. A majority opinion must have the vote of at least five members of the court, therefore the opinion becomes a compromise between the author of the opinion and his joining brethren. Even when an ideologue writes an opinion, his opinion must be amended to maintain the votes of his brethren. Therefore, the majority opinions of the court usually reflect a somewhat moderate solution, as compared to the ideological make-up of the court.

The Brethren also relates how politics play a key role in the decisions of the court. Justices have predispositions to every case they decide, and most have an ideology that influences their decisions. The role of the moderates on the court is also an example of how politics effects the decisions of the court. If a president is able to appoint enough justices of his political persuasion, the court's ideological make-up will change, as will the direction of the court's decisions. Justices on the court do worry about the effect of new appointments to the Supreme Court. When President Gerald Ford appointed Justice John Paul Stevens to the court to replace Justice Douglas, Brennen and Marshall worried about the future of abortion and busing, fearing a new conservative justice might vote to overturn or limit the scope of decisions in these areas. These are a few examples of the role of politics in the Supreme Court.

The strengths of this book include its in-depth view of court personalities, antidotes, and relationships between the justices. These are aspects of the court normally not made public. Another strength of the book is its description of how cases are decided, and how a court is "built" (a majority opinion). Further, the reader gets an understanding of the factors that influence a court's opinions such as ideology, compromise, persuasive arguments, and even interaction with the clerks.

The major weakness of the book is the lack of documentation. There is absolutely no documentation for the material presented in the book. Woodward's disclaimer is he got the information on background and deep background, meaning the sources go unnamed. He also claims he read memos, unpublished and rough draft opinions, and other unpublished written material generated by the court. Despite the lack of documentation The Brethren remains a must read for students interested in law and politics.

Still the best book to read to understand the Supreme Court, August 1, 2004
This is still a must-read for people seriously interested in the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, some of my fellow reviewers had to read this for class or were not interested in the topic, which is really too bad, but these individuals should not be the last word on the issue. I would also like to respond to some of the more outrageous comments from other reviewers:

"It is not an easy reading."


To those who do not have trouble reading the newspaper, it will be extremely easy reading. In fact, it is written in such a clear style, with short, to-the-point sentences, as to be among the easiest books I have ever read.


"The secretive world of the court would be difficult for any journalist to penetrate, and here Woodward and his cohort Armstrong prove themselves not to be up to the task."


Whoever wrote this obviously had not come of age when the book was published. The publication of "The Brethren" ranks as probably the most scandalous moment in the history of the Supreme Court, because no one to that date had even come close to gaining the insider access that Woodward and Armstrong did-- and no journalist has gotten this close to the Court since. This is an utterly glib and untrue comment. As close as is humanly possible, Woodward and Armstrong penetrated the Court.

"'The Brethren' is, more than any book I've ever read, a product of its times. It reflects the anti-war, anti-establishment, anti-Nixon, pro-activist, and downright revolutionary times of the early 1970s. If you choose to read "The Brethren," you should understand that it takes positions as being either right or wrong. And with political powder kegs (abortion, busing, the Watergate tapes, the death penalty, etc.), that is an intellectually risky proposition."

Funny, because when I read it I had the exact opposite reaction-- I was upset by the excesses of that period. However, I should note that "The Brethren"'s presentation of the issues is absolutely non-judgmental. It notes with honesty what each justice's view was, in such simple language that it often sounds reductionist. People who have read Woodward's other books know that he is not a partisan hack.

Again, people who are really interested in the Supreme Court should definitely hunt this down.

The veil is removed, December 21, 1998
Few nonfiction books combine intimate details, startling information, and humor as well as this one. In The Brethren, the reader will make discoveries about the Supreme Court that he will never have fathomed: the Justices are fallible; there is bickering, politics, and lobbying when making decisions; they joke about pornography; the clerks have a secret society, etc. It is guaranteed to open the reader's eyes to a world that he never could have imagined existed. And I reccomend the book even to those who have a slight interest in the law. Additionally, there are guaranteed laughs (and I mean HUGE laughs) from both the subtle and not so subtle humor that is sprinkled throughout.

