The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court

by Bob Woodward, Scott Armstrong

Offers an unprecedented view of the chief and associate justices of the Burger Supreme Court, illuminating the maneuvering, arguing, politicking, and compromising that underlie the making of decisions that affect every major area of American life

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Law, Politics, American History, Legal, Biography

467 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1979

About the author

Librarian Note: There is more than one author by this name in the Goodreads database.

Robert "Bob" Upshur Woodward is an assistant managing editor of The Washington Post. While an investigative reporter for that newspaper, Woodward, working with fellow reporter Carl Bernstein, helped uncover the Watergate scandal that led to U.S. President Richard Nixon's resignation. Woodward has written 12 best-selling non-fiction books and has twice contributed reporting to efforts that collectively earned the Post and its National Reporting staff a Pulitzer Prize.

Reviews

[Diane S ☔ · Rating 4 out of 5]

The inner working of the Supreme Court, the highest court I the land, often the court of last resort. My high expectations going into this book were mostly met, my opinion of the way this court works, were not. They dealt with busing, segregation, was the court that ruled on Roe v. Wade, the Watergate debacle, rights for mental patients, and the right of the death penalty. Four justices were appointed by Nixon, believe it or not, Berger, the chief justice was one.

Instead of stately, fair workings, debates, discussions I instead found s chief justice who wanted his own way, often cheating to get what he wanted. Squabbles and changing positions, unfairness towards some justices and a court that often seemed more interested in getting their own opinions known, than ruling on the matters asked if them. All quite illuminating, and we get to know some of the justices more than others. I felt sorry for justice Douglas and the way he was treated after, because of I'll health he had to resign. He at least seemed to care about the matters at hand.

So, if you've ever wondered how this court works, read this. It won't fill you with warm fuzziest nor confidence, that's for sure.

The audio was narrated by Holter Graham and he was excellent.

[Matt · Rating 5 out of 5]

In what is putatively a democracy, with power given by the people, and then shared among three coequal branches of government the United States Supreme Court stands apart. It is distinctly undemocratic: unelected, unaccountable, and secretive. The Supreme Court is where the power is, because it doesn't matter who makes the laws, or enforces the laws; it only matters who interprets the laws.

The Supreme Court has always been a political branch, though it's only fairly recently that we've come to accept this (accept the reality, that is, without condoning it). Today, the big fight is over judicial activism. Liberals have been accused of being activists for finding "fundamental rights" in the 14th amendment. Conservatives - especially of late - have been accused of being activists for striking down laws passed by a duly and democratically elected congress.

In essence, then, judicial activism is any Supreme Court opinion you do not agree with.

Bob Woodward's The Brethren is the best window we've ever had into the Supreme Court and its life-altering decisions. It was written in 1979 and covers the 1969 through 1975 terms. Though it deals with a Supreme Court that has receded into the past, it is still as relevant and vibrant as ever. More recent Supreme Court exposes, such as Jeffrey Toobin's The Nine and Jan Crawford Greenburg's Supreme Conflict are pale pretenders. This is the original, often imitated but never surpassed. It is a high-wire feat of reporting and story-telling.

The Brethren begins with the retirement of Chief Justice Earl Warren, who'd presided over Brown vs. Board of Education and Miranda vs. Arizona. This latter case, requiring criminal defendants to be read their rights, helped bring Nixon into office, where he would declare a "war on crime" (and unleash an undeclared war on Cambodia).

The man chosen to replace the legendary Earl Warren, a man of true greatness, whether or not you agreed with his legal acumen, was Warren Burger, to whom no greatness ever neared. The Burger Court years were tumultuous and fascinating; at least, they are fascinating to me, which frankly, might not be saying much. The seven terms covered by the book saw many landmark cases: Roe v. Wade (abortion); Cohen v. California (f**k the draft!); and United States v. Nixon (executive privilege).

It's not the cases that make The Brethren, however; it's the people. Supreme Court justices have always done their best to appear inhuman. The authority of a judge rests on his or her apparent impartiality towards the vagaries of life, and strict fidelity to the letter of the law. All the trappings of a judgeship are meant to foster this impression: the raised bench; the black robes; the lifetime appointments.

Woodward gives these justices - some of them legal titans - the breath of life. Good or bad, these men are made human (Sandra Day O'Connor wasn't appointed till 1981). Burger comes off the worst. He is something of a legal weasel, a politician without any skill, who abused his prerogatives as chief justice to mess with the writing assignments (this famously backfired on him when he gave Blackmun Roe v. Wade).

