A People's History of the Supreme Court

We begin, as they say, from the beginning. The year is 1787 and the controversies of the day are slavery and racial segregation, free speech and a woman's right to end her pregnancy. Aren't we still battling against racial discrimination? Aren't we still fighting for free speech and women's rights? It is disheartening to think we have been railing against crooked judges since the beginning of the Supreme Court. Its inception had a rocky start. Rutledge was deranged and Wilson was jailed for debt, just to name a few examples. It makes you realize the abuse of power really is timeless. McKinley was able to place a brilliant conservative justice with an incompetent one. Fear and intimidation has not changed. Since the beginning of the show more Supreme Court there have been men who serve as chief justice who cannot separate personal bias from judicial duty.
On the other hand, time marches on and some things do change. At the time of writing, Irons's world consisted of a Supreme Court that had been mostly all white and mostly all old men. We have made some strides to having a diversified Supreme Court. So...there is that. Also, consider this: in the 1920's a woman had her own minimum wage.
I could go on and on. Last comment:Even though this is geared towards a tenth grade reader, it is an important book. Everyone should take a stab at it. If not to see where we are going, but to see where we have been. show less

3930. A People's History of the Supreme Court, by Peter Irons (read Sept 6, 2004) This is a 1999 book which only goes up to 1994. I think it is designed for mainly non-lawyers, but I found it fun to read, though at times a bit superficial. Except on some social issues, I mostly agreed with the author's views. He is a particular student of the internment of Japanese-Americans in World War II, and his discussion of those distressing cases is on the money--and sobering to think of how readily the Bill of Rights was set aside in a time of popular prejudice.

This is a sweeping overview of the US Supreme Court from its establishment to more recent times. It introduces the reader to some of the Justices who have sat on the bench – and while the author is quite obviously in awe of some of the most activist judges, those giants who have dominated the bench or taken on the government/special interest/public opinion, he also savages those whose tenure and legal achievement can be reduced to a mere footnote. The book is intelligently structured, chronologically and divided in periods during which weighty issues have faced the Court – the establishment of a federal system, slavery, equality, protection, privacy – and sprinkled throughout with those landmark cases that define our show more judicial/legislative system and make constitutional lawyers salivate. Included is a long opening chapter on the drafting of the Constitution which is worthwhile to keep up with as it lays the foundation for the entire judicial system. I found this book to be thoroughly enjoyable, as good as any good work of fiction, with the added satisfaction that these rulings affect us all in one way or another. I also found fascinating how some issues were addressed from a judicial standpoint – sometimes so freeing and obvious, sometimes so narrow and constrained, such as the legal gymnastics used to justify segregation or slavery. This excellent book leaves me grateful for those Justices who strove to apply the values this country was founded on. show less

In his introduction to A People’s History of the Supreme Court: The Men and Women Whose Cases and Decisions Have Shaped Our Constitution, Peter Irons writes, “Too often in our history, Americans who have claimed the Constitution’s protection of their own ‘liberty’ have denied that it equally protects fellow Americans who differ in race, religion, class, gender, or politics” (pg. xv). Summarizing the constitution of the Supreme Court, he argues, “Just over a hundred people have served on the Supreme Court in just over two hundred years. All but two have been white, all but two have been men [at the time Irons wrote the introduction in 1999], and all but seven have been Christian. Many of the landmark cases these justices show more have decided were brought by blacks, women, and religious and political dissenters. In a very real sense, the history of the Supreme Court reflects the appeals of powerless ‘outsiders’ to the powerful ‘insiders’ who have shaped the Constitution’s meaning over the past two centuries” (pg. xv). With this in mind, Irons “takes account of the interlocking factors of personality, principle, and politics” (pg. xvi) in his examination of eighty-five cases “to illustrate the connections of law and politics in areas of civil rights and liberties” (pg. xix).

Discussing First Amendment challenges, Irons writes, “Challenges to the Espionage and Sedition Acts of World War I did reach the Court, putting the justices on a collision course with the First Amendment. For the first time since ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791, the Court was asked to rule that Congress had violated the constitutional ban on laws that abridged ‘freedom of speech, or of the press’” (pg. 268). In his decision in Schenck v. United States (1919), Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. decided “‘the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done.’ He obviously felt that August 1917 was not an ‘ordinary time’ and that the ‘circumstances’ of their acts deprived them of constitutional protection. Holmes sprang the trap with an example of unprotected speech. ‘The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic’” (pg. 270). Irons concludes, “Holmes did not invent the ‘clear and present danger’ test in First Amendment law, but his Schenck opinion made it a catchword, repeated and employed by later judges in dozens of cases” (pg. 271).

Discussing free speech in schools, Irons summarizes, “Justice Abe Fortas, writing in Tinker v. Des Moines [1969], admitted that ‘symbolic speech’ like Mary Beth’s armband [in protest to the Vietnam War] ‘may start an argument or cause a disturbance.’ But ‘our Constitution says we must take this risk,’ he added. Fortas declared that schools ‘may not be enclaves of totalitarianism’” (pg. 419). Turning to flag-burning in the 1980s, Irons summarizes Justice William J. Brennan’s majority opinion, writing, “Because ‘fundamental rights’ of free expression were at stake, Brenan applied the ‘strict scrutiny’ test; only laws that reflect ‘compelling state interests’ can clear this judicial hurdle… Texas had not charged [Gregory] Johnson with breaching the peace, and states may not ‘ban the expression of certain disagreeable ideas on the unsupported assumption that their very disagreeableness will provoke violence’” (pg. 469).

The overall effect of the book is a sold summary of jurisprudence and the larger cultural background that influenced these decisions. For those seeking to understand the functioning of the Supreme Court and its place in our society, Irons’s book is a great start. show less

I have always wondered what the big deal with the Supreme Court is -- this book tells the story well -- cases I had never heard of before that opened doors for later ground breaking rulings, but unfortunately more frequently rulings that make your stomach turn. So, good book, slow read.

This book is mostly interesting because, while I read a lot of history, I feel like the Supreme Court, and its members, get fewer books written about them than members of the other branches of government. It was very interesting to see how the Court evolved and changed over the centuries of the country and to do a deeper dive into the cases that we all know by name, but may not know the details of.

Iron's purpose is to give the average reader background on the more influential court cases as well as engaging the reader. His purpose has been fulfiled here. A wonderful read, a page-turner in places, I am thrilled at how much I've learned. Filled to the brim with facts I know I will be revisiting this book from time to time as well as looking for any revised editions.

I think a graph of Justices would have been very helpful. I tried to keep on up in the back of "The Blessings of Liberty" but space and ease kept thwarting me. The next serious read I do I will map out the justices along with their presidents as well as current events and decisions.

Next year I hope to start a "what I've learned" journal, I could have made an entry show more every day after reading this book. some things that stan out, te colorful personalities of the Justices writing style and personalities. The background of the abortion debate is so eye-opening, partial birth abortions I now understand. I learned about the Lemon test (it has nothing to do with cars, but giving money to religious schools for text books and salaries).

I would recommend this work and will re-read it just as soon as I can get through my reading pile.

25-2008 show less