Supremely Informative, May 19, 2004
I read The Brethren because I have an interest in constitutional law and knew Woodward would do exhaustive research about the Supreme Court before writing this story. This book did not disappoint in its discussion of the constitutional issues debated in the court during the first 6 years of the Burger Court and it was a fascinating expose of the behind-the-scenes activites at the court and the personalities of the justices. Woodward does an excellent job presenting the cases in layman terms, perhaps because he began the project with no legal training himself, and it makes everything very clear for the reader. The most unsettling revelation in the book is how critical constitutional decisions often come down to compromises ("I'll side with you on this case if you side with me on that case") and personality clashes, though it is important to understand that the justices are people and their determinations are often subject to human passions. I think this book is an excellent history of the court in the early 70s and a cautionary tale for the future and I would highly recommend it to people interested in the Court and/or people interested in practicing law. I would also recommend it for people interested in politics in general, because the court is obviously very political whether it tried to remain independent or not.

Great Timeless Book, October 3, 2005
This book might seem dated: it describes the machinations of the court from 1969 to 1976, which included, among other things, Roe v. Wade and the Watergate tapes case. However, it is far from obsolete. The Brethren is a still-unprecedented look into the Supreme Court, the most secretive top-level branch of government. Although the faces (save one) and the cases are different, the way in which cases are decided by this body has likely not, plus it is a look at a tumultous time in ours as well as the Court's history.

The focus of the story is Chief Justice Warren Earl Burger, who replaces Earl Warren after his retirement. The irony of the names is unexplored, but it is appropriate, because Burger becomes progressively preoccupied with trying to match Warren's legacy. Unlike Warren, though, he allows political concerns and vanity to influence his judgment and, bit by bit, erode the confidence of his colleagues, to the point where the late William Rehnquist, then a young conservative on the Court, makes fun of him behind his back. Although this book is unflattering to some of the justices, such as Thurgood Marshall, who is noted as lazy and uninvolved and Byron White, who is noted to be unlikeable, Burger is the biggest loser here. The book was published in the early 80s, only a few years before Burger left the court, and the image of him as a pompous, preening, intellectually deficient and generally clueless politician cost him, big time. In spite of the landmark rulings his Court made, he was unable to reverse the Warren Court's liberal activism (as he had hoped to do). His "Minnesota Twin", Harry Blackmun, would drift further away from him, both politically and personally, until finally becoming the most liberal justice after the departure of Thurgood Marshall in 1991. Burger's Macchiavellian strategizing to assign opinions caused such a backlash that, at one point, William Brennan decides to vote for whatever side of a case puts him in the minority so that Burger won't be able to assign him another crappy oppinion.

Ultimately, Burger had good intentions, but his blunders dominate the book. He is a fascinating character, almost as bad a manager and as delusional as David Brent from the recent BBC TV Series The Office. Some of the principals come out looking good: Potter Stewart, for example, and Brennan also. But Rehnquist comes out best, in spite of some scheming and obfuscation. Burger, though, is front and center, and he's a reminder of how we're to seriously we all should take the business of the Court.