It doesn't take much to convince me that Burger was a ponce, but Woodward proves the case. For instance, Burger found it incredible that involuntarily committed patients should have a right to psychiatric care. Really! How would you like to live in Warren Burger's America, where your freedom can be taken by the government, and the government won't even give you a mental evaluation? (Of course, Burger wasn't a bad man, and Woodward shows that he was probably more racially enlightened than many of his contemporaries). In a book like this, bias is an issue. In my opinion, Woodward does a good job of presenting a balanced portrait. While Burger comes off poorly, Woodward presents a positive image of a young William Rehnquist, fresh from the Nixon administration and sporting a great set of sideburns.

Much of The Brethren is focused on the back-stories surrounding the important cases of the day. However, the greatest enjoyment I got from this book was its sense of intimacy. There are times you feel like a fly on a wall of the justices' chambers (most of the sources were law clerks, who occupy a privileged position in the legal system). You are privy to the justices' conversations, their thought processes, and their jokes. If you're a lawyer nerd, or a nerd who's interested in the law, these pages are a great place to spend some time. You will come to know men who were formerly surnames on opinions: the good-humored Thurgood Marshall, pretending to be the elevator-man for befuddled tourists; the morally self-righteous Byron White; the prickly Harry Blackmun; and the tragic William O. Douglas, who kept hanging onto his position as a justice even after suffering a debilitating stroke.

The great surprise of The Brethren is its humor, much of it gleaned from incisive observations about the justices:

Stewart wasn't working too hard. The joke around the Court was that he and Marshall passed each other in the corridor most days just before noon - Stewart on his way to work, Marshall on his way home.

Woodward also has fun with the large number of obscenity cases heard during these terms. You are treated to law clerks shouting "I see it" while screening allegedly obscene films (a riff on Potter Stewart's famous declaration that he knew obscenity when he saw it.) You are also witness to the rectitude of Wizzer White, the former all-American football player who had firm (no pun intended) beliefs on the matter:

In the pending cases, White's clerk checked to see whether the material violated his boss's personal definition of hard-core pornography. It was a definition that White had never written into an opinion - no erect penises, no intercourse, no oral or anal sodomy. For White, no erections and no insertions equaled no obscenity.

(What I took from this is that Byron White probably wasn't much fun on a Friday night.)

A Supreme Court opinion is designed to be formal; unemotional; detached; cold. Like the laws given to Moses, the Supreme Court's edicts are meant to be chiseled in granite. The distance between author and reader gives the opinion's words their force. It also obscures the author's humanity, by elevating him (or her) above the human fray. The Brethren gives lie to the impression that judges love to foster: that they are immune to any consideration other than the law. In truth, their consideration of the law is determined by what kind of person they are.

[Shailey · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read this book in high school, as a high school senior for a Constitutional Law class. I loved it, I loved every minute of it. I found the book very compelling then, and I am sure that I would now. I read the book for a class, but I really got into it, without even knowing the cases that the court heard, who was on the court and the politics behind all of it.

Personally, I think that this book really gave me an inside look into the legal system, and is possibly the reason why I became a lawyer.

I would like to re-read it now that I have read most of the opinions from the cases heard in the book. Like many law students, I have a love for SCOTUS that runs deep.

[Ms.pegasus · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a story of what came after the Warren Court – the Burger Court.

The appellation of the Warren Court was not merely a product of journalistic shorthand. The Chief Justice exerts enormous power over Court decisions. If he is in the majority of the initial vote, he assigns opinions. The resulting assignment affects the nuance of legal reasoning which can strengthen or dilute the effects of a decision. The authors note that Warren's successor, Warren Burger, was careful to vote with the majority so that he could prevent major cases from being assigned to the “liberal justices” (Douglas, Marshall and Brennan). The Chief's inclinations also are a means for muting opposition. Potter Stewart signaled his reluctance to lead a dissent: “I got shitty opinion assignments from Earl Warren for ten years, and I'll be damned if I want to get them from Warren Burger for the next fifteen years.”

The Warren Court ruled on a succession of key cases in the areas of school busing, abortion, obscenity, the death penalty, freedom of the press, and freedom of speech. In one of its first major cases, Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, the Berger Court affirmed school busing in a unanimous opinion. What is fascinating about this book is that it reveals the compromises and considerations that went on before this public consensus could be forged. Burger and (surprisingly) Black were both anti-busing. Douglas and Marshall wanted a broader opinion of affirmation that recognized school segregation as the product of political and social segregation laws which were a clear violation of the Constitution. Steward crafted the bulk of the opinion which sought a middle ground. What was significant about the early years of the Warren Court was the recognition that compromises needed to be made in order to arrive at a convincing public consensus.

