An intelligently written history of the Supreme Court power of judicial review without the legal technical lingo. Mccloskey wrote the book in 1960; thus the history ends with the 50s. He divides this history in 3 periods, the first from 1789 till 1867 where SC learns to establish itself and deals with nation-state relationship. From 1867 to 1937, after the civil war ends, the court focuses on economic issues dealing with the extant of regulation, showing an obvious bias for business and laissez faire policy. By 1937, it has pushed too far against the economic realities of the Great Depression and had to give in to the new deal acts or face Roosevelt plan of packing the court with new judges. From then on, having accepted the necessity of state regulation of the economy, the court shift to civil rights cases, deals with free speech particularly in the period of subversion of the communist threat by McCarthyism and slowly opens the ways to desegregation with racial discrimination cases facing black electorate and access to college by law student. The 1954 brown vs board of education was a momentous decision but according to the author subject to criticism in its choice of argument. Mccloskey weaves through this rich history the various constitutional clauses used and their continual reinterpretation, such as the commerce clause or the due process clause. He often gives his own opinion on what justices thought and whether they made good decisions or not, in some case without providing deeper primary sources on why so. His admiration for the first great chief justice Marshall is clear, as well as for justice Holmes who helped write many dissenting pieces against the laissez faire economic mindset of the gilded age era. As the 60s were dawning, Mccloskey reflected on what should be the role of the Supreme Court, and in what circumstances it should intervene. His hopeful conclusion rests on the fact that this great institution has gone through immense challenges like the civil war and forces of economic interests and was always able to give positive feedback to the legislative body when it ruled from the margins and developed its doctrine step by step rather than attempt to solve hot button issues like Dredd Scott on its own. A great read as a preparation to my Constitutional Law class this fall!