A great "insider's" view of the Supreme Court., May 31, 1998
The Brethren, co-authored by Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong, is an in-depth documentary of the United States Supreme Court from 1969 to 1975, under the leadership of Warren Burger. Woodward and Armstrong present, in detail, all aspects of the court and of it's members. Major issues faced by the court during these years included abortion, racial integration, censorship, and the relationships between the justices. This book is comparable to a lengthy newspaper article. Written more as a source of information than of entertainment, The Brethren is the brutal truth, but not boring. The book was interesting for me, because prior to reading it I did not know much about the Supreme Court. I wanted to finish the book so I could find out what the ruling would be on a particular case, and whether certain justices would retire or not. A feature that helped me get through this book was a chart included in it. The chart listed the justices, the President who appointed them, and the years they had served on the court. It seems that the authors of this book had access to information that all members of the court did not. Gossip was a major part of this book. William Douglas privately referred to Thurgood Marshall as a "spaghetti spine," and very few members of the court wielded a great deal of respect for Chief justice Burger. When Lewis Powell first arrived on the court in 1971, Potter Stewart informed him that "The leadership was not Burger. He was Chief Justice in name only." The justices who actually controlled the court's decisions were the swing votes, the justices in the center. If anyone ever asks me why the United States judicial system is so inefficient, I will tell them to read The Brethren. In the supreme court, no case is an easy case, and no decision ever comes quickly. Some issues, such as abortion, were not settled in the Burger court, and are still not settled today. The decisions made by the court are too difficult to be made by nine men. There is too m! uch work to be done on a single case, and many times the clerks contributed more to an opinion that the justices themselves. The clerks and secretaries were often mistreated by their superiors, but they worked hard and thought like their bosses hoping for advancements in the future. The Brethren is very well written and was worth reading. It taught me more than I ever wanted to know about the judicial process and the Supreme Court. If I ever need information regarding one of the court cases from this time period I will go back to this book. It could be used as a textbook for a course on the Supreme Court. Trust in the political system was both strengthened and weakened by this book. I was impressed by how difficult it is to confirm an appointment to the supreme court. Not just anyone can become a Supreme Court justice, but selection is limited to political insiders who don't always know what America is all about. A book like this keeps Washington on it's toes. It reminds politicians that someone is always watching, and even the closest colleague may be willing to talk. The average American probably wouldn't read this book. If they did, they would only pay attention to cases that could possibly pertain to them. It could definitely make some readers angry and confused, causing them to question the whole political system.

A Classic History of the Burger Court, March 18, 2006
I have just re-read this book, which I first enjoyed while I was taking Con Law in law school in the late 1970s. It is a little dated, but still a fun and well-written insider's story of the workings of the U.S. Supreme Court. Woodward and Armstrong write with an "inside the beltway" politically-correct perspective which may seem a little dated today. That's one feature that stands out. When it was originally released, Jimmy Carter was just being elected President, and the Congress was 2/3 Democratic. The political battlegrounds have changed in a generation. However, judicially, not as much as you might expect. Many key issues - abortion, free expression, and the role and limits of government, e.g., - continued through Rehnquist's term as Chief and still face the Roberts court. While today's Court line-up is more conservative, the process of internal court politics is certainly similar, so this book remains useful in attempting to understand both the history of the Court when it issued so many of those decisions that still drive politicians mad today, and how the often convoluted opinions on divisive issues are formed.
It also provides a little nostalgia in remembering Justices such as Potter Stewart and Thurgood Marshall. The authors capture a famous incident involving these two. When the Court of the 1970's considered an obscenity case, the Justices would retire, often en masse, to a basement screening room to take in the offending film. This was a world without home videos. Justice Stewart was infamous for his statement in an earlier case that, while he couldn't define obscenity, "I know it when I see it." Apparently, at the crucial moment (you know the word I'm avoiding) of the film, Justice Marshall would turn to Justice Stewart and proclaim: "That's it - I know it, I see it!"
Anyone interested in Constitutional Law and the Supreme Court should read this book.

One of the most fascinating books I've read, February 20, 1999
Gives an amazing insight into what went on in the Supreme Court in the past few decades, particularly the interaction between the law and the individual judges' quirks and personal opinions. The Justices are portrayed in all their flaws, and it's amazing to watch the seemingly haphazard process produce results, as much through personal politics as through actual legal decisions! A must read.

WOW!!!!!, March 31, 1998
Impressive work and Kudos to Woodward and Armstrong. Though it may not be one to pick up for pleasure reading, actually I would highly recommend not reading it unless you needed to find info on the topic or are intrested in the topic. In a review, Anthony Lewis highly critized the book on the way it bashed members on the court and his close friend Brennan. And perhaps that is persicly the reason Lewis did not like the book, because it was often over critical of his friend. The book fully covers the court and gives great inside perspective, though it is questionable about the accuracy of their sources. So, if you are intrested in the topic, great read it. But I have to warn you it is not an easy reading. ... Read more

Editorial Review

Mary Beth Beazley’s highly regarded A Practical Guide to Appellate Advocacy, Third Edition, is a comprehensive student-focused guide to writing appellate briefs. Written in an understandable, direct writing style, this concise paperback’s effective structure centers on a four-point approach to writing and breaks each point down into key elements that are then treated in-depth.