We tend to think of the Court as either nine jurists secluded in a barrister bubble, or a political 5th column. THE BRETHREN dispels both myths. At times individual members of the Court both recognized and sought to distance themselves from political considerations. In deciding the President's claim of executive privilege to halt the publication of the Pentagon Papers, the Court spent considerable effort debating the issue of expediting the case. (An initial 5 to 3 vote was changed to a 6 to 2 vote as Berger realized the majority was for expediting). Their stance was similarly ambivalent over the dialectic of social consequences. On the subject of capital punishment, Marshall, Douglas and Brennan were willing to find the death penalty “cruel and unusual.” Burger and Rehnquist were for upholding the death penalty. Blackmun, Powell and Stewart were swing votes. Stewart was inclined to be for the death penalty, but unwilling to be the single deciding vote that would end the lives of hundreds of death row inmates. He felt it would be wrong for such a significant decision to be decided by a single vote. Unfortunately, the compromise they arrived at argued that the death penalty was “cruel and unusual” in the sense that it was inconsistently applied. As a result, which none of them intended, states began adopting mandatory death sentences.

All of these issues will continue to be revisited and refined, despite the Court's tradition of precedent (stare decisis).

Warren Burger is not given sympathetic treatment in this book. He seems obsessed with issues of control, and motivated by a determination to undo the work of the Warren Court. He was not a keen legal intellect, and excelled at gaming the rules in order to get his way. His drafts were purposely vague. In an obscenity case, Stewart said of Burger's initial draft: “'I don't know what it says or what it means,'” Yet, one cannot help but empathize with Burger. His discomfort at being a sitting duck to the sniping of the foremost legal minds of the day – Black and Douglas -- is understandable. Moreover, he was exceptionally kind and gracious to Douglas when the latter attempted to function after his debilitating stroke. The miracle was that Burger was able, perhaps unintentionally, to be the agent of consensus among such a group of strong-willed and opinionated men. That sense of balance was lost when Douglas was incapacitated and finally forced to resign. The authors imply that this was a turning point in the dynamic of the Court. They describe Brennan's increasing dejection, as the narrowly focused, but brilliantly articulated opinions of Rehnquist began to influence the Court's thinking.

The theme the authors seek to advance is that the Court is not merely a debate club. Its decisions, particularly in times of political gridlock, have a lasting influence on all of us. One of its finest moments was Douglas' dissent in Sierra Club v. Morton. Douglas' passion was linked with Blackmun's disciplined mathematical calculations. The dissent, which Douglas read aloud, resulted in a broadening of environmental group powers to challenge commercial development intrusions (“standing” in filing lawsuits).

This is a book to be referred back to as each new decision is reached by the Court. It offers rare depth to arguments that have become politically polarized to the point that measured discussion has become almost impossible. It also revitalizes the important and constantly changing discussion of the proper role of the Court. Moreover, it is written in a lively fashion offering glimpses of personality and humor.

[Werner · Rating 3 out of 5]

Whether they realize it or not, the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court have enormous ongoing impact on the lives and prospects of every American. Most Americans who actually follow politics and public affairs have very strong opinions about the court: about what its proper role should be, about what philosophy of jurisprudence should guide its decisions, and about how well the current and past courts have measured up (or failed to) by those standards. I'm certainly no exception; my own perspective is that of a strict constructionist paleo-conservative, who sees adherence to democratically-adopted written law as essential to democratic government. That perspective is elaborated more fully in my reviews of The Tempting of America [www.goodreads.com/review/show/25812422 ] and Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights [www.goodreads.com/review/show/158209251 ] (and I'd recommend both books as windows into the abuse of authority by the court in the past and the present). Those two books, of course, barely scratch the surface of the voluminous number of legal and historical treatises that present explicit evaluations of the rightness or wrongness of the court's performance. This book isn't one of them. But it does provide a much rarer descriptive supplement.

