What do you think?
Rate this book
The Roberts Court: The Struggle for the Constitution
For years, the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice John Roberts has been at the center of a constitutional maelstrom. Here, the much-honored, expert Supreme Court reporter Marcia Coyle's examination of four landmark cases is "informative, insightful, clear and fair...Coyle reminds us that Supreme Court decisions matter. A lot." (Portland Oregonian).Seven minutes after President Obama put his signature to a landmark national health care insurance program, a lawyer in the office of Florida GOP attorney general Bill McCollum hit a computer key, sparking a legal challenge to the new law that would eventually reach the nation’s highest court. Health care is only the most visible and recent front in a battle over the meaning and scope of the US Constitution. The battleground is the United States Supreme Court, and one of the most skilled, insightful, and trenchant of its observers takes us close up to watch it in action. Marcia Coyle’s brilliant inside analysis of the High Court captures four landmark decisions—concerning health care, money in elections, guns at home, and race in schools. Coyle examines how those cases began and how they exposed the great divides among the justices, such as the originalists versus the pragmatists on guns and the Second Amendment, and corporate speech versus human speech in the controversial Citizens United case. Most dramatically, her reporting shows how dedicated conservative lawyers and groups have strategized to find cases and crafted them to bring up the judicial road to the Supreme Court with an eye on a receptive conservative majority. The Roberts Court offers a ringside seat to the struggle to lay down the law of the land.
418 pages, Kindle Edition
First published May 7, 2013
17 people are currently reading
458 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 42 reviews
March 5, 2014
Marcia Coyle analyzes the jurisprudential shift in the Supreme Court starting with John Roberts’s arrival at the court as its new chief justice. She notes that the court has become significantly more conservative, perhaps the most marked reorientation in decades. She concludes that Roberts, despite his affirmation at confirmation hearings that he believes in narrow rulings with great respect for precedents, has not consistently followed this judicial path.
She suggests that it was the departure of Sandra Day O’Connor and her replacement by Samuel Alito that was the most impactful on the court’s close decisions. O’Connor was substantially a moderate who often sided with the liberal wing of justices in 5-4 decisions. Alito is a deeply conservative justice who can be relied on to uphold conservative viewpoints at every turn. Most important, O’Connor’s absence elevated Justice Arthur Kennedy to the “swing vote” place among the justices and he is more conservative in his holdings than was O’Connor. After a long period of stability the court has seen substantial turnover since 2005, but it clearly was Alito for O’Connor and the new swing role for Kennedy that has had the most impact.
To frame her analysis Coyle uses four areas in which the court has made landmark decisions: race, gun control, campaign financing and the health care. She describes in a balanced way the constitutional basis for the justices’ opinions, but concludes that the outcomes of the decisions were among the most radical restructuring of constitutional interpretations in the court’s history. She believes that the court, while not being per se more politically motivated than its predecessors, has altered the country’s political landscape in profound ways that will have deep impact on the fundamental relationships between the government and the people, between the government’s three branches and between the federal government and states.
Although these four areas are the basis for her book, she also includes other decisions reached by the court during this time. As the public’s attention is most focused on the big 5-4 decisions, it was interesting to note that in many more cases the court is not at all sharply divided in its votes. The common perception that the conservative and liberal wings of the court are intractably opposed to each other is not fully accurate
Coyle provides us with thoughtful analysis of the underlying judicial and constitutional philosophies of the court’s members. The viewpoints of the justices on the correct bases for constitutional interpretations are quite significantly disparate, but she recognizes that however much one might disagree with a justice’s underpinning perspective the justices deserve respect as each are deeply thoughtful and committed to the vital importance of the role of the court in our system of government.
She gives interesting insights into confirmation hearings of Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor and Kagan. She writes about the lawyers who will argue before the court and describes their intensive preparations of briefs and oral arguments.
These days there is a lot of sharp attention in the media, among politicians, scholars and the people to the import of the court’s viewpoints. The widening partisan divide in our national dialogue has contributed to greater scrutiny about the court and how it will affect the issues of the day. Coyle performs a useful task in taking us much more deeply into the thinking of the justices and the workings of the court.
She suggests that it was the departure of Sandra Day O’Connor and her replacement by Samuel Alito that was the most impactful on the court’s close decisions. O’Connor was substantially a moderate who often sided with the liberal wing of justices in 5-4 decisions. Alito is a deeply conservative justice who can be relied on to uphold conservative viewpoints at every turn. Most important, O’Connor’s absence elevated Justice Arthur Kennedy to the “swing vote” place among the justices and he is more conservative in his holdings than was O’Connor. After a long period of stability the court has seen substantial turnover since 2005, but it clearly was Alito for O’Connor and the new swing role for Kennedy that has had the most impact.