This accessible paperback:

• provides a complete introduction to the techniques and process of writing appellate briefs
• emphasizes the process approach to writing, beginning with large-scale issues such as content and organization, moving to smaller-scale issues such as signals to the reader, and ending on the smallest-scale concerns of format and polishing methods
• includes an appendix with four sample briefs with annotations that identify strengths of the brief and/or why the writer chose a particular technique
• shows students how to effectively use abstract formulas such as IRAC or CREXAC when they are writing
• teaches students how to revise and improve their work by using the self-graded draft

Improvements to the updated Third Edition include:

• Chapters have been reorganized to separate motion briefs from appellate briefs to allow professors to assign focused readings more easily
• The section on standards of review for a motion to dismiss has been updated to reflect Supreme Court decisions in Twombly and Iqbal
• Enhanced and refined discussions of:
  • How to write effective topic sentences arguing that a rule does or does not apply to the case
  • Using introductory material effectively to set the stage for the argument
  • How to "harvest" arguments from non-mandatory courts
  • How and where to deal with opponent's arguments

A Practical Guide to Appellate Advocacy, Third Edition, offers practical advice—with specific techniques—that encourages students to develop new skills and greater confidence.

Editorial Review

This study aid features an innovative method of content organization. It uses a checklist format to lead students through questions they need to ask to fully evaluate the legal problem they are trying to solve. It also synthesizes the material in a way that most students are unable to do on their own, and assembles the different issues, presenting a clear guide to procedural analysis that students can draw upon when writing their exams. Other study aids provide sample problems, but none offer the systematic approach to problem solving found in this book. ... Read more

Reviews

Saved me During my Open Book/Open Note Civ Pro Fnal, May 2, 2008
This book was a lifesaver during my Civ Pro exam, which took place yesterday. I have all the other supplements--Glannon Guide (good too), E&E, Emanuel's, Gilbert's...the works. During the open book/note/everything exam I only really used this book. The checklists at the end of each section make it so easy to make sure you haven't missed an issue or just forgotten something. It is also an EASY READ...I can barely make it through 1/2 an E&E before finals. I have never reviewed a book before EVER, but if I had not had this supplement yesterday, I would have cried on the last question regarding the ERIE doctrine. It is worth it just for the checklists and sample (short) answers alone. Hope this helps!

A new way to organize, November 7, 2005
Unlike any study-aid I have come across. Prof. Spencer's reviews of the topics are clear and concise. The checklists both organize the many seemingly disparate pieces of Civil Proceedure into a logical whole and give students a practical and effective approach to exam questions. Furthermore, at 250 pages, that feel more like 100, this small book is comprehensive without being overbearing.

Excellent Study Aid, December 17, 2005
Professor Spencer has simplified civil procedure analysis by making checklists to help analyze all the major topics that you are likely to be tested on. The most helpful feature of this study aid for me though were the problems at the end of each chapter followed by his own analysis. It is helpful for studying to see exactly how your civil procedure professor expects you to analyze certain fact situations and apply the law, and that's what this study aid gives you.

Most useful supplement for working through steps, but not for detailed explanations., December 24, 2009
This book, along with two others, saved my first semester. It is concise and the chapters give a brief overview of all the main cases and how the laws interact together. Conceptually there is no better supplement, I used all of the main ones and they are more explanatory but only Emanuel gives any sort of flow chart or check list. This book changed the entire way I approach studying, especially Torts and Crim law (however the other books in the series are not as conceptual and flowchart driven).

I used various supplements for this class. Before buying all of them (like I did) I would go to your law library and look them over, use them for your class and see if they are presented in a way that works for you. If not, then buy whatever you can that is most useful and use the library's books as needed. My biggest mistake was thinking by using supplements to supplement my casebook I would learn less or get screwed up. Professors tell you whether they like supplements or not, but if you use them to prepare for class, still at least go through the cases and take NOTES from what they say, you will do far better.