The authors were Washington Post reporters (Woodward, of course, made his mark as a reporter of the Watergate scandal), who approached their task journalistically: they give us a descriptive bird's-eye view of the inner routines, interactions and politicking of the Burger court in its first seven terms, 1969-75. They based this portrayal on a plethora of both oral sources on the inside (speaking off the record) and on access to a mass of written primary source material, much of it unpublished. What emerges is an unprecedentedly intimate and candid look at an institution that historically has been highly secretive. Indeed, the court's justices have cultivated an image of impartial, apolitical servants of the law, honestly divining its meaning for us plebians with no tool but their dispassionate intellect. Many of us would agree that their deliberations should be aimed at the honest, dispassionate and unpolitical exposition of constitutional and statute law. But if this book does anything, it demonstrates that this picture doesn't bear very much resemblance to what really goes on. (And to the extent that it doesn't, the pretense that it does becomes little more than a cynical ploy to gain popular compliance with dubious or illegitimate decisions --though the authors leave it to the readers to figure out that conclusion for themselves).

Most of the justices depicted here are shown to have personal agendas, sometimes ideological ones on the Left or Right --impartial service to the law usually wasn't high among the considerations. Of course, the authors' own ideological sympathies lay with the Left, or they wouldn't have been allowed to work for the Washington Post; but in their researching and writing of the book, they did a commendable job of checking ideology at the door, to give us an objective factual portrayal of the justices as they were, with all of the personal likes and dislikes, ego-stroking, and sub rosa deal-cutting that shaped their decisions. Burger comes off the worst, manipulative and cynical --he was a master of the art of voting for outcomes he didn't believe in, in order to control who wrote the opinion, though he wasn't the only justice to tailor his votes with an eye to writing or getting out of writing an opinion. (His left-wing rival Brennan, who detested him personally, was just as politically manipulative, but much more naturally gifted at it.) But some liberal icons don't come off well either: Douglas, for instance, was a bullying tyrant to his clerks, and pathetically clung to his office long after a stroke had incapacitated him. Justices White and Rehnquist --one appointed by Kennedy and one by Nixon-- come across as the most principled of the bunch.

A wide variety of cases considered in this seven-year period are discussed, the two most prominent being Roe vs. Wade and the subpoena for Nixon's Watergate tapes. In no case, including these, do the authors express their own opinion. But the factual description of the lead-up to the former decision makes it indelibly clear that the entire process was result-driven and political, with no attempt at actual constitutional reasoning. (The same could be said of a good many of these decisions.) And while the court ultimately supported the subpoena for the Nixon tapes, it's chilling to learn that if Burger (who privately declared his belief that Nixon hadn't done anything wrong!) had his way, the opinion would have conceded a great deal more ground to the claim of "executive privilege" than the one the court finally issued.

Any study such as this one is a snapshot in time, a picture of one part of the court's ongoing history. None of the then-sitting justices are still on the current court; the cases discussed are all some forty years in the past. Some readers might say that it's "dated." But that's too superficial a conclusion. At the very least, it's an invaluable primary source for a key part of the court's history. And obviously some of these decisions --notably Roe-- still haunt us today. But most importantly, it reveals a basic reality behind the court's facade that time is unlikely to have changed; power blocs and alliances may shift, personalities and cases change, but the kind of dynamics the authors describe continue to shape the court. I think it could serve as an eye-opening read yet today, all these years after it was written. And it's certainly a fascinating read, as entertaining as a novel. (One reviewer complained that the authors don't define legal terms, such as "cert;" but they DO define that one in the introduction. I didn't find the legal terminology excessive, and don't think it would be too technical for educated readers.)

[Sean Sullivan · Rating 4 out of 5]

OK, I haven’t read All the Presidents Men, but of all the Woodward books I’ve read, this is by far the best. Woodward can get just about anyone to talk to him, and that is never more clear than in this book. He’s got direct quotes from meetings where there were only five people in attendance. Its amazing.

Some brief thoughts on some of the justices features in this book:
Brennan- rules.
Burger – was a tool
Marshall – was a much better lawyer than he was a justice.
Rehnquist – dick.
Douglas –dick, but pretty fucking amazing.

Probably the most fascinating of the justices is Blackmun who goes from an incredibly self-conscious to really confident and interesting in the quick couple of years the book covers. If you have any interest in the inner workings of the court, you have to read this, if not there’s no reason you’d ever pick it up.

[Tom Mathews · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was told long ago that Bob Woodward's book on the Supreme Court was the most in-depth, behind-the-curtains look at the Supreme Court ever published. The first time I picked it up and considered reading it, I decided that it was 20 years out of date and that more up-to-date books had been published so I set it back down.