To frame her analysis Coyle uses four areas in which the court has made landmark decisions: race, gun control, campaign financing and the health care. She describes in a balanced way the constitutional basis for the justices’ opinions, but concludes that the outcomes of the decisions were among the most radical restructuring of constitutional interpretations in the court’s history. She believes that the court, while not being per se more politically motivated than its predecessors, has altered the country’s political landscape in profound ways that will have deep impact on the fundamental relationships between the government and the people, between the government’s three branches and between the federal government and states.
Although these four areas are the basis for her book, she also includes other decisions reached by the court during this time. As the public’s attention is most focused on the big 5-4 decisions, it was interesting to note that in many more cases the court is not at all sharply divided in its votes. The common perception that the conservative and liberal wings of the court are intractably opposed to each other is not fully accurate
Coyle provides us with thoughtful analysis of the underlying judicial and constitutional philosophies of the court’s members. The viewpoints of the justices on the correct bases for constitutional interpretations are quite significantly disparate, but she recognizes that however much one might disagree with a justice’s underpinning perspective the justices deserve respect as each are deeply thoughtful and committed to the vital importance of the role of the court in our system of government.
She gives interesting insights into confirmation hearings of Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor and Kagan. She writes about the lawyers who will argue before the court and describes their intensive preparations of briefs and oral arguments.
These days there is a lot of sharp attention in the media, among politicians, scholars and the people to the import of the court’s viewpoints. The widening partisan divide in our national dialogue has contributed to greater scrutiny about the court and how it will affect the issues of the day. Coyle performs a useful task in taking us much more deeply into the thinking of the justices and the workings of the court.
May 11, 2014
Marcia Coyle is the national law Journal’s long time Chief Washington correspondent. She is an attorney and brings 25 years of reporting on the high court to her book. The great strength of Coyle’s book is the depth and balance of her reporting. She interviewed several justices on background and one Antonin Scalia on the record. She also interviewed the lawyers and litigants on both sides of the four highest profiled cases, of enormous consequence of 5-4 decisions, of the Roberts court from 2007 to 2009. By allowing all the participants to speak in their own voices, she gives us a nuanced sense of how conservative and libertarian lawyers strategically litigate the cases and transformed the law. Coyle supplies useful and colorful context about the litigants, lawyers, politics and legal precedent. She is especially good on the maneuvering of various special interest groups to identify and guide particular cases through the legal system, all with a hopeful eye toward eventual Supreme Court review. Coyle covers in detail a number of key cases these are:
1. Heller—the right to bear arms-2nd amendment case.
2. Louisville & Seattle school boards racial diversity plans—affirmative action in public schools
3. Citizens United- where free speech and campaign finance law collide
4. The Affordable Health care Act
The book is an excellent account of the Roberts-led court, about the varied background and clashing philosophies of the justices, the careful crafting of arguments to secure five votes, the courts continually shifting center of gravity and the peculiar burden that rest with the Chief Justice. Roberts is a conservative, what he is after eight tumultuous years, is the center of gravity on a court whose members range from hard-right to hard –left. Coyle points out the paramount roles played by perhaps the courts two least known justices. With the 2005 retirement of Sandra day O’Connor, Justice Anthony Kennedy became the swing vote, and her replacement Samuel Alito moved the court dramatically to the right. The republican’s have appointed all the Chief Justice since 1953 when the last democrat Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson of Kentucky died, he was appointed by President Harry Truman. What I liked best about the book was that Coyle lets the facts and the Justices own words speak for themselves. What I have learned from this book and several other books about the Supreme Court is how important the court is to our daily lives and how important it is to apply great care in the selection of the justices. I highly recommend this book. I read this book as an audio book downloaded from Audible. Bernadette Dunne did an excellent job narrating the book.