I will explain the books I used second semester, which is less theory and rules based. Before each class topic I read Acing Civil Procedure (Acing Law School) and then outlined the rule in my own words using the Commentary sections in A Student's Guide to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Student Guides) to fill in and flesh out the rules. I then read through Emanuel Law Outline: Civil Procedure Yeazell (Emanual Law Outlines) skimming and highlighting the key points in my casebook Civil Procedure and adding the extra info to my rule outlines. This made class easy because I simply noted the key comments and wording my Prof used and modified my outline accordingly. After class I quickly organized the rule outline and moved on. This may seem like a lot of time, but it was about 3 hours a week. Beware of spending too much time on the supplements and rule outline BEFORE class. Much of the material in the supplements and casebook is not covered in class and therefore a waste of time.

When many spent extra time making their outlines, mine was complete and I spent an hour or two each week working through hypos and questions from Civil Procedure: Examples & Explanations 5th edition and Glannon Guide to Civil Procedure: Student Manual. I added any issues and fact patterns I came across, to my rules outline. Before the exam I condensed my outlined rules, worked on hypos, and used the hypos we went over in class to see how Prof would work them into the exam. Overall I did not spend much time understanding the cases in their entirety . After the first week of class you should have typed down every question asked in class, because this is what the prof will ask the rest of the year. This makes it easier to skim cases and determine what is necessary and what is a complete waste of memory and time.

For first semester, this was my worst class. My 1st semester Prof was not very good and I did not practice hypos and writing out answers as in 2nd semester. What I learned was to USE SUPPLEMENTS. I used them in half my classes (best grades) and not in the other half (good but worse). I managed to use Emanuel to catch up and made a great outline, but I spent far too much time with my wording in the essays. This is where Understanding Civil Procedure, Acing Civ Pro and Glannon Guide (multiple choice) came in. Even without multiple choice exams, these short practice questions really help hammer out the trickier parts. The hypos help you learn to quickly write out your answer. The Understanding series is GREAT for your first semester, because it more in depth and helps you understand the overall concepts better. Also, many prefer E&E to other books for explanation, but I found it better suited for hypos.

These books collectively were not necessary , but they sure helped. If you are short on cash, the best books from most helpful to least are your required casebook, FRCP Student's guide, Emanuel (if not using Yeazall, the keyed edition to your casebook if possible, if not then case briefs should work), Acing Civ Pro (AMAZING short book with great checklists to work through the rules), Glannon Guide, and then E&E (if used for hypos, although there is a newer ed). For first semester, the Understanding book was excellent to read before anything else (do not read too heavy), because it is highly explanatory. I have found canned briefs useful from online and the various case brief books keyed to your casebook. Acing Civ Pro was the best book, but not the most needed if short on cash. See my other reviews regarding the above books mentioned. However only the first couple paragraphs will be different.

Good Luck, I will try and answer any comments!

Great Alternative Study Guide!, December 28, 2007
The detailed checklists are very helpful additions to any 1L's study guides. They help to organize the case law and black letter law into easy to follow flow charts, which show how each builds on the next. My only criticism is that, since the law constantly updates, the guide should be updated. There were some more recent cases that were not included in the guide.

Great for Exam Prep, Too Broad for Class, December 22, 2007
Each chapter has a useful short review and checklist. The book was a great help near the end of term, when broad checklists became more important than minutiae. I'd recommend getting this along with a more classic commercial outline, like Clermont Black Letter.

Great for getting the fine points., May 2, 2006
The Glannon books (especially the Glannon Guide q&a book) are more comprehensive, but when it comes down to the last week or two and you want to be sure you haven't missed the fine points hiding in the FRCP (and there are a lot of those) - this book is great.

Buy IT, NOW!, October 20, 2009
Great study aid, very clear and concise. We all know law school is time consuming so it's great to have a smaller aid like this, one you can actually read before each class in addition to your normal work.

effective, June 13, 2008
It is good for the purpose of learning Civ Pro as a 1L. Some hypos are good and others are questionable. But overall, it is good. Serves its purpose. I like Glannon's E&E and MCQ better. ... Read more