Now, almost fifty years after the events covered by this book, I looked at it again and found that it had suddenly become very germane to what is happening in America today. Subjects like abortion, capital punishment, civil rights, racial/gender equality, and the impact of leaked information to the press were issues that resonated through the halls of the court as much then as they do now. In addition, the tension between the liberal and conservative wings of the court was, if anything, even more prevalent that it is now.

If you are at all interested in how decisions are arrived at by the Supreme Court, I highly recommend this book.

[Abby · Rating 5 out of 5]

A classic. Through and through. Sparked an interest that turned into a passion, and is still burning years after I first read it in high school. Every time I read this book I gain new insights. If only we could see behind today's Supreme Court. After The Brethren came out though, I doubt any justices will be talking to reporters anymore.

[Mary K · Rating 3 out of 5]

pushed me closer towards an ideology of lawlessness

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Brethren for me was a ho-hummer at the time that I read it. Now that the Supreme Court is such a mess (who could have guessed?), Mr. Woodward or someone equally skilled will hopefully write a Bretheren #2. I found Woodward's writing very good, but the subject was kind of boring. That's on me. After all, the court is our last resort. Perhaps the nine-plusers can see that having more than 9 justices might be too dangerous a consideration now, realizing how an unstable autocrat, such as the one we have as I write, could capture this nation and bend it to his will more than has already been done. The only change I would recommend is to give the court the ability to compel the administration to enforce the court's final judgments in a timely and less obfuscated way.

[Elizabeth · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a fascinating look inside the Supreme Court and it reads practically like a novel. It was scary learning what motivates a lot of the decision-making on the court - at the end of the day these are just nine normal people deciding such important issues that affect so many. I would have liked to learn more about Blackmun and I felt that Woodward's portrayal of him was very different than his portrayal in "Becoming Justice Blackmun." You might like this book more if you are a liberal, because Brennan comes across as the hero, Burger the oafish villian and Rehnquist the snake (but a likeable guy nonetheless).

[Porter Broyles · Rating 4 out of 5]

Just finished “The Brethren” by Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong.

This is a book that is both book history and a part of history itself. Originally written in 1979, the book covers the first six years of Chief Justice Warren Burger’s Supreme Court.

The Burger Court was a period wherein the Supreme Court took both a turn to the right and affirmed several key “liberal” cases. It is a period where important cases involving school bussing, abortion, freedom of speech, pornography, presidential “executive privilege”, and more were debated.

The book provides an interesting perspective on how the political system worked then and now. For example, Justice Abe Fortis was nominated by President Johnson for the position of Chief Justice. The Conservatives successfully filibustered his promotion. Abe Fortis was shortly forced to resign from the Supreme Court in embarrassment. The evidence used to stop Fortis was provided by the FBI.

Shortly after Johnson’s successor was inaugurated, Nixon nominated Burger. From nomination to confirmation, it took 18 days!

Both of those are real commentaries on current politics.

The coverage of the cases is interesting, but so is the coverage of the personalities. Thurgood Marshall is portrayed as a person a little unsure of his role, but an entertaining character. Hugo Black is the elder liberal whose ideas are now shifting towards the conservative camp. Brennen and Stewart are the liberal leaders. Blackman is introduced as Burger’s lackey unable to think for himself. Powell is the conservative turning liberal.

The later introductions of John Paul Stevens and Rehnquist are revealing. Stevens, who arrives in the last chapter, is portrayed as a force from start---able to discern and dissect political arguments at will. A man who was frustrated with the process, but very capable. Rehnquist is portrayed as a judicial genius---but somewhat a conniver. The other justices apparently loved to discuss cases with him because of his ability to help them refine their opinions. At the same time, the other justices hated to read his opinions because they knew that it might include poison pills---e.g. he would write an opinion stating the majority’s opinion, but would include embed the seeds providing precedent for the overturning of the opinion! The liberal justices had to have their clerks analyze his opinions especially close to ensure that they were what they thought they were. Rehnquist also knew how to work the other justices. Apparently, he once had a case assigned to him that was not unanimous. He took an extreme position, but then moderated his tone and made concessions, until he obtained a unanimous opinion on his original stance. These depictions of these two men is interesting because Woodward and Armstrong could not know the heights these two men would obtain.