1. Heller—the right to bear arms-2nd amendment case.
2. Louisville & Seattle school boards racial diversity plans—affirmative action in public schools
3. Citizens United- where free speech and campaign finance law collide
4. The Affordable Health care Act
The book is an excellent account of the Roberts-led court, about the varied background and clashing philosophies of the justices, the careful crafting of arguments to secure five votes, the courts continually shifting center of gravity and the peculiar burden that rest with the Chief Justice. Roberts is a conservative, what he is after eight tumultuous years, is the center of gravity on a court whose members range from hard-right to hard –left. Coyle points out the paramount roles played by perhaps the courts two least known justices. With the 2005 retirement of Sandra day O’Connor, Justice Anthony Kennedy became the swing vote, and her replacement Samuel Alito moved the court dramatically to the right. The republican’s have appointed all the Chief Justice since 1953 when the last democrat Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson of Kentucky died, he was appointed by President Harry Truman. What I liked best about the book was that Coyle lets the facts and the Justices own words speak for themselves. What I have learned from this book and several other books about the Supreme Court is how important the court is to our daily lives and how important it is to apply great care in the selection of the justices. I highly recommend this book. I read this book as an audio book downloaded from Audible. Bernadette Dunne did an excellent job narrating the book.
October 4, 2013
I must always begin with the obvious as far as this genre is concerned. First, I have an undying love for anything Supreme Court related. Second, it clearly wasn't Jeffrey Toobin. After I got over that, I liked it quite a bit. I thought the focus was narrow enough to be compelling, and the details were good. At times it got a bit repetitive, like hey! your editor missed the fact that you already told us about that case. Also the end was a bit wishy washy.
September 24, 2024
At first I was disappointed when I realized that this book was written in 2013, before all of the latest controversy surrounding Justices Thomas and Alito, before Mitch McConnell deprived President Obama of his Supreme Court pick and packedthe Court, and before the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade. But the book shows that the seeds for these events were planted long beforehand. It also shows how Supreme Court nominees lie in their confirmation hearings. For example, Chief Justice John Roberts said he was an incrementalist who thought opinions should be no broader than necessary. Yet in his first term, the Court overruled something like nine precedents, repeatedly went out of its way to address issues and arguments the parties had not raised, and to otherwise advance its agenda. The most significant change in the Court was the replacement of Sandra Day O'Connor, a conservative justice who believed in the rule of law, with Samuel Alito, who helped politicize the Court.
The book looks in detail at five cases--two cases in which school districts used race as a consideration in assigning students to schools, the Heller gun decision, the infamous and horrendous Citizens United case, and the Affordable Care Act case, in which Chief Justice Roberts saved the act. But it also offers many insights into the workings of the Supreme Court generally, for example, how they use their law clerks, and into the personalities of the justices. The author interviewed many people for the book and put together her research impressively.
The book looks in detail at five cases--two cases in which school districts used race as a consideration in assigning students to schools, the Heller gun decision, the infamous and horrendous Citizens United case, and the Affordable Care Act case, in which Chief Justice Roberts saved the act. But it also offers many insights into the workings of the Supreme Court generally, for example, how they use their law clerks, and into the personalities of the justices. The author interviewed many people for the book and put together her research impressively.
July 29, 2018
A good companion to Toobin's "The Oath". Coyle reaches essentially the same conclusions: the Roberts/Kennedy Court showed itself to be controlled by "conservative judges" who have proven to be judicial activists in a way unprecedented since the Warren Court. But this Court's judicial activism primarily favors large corporations. Only time will tell if Roberts's moderating influence in the Obamacare case resurfaces in other cases.
June 12, 2019
Coyle focuses on four key cases during the first 7 years of the Roberts court. She says that with the ACA decision, the court stopped being the Kennedy court and truly became the Roberts court.
Coyle writes with less flourish than Jeffrey Toobin, but also with less bias and less invective. Definitely worth reading if you want to understand the most powerful branch of the US government.
Coyle writes with less flourish than Jeffrey Toobin, but also with less bias and less invective. Definitely worth reading if you want to understand the most powerful branch of the US government.
February 14, 2019
This was an enjoyable book, if a bit dated (published 2013, lots has happened since then). I did enjoy the way the author compared and contrasted justices past and present. I found also the way she analyzed various cases that have come before the Court to be helpful.
November 22, 2024
5/5 —
Just read some parts as I am trying to learn about Obamacare.
Just read some parts as I am trying to learn about Obamacare.
August 28, 2013
Clear, illuminating, fascinating
Marcia Coyle's book functions on two levels.
The first level examines the legal history and legal analysis entailed in four signature 5-4 decisions: Parents Involved, which voided the use of race as a tiebreaker in assignment of students to schools; Heller, which voided the District of Columbia's ban on private ownership of guns; Citizens United, which voided restrictions on corporation and union financing of political campaigns; and National Federation of Independent Business, which upheld the individual mandate in the Obamacare law. There is little that is original here, but the exposition is excellent. She also covers, more briefly, a couple of dozen other significant cases from this period, giving the reader a good feel for the substance of the Roberts court's jurisprudence.