Burger, however, is portrayed as a complete incompetent. This book cannot be seen as representing an objective portrait of the Chief Justice. On the rare times that it says something complimentary about the Chief, it indicates that the other justices or clerks were shocked. Most of the time, it has quotes or representations that indicate that Burger could not put two sentences together coherently---let alone write a meaningful opinion. It also portrays him as shifty and conniving. That he would change his vote, after the fact, to ensure that he got to pick the Justice that wrote the opinion (generally the Chief Justice picks the person to write the opinion if he’s in the majority---the most senior justice if the Chief is not.) Burger reportedly tried to appoint the opinion writer when in the minority, and on at least one occasion he switched his vote to pick the author, then switched back.

This book is definitely a hit piece on the Justice. Many of the controversies involving the Chief, were conflicts involving the Washington Post (the paper Woodward and Armstrong wrote for). This creates somewhat a conflict of interest in discerning objectivity. The claims may be true, they feel like personal attacks.

That being said, this book is not just about the history, it is a book that in and of itself helped shape history---which is always worth reading---in part because it is not purely apolitical, but represents the views of major Washington Post Journalist.

I do have a major stylistic criticism---The Chapters are broken down by Court Year. This means that the chapters can be 80-90 pages in length without obvious breaks between cases/incidents. I’d much rather have had “sections” representing the years and then subchapters. I am not a fan of monster chapters.

[Colin Cochran · Rating 5 out of 5]

first 20 seconds of https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fJ07q86...

[Erin McKeown · Rating 1 out of 5]

no dnf option in goodreads

for lucy augustine and lucy augustine alone would i try this

[Henry Atkinson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Review of The Brethren by Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong
Fresh off of his work with Carl Bernstein that brought down a U.S. President and detailed his last moments in office, Bob Woodward teamed up with Scott Armstrong to pen this classic about the Supreme Court. We see the justices as true human beings, planning and even scheming to get their way in terms of jurisprudence. The book is kind of harsh on Chief Justice Burger, but he also does not come across as someone who would stand up for his views and backed down for the sake of consensus, haunted by the legacy of Earl Warren even before the Californian died. We laugh along with Thurgood Marshall and think alongside William Brennan, Potter Stewart, Byron White, and William Rehnquist. The irascible William O.Douglas and the aged Hugo Black loom over the book as well, with Douglas set in ways as an uncompromising liberal advocate. Perhaps the best moments of the book are in U.S. vs. Nixon, when the Court orders President Nixon to turn over his tapes, an action that led to his resignation. This is a book rich with detail and intrigue and is certainly one of the best works of Woodward’s long career. Rating: 4.5/5.

[mippers · Rating 3 out of 5]

old men dumb as hell

[Frank Stein · Rating 5 out of 5]

Amazing. I had no idea Warren Burger was such an insufferable person. I mean I heard bad things but I had NO IDEA. Apparently the whole reason this book got written was because so many of the other justices were peeved at Burger and they had to vent in long, extended interviews.

The book focuses too much on Watergate (perhaps justifiably for Woodward) and the extremely detailed background on some cases (the multiple memos, amendments,drafts, and meetings behind them), but one leaves the book with a real understanding of the Supreme Court as a political branch, both in relation to the outside environment, and, even more so, to its own internal environment. Every case is suffused with old fashioned horse trading and jaw boning. Also there are great descriptions of everything from the Swann v. Charlotte Mecklenburg to Furman v. Georgia.

[Chellie · Rating 5 out of 5]

I absolutely loved this book! I had to complete a research paper in high school on the legalization of abortion. The Roe vs. Wade trial. This book was one of the ones that helped immensely. It was a great, interesting read through out the court cases and Justices through the years and terms of each one!

[Pierce G · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have so many thoughts after this book. Absolutely recommend to anyone even with even a passing interest in the court. Wild to read after especially the last couple years of the current Supreme Court, and the context of this summer’s rulings, and overall attitudes towards the political make up of the court.
This is one I will reread.

[Sara Alsup · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found Woodward's prose to make this a compelling and accessible volume on the Court. My intellectual curiousity was piqued by some of the cases discussed.

[Alisa · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of the most insightful books about the inner workings of The Supreme Court every done.

[Suzanne · Rating 1 out of 5]

I had really looked forward to this book based on the reviews it has received. It was very disappointing for me, someone with no formal background knowledge of Law and the Constitution. The author makes assumptions that the reader will know what a "cert" is, what defines a "conference" , what the role of the Law Clerk is, and how cases ultimately end up at the Court. It would have taken very little effort for Woodward to have defined things more clearly for the general audience if his intention was to educate and enlighten the reader.
That said, this book is about the Warren Burger Court in the mid-seventies. Some of the more well-known cases decided during his term as Chief Justice include Roe v. Wade and Nixon being forced to turn over his tapes during Watergate. Woodward divides the book into chapters based on the year. But then he loses his way.
Each chapter plods along in a disorganized style with unnecessarily long narrative and dialogue that is quoted but not cited. Other reviews have stated that Woodward's sources were the Clerks themselves, but their names are not given. Frankly, I don't know how Woodward would know what was said between two Justices when no Clerk was present. Perhaps the Justices relayed the conversations to their Clerks? How accurate could that be? How many of our bosses embellish their recounting of conversations to their employees to enhance their own image? If what was written is, in fact, true, the image I had of the Justices has been permanently tarnished. They are portrayed as vain men with enormous egos and intellectual insecurities who act out their "issues" in their interactions with each other and with their clerks. Warren Burger and Thurgood Marshall are depicted as lazy and intellectually inferior while Harry Blackmun appears to be so obsessive compulsive he cannot complete his work under any reasonable deadline. Brennan shines the brightest, but my guess is that his clerk was a major source. Perhaps I am too cynical.
There is bias here and one gets the feeling that the intent of the book was to shatter the myths surrounding the Supreme Court and its Justices. Woodward succeeded in that goal. For example, his inclusion of the individual Justices reaction to viewing hard core pornography seems superfluous, unnecessary and voyeuristic. If their reactions as described were true, (some giggles, inappropriate joking, disgust etc) they should have been respected as private. Instead one gets a visual image of a bunch of old men watching dirty movies and behaving like immature adolescents. We are left with that image as the Justices struggle with the definition of pornography as it relates to our Constitutional freedoms.
Since this was one of the first books written about the inner workings of the Supreme Court the author had opportunities to create a classic work, one that was thought provoking and informative. Instead we have a hatchet job.

[Stuart]

There’s been a lot of revisionist baloney written about Roe v Wade but the real inside dope of how a GOP dominated SC with a conservative chief justice decided to make abortion the law of the land on a 7-2 vote is all here. There’s also been a lot of bs about the SC not being politically motivated and the inside dope of it being very politically motivated is all here. And of course there is the bs that the SC simply “follows the constitution” which is shot full of holes in this book. The Brethren is a chatty, meandering, too long affair. But if you want to know how it once worked before it became dysfunctional and radicalized recently it is indeed all here.

[Trevor · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have a hard time believing that Chief Justice Burger was really as intellectually challenged as he is portrayed here. I also have more respect for Thurgood Marshall than to believe that he just loafed along his days on the Court. Still, this book was a fascinating look at the Supreme Court both as a bit of history and as a good look at how the Court is still run.
Woodward organizes this book chronologically. It basically begins when Chief Justice Burger takes over from Chief Justice Earl Warren. Then it is divided into the courts yearly sessions.
I thought Woodward did a great job evoking the personalities of the justices--though it surely has some inaccuracies due to cloudy political vision--as well as explaining some of the major issues the Court faced during Burger's early years. This is an important time in United States Constitutional Law history. Nixon resigned because the Supreme Court told him he had to produce tapes of his discussions with his cabinet even though he has immunity to some degree. Roe v. Wade was decided during this time, pushing to the outer limits the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Vietnam was out of control. First Amendment rights were being defined. And this book looks at the lives of the men (no women yet) in charge of making these decisions.
While I had read most of the cases that were discussed in this book, I think Woodward explains the underlying conflicts and politics in a way that most people could understand. His looks at the decisions, however, don't pick up on all of the nuances and subtleties, so this is not the place to go if you want a deep look at the cases. Still, I think Woodward does an excellent job at showing just how important (it's frightening, really) it is to understand the Supreme Court and its members. They hold incredible power, and their decisions affect us all.

[Larry Bassett · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was published in 1979 but the audible version was not released until 2019. Since I am now pretty much entirely an audible person, I have just now finally listened to this book that covers The supreme court terms of 1969 through 1975. It turns out that was a pretty active period of time for the supreme court.

If you ever thought the Supreme Court was a fairly non-partisan body, this book will definitely show you that your impression was mistaken. This behind-the-scenes portrayal of the workings of the court is certainly eye-opening for those of us who might’ve thought that the courts were the main hope of our government system.

The presentation in this book is detailed and fascinating. It shows the members of the court with all their blemishes and warts. And they all have plenty of them. The process of how The actual wording of a Supreme Court decision happens is shown in detail and presented in a very understandable fashion to any reader.

[Maureen · Rating 4 out of 5]

His first foray in what would turn out to be a long-term fascination with the U.S. Supreme Court, Bob Woodward along with co-author Scott Armstrong wrote the first comprehensive insider book on the US Supremes. The time period ranges from1969 to the historic decision of Gregg v. Georgia in 1976, part of the "July 2 cases" which reopened the states' power to impose the death penalty.

The Court's decisions shaped American policy on civil rights, Watergate, the Vietnam war, abortion, and even laws dealing with oral sex and homosexuality. These were exciting days for the US Supremes, and for everyone in the country who waited for the last Monday in October (when the Supreme Court issued its last opinions for the year), to find out the fates of millions of Americans.

This is a fascinating, impeccably researched book. It is a must for any student of American history.

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was written before Ronald Reagan appointed, in 1981, the first woman to the Supreme Court, so at the time, "the brethren" was an appropriate way to refer to the justices on the Supreme Court. I think it's still the way to which the justices are referred in general, even though more than one woman has now served on the high court. This book is an interesting look at the way the Supreme Court functioned a few decades ago, but perhaps the time has come for Bob Woodward to revisit this topic.

[Steven Peterson · Rating 4 out of 5]

When this book came out, my first response was "Wow." How did Woodward get all of these inside stories? But that's my normal response to many of his books. Why do people open up so much to him? I once used this as a textbook in a course on Law and Politics, since it gives an "inside view" of the Supreme Court. Questions have been raised about this work, but--in thne end--a good read and a work that gets one to thinking about the Court.

[Dave · Rating 4 out of 5]

Study of how our Supreme Court works. Hard to believe that it is really as depicted, with the Justice's clerks in control and Chief Justice Burger a total idiot. But maybe .... Much of the book chronicles events in the Nixon era, and if you are in your 50's this book explains alot of what went on and why. Very good.

[Cathryn Conroy · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you are in the legal profession, this book on the Supreme Court—covering the 1968 term through the 1975 term—may be close to a page-turner. For me, it was mostly a slog. But because of the impressive research and depth of the book, I gave it four stars out of respect for the authors, Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong. In terms of readability, it's two stars.

At nearly 700 pages, this book is dense. And detailed. Oh, so very detailed. We even find out when a justice stops working to eat lunch and the kind of shoes (Hush Puppies) another prefers wearing.

That said, the years the book covers was a tumultuous time in the United States, and in each of these Supreme Court terms, there were major decisions made, some of which still impact our lives today. This book about the process—everything that happens from the time the court considers whether to accept a case to the time a ruling is made. Taken as a whole—and this is why I am glad I have read it—it gives an extraordinary inside peek at the workings of the court, something that is almost always done in secret.

The meat of this book is detailing the Supreme Court's processes, including internal debates among the justices, their hidden motives, their tentative positions and then abrupt changes in position, the preliminary votes, the many (many!) drafts of written opinions, and the negotiations, confrontations, and compromises among the justices. Also fascinating are all the unwritten rules and traditions of the court that are designed with one goal in mind: maintaining secrecy. However, with the publication of this book many of those secrets have been outed.

Some of the major cases that are explained in great detail include:
• 1971: Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, which approved busing as a way to desegregate public schools.

• 1971: New York Times Co. v. United States, which is better known as the Pentagon Papers cases, allowed The New York Times and The Washington Post to continue publishing the classified Pentagon Papers.

• 1972: Furman v. Georgia, which struck down existing capital punishment statutes nationwide.

• 1973: Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion nationwide.

• 1974: United States v. Nixon, which forced President Nixon to surrender the Watergate tapes.

The book is prodigiously researched, based in large part on interviews with more than 200 people, including several of the justices, as well as 170 former law clerks and several dozen former employees of the Supreme Court. Almost all the interviews were conducted "on background," which means the identity of the source is kept confidential. The authors were also given access to unpublished material from dozens of sources, including internal memoranda between the justices, letters and notes taken at conferences, and case assignment sheets, diaries, and unpublished drafts of opinions. The chief justice during the time period covered by the book, Warren E. Burger, declined to assist Woodward and Armstrong in any way.

The book offers an inside look and understanding of how the very secretive Supreme Court works, but it's a lot to wade through for those of us who are not in the legal profession.