The second level recounts the backstories behind the front-line battles of the adversaries in the four lead cases: the crusading zeal of a handful of conservative and libertarian lawyers, the tactics considered in framing the issues and selecting venues, the rivalries both legal and personal, and the strong and vivid personalities on both sides. This portion is original, and fascinating.
A core theme is whether the Court is "political" or "principled". She finds the answer elusive. There is no question there is an ideological divide. But ideology is not necessarily unprincipled.
Professor Jack Balkin of Yale makes a distinction between "high politics" and "low politics". "High politics" is simply an opinion of what the Constitution means. For example, Justice Black's view that the First Amendment is absolute, or Justice Brennan's view that the death penalty is always unconstitutional, or Chief Justice Roberts's apparent view that race is always an illegitimate criterion--all these could be called "ideological" if one insists, but they are principled positions, not arising from a desire to favor any person or party. Some cite Bush v. Gore as an example of "low politics."
A common view of the Roberts court is that it is "pro-business." A recent study by Judge Richard Posner and others seems to confirm that. It found that the Roberts court has held in favor of the business party more than 60% of the time, compared to some 42% historically.
Coyle cautions that the issue is more complicated. First, the coalitions shift depending on the issue. Second, what seems to be pro-business bias often has more mundane explanations. The Ledbetter decision, holding to strict time limits for sex-discrimination claims (since overruled by Congress) was straightforward statutory interpretation. The Twombly and Iqbal cases imposed higher specificity in pleading civil claims. This favored defendants, who tend to be corporations. But interviews with the justices (including some of the dissenters) show that the majority simply believed that there were too many frivolous lawsuits that threatened the integrity of the system.
Whether principled or not, the Roberts court has abandoned, in Coyle's view, the standard conservative belief in judicial restraint. She says the cases "reveal a confident conservative majority with a muscular sense of power, a notable disdain for Congress, and a willingness to act aggressively and in distinctly unconservative ways." But elsewhere she allows that for many people "judicial activism has come to mean a decision with which those making the charge disagree."
The reader might have hoped for a lot of inside dope on the interactions of the justices. For example, almost everyone would love to know the contortions that led Roberts to shift from striking down to upholding Obamacare, on the ground that it was a "tax" rather than a regulation of commerce. Nothing doing. She interviewed six of the justices, but they just don't give away much, except that, despite the passions, they remain collegial friends.
There is a distinct liberal tinge to Coyle's view of things, and it glimmers through occasionally. But on the whole she is fair and, to her credit, undoctrinaire. Anyone who is doctrinaire has not watched the court as long or as intensely as she has
Marcia Coyle's book functions on two levels.
The first level examines the legal history and legal analysis entailed in four signature 5-4 decisions: Parents Involved, which voided the use of race as a tiebreaker in assignment of students to schools; Heller, which voided the District of Columbia's ban on private ownership of guns; Citizens United, which voided restrictions on corporation and union financing of political campaigns; and National Federation of Independent Business, which upheld the individual mandate in the Obamacare law. There is little that is original here, but the exposition is excellent. She also covers, more briefly, a couple of dozen other significant cases from this period, giving the reader a good feel for the substance of the Roberts court's jurisprudence.
The second level recounts the backstories behind the front-line battles of the adversaries in the four lead cases: the crusading zeal of a handful of conservative and libertarian lawyers, the tactics considered in framing the issues and selecting venues, the rivalries both legal and personal, and the strong and vivid personalities on both sides. This portion is original, and fascinating.
A core theme is whether the Court is "political" or "principled". She finds the answer elusive. There is no question there is an ideological divide. But ideology is not necessarily unprincipled.
Professor Jack Balkin of Yale makes a distinction between "high politics" and "low politics". "High politics" is simply an opinion of what the Constitution means. For example, Justice Black's view that the First Amendment is absolute, or Justice Brennan's view that the death penalty is always unconstitutional, or Chief Justice Roberts's apparent view that race is always an illegitimate criterion--all these could be called "ideological" if one insists, but they are principled positions, not arising from a desire to favor any person or party. Some cite Bush v. Gore as an example of "low politics."
A common view of the Roberts court is that it is "pro-business." A recent study by Judge Richard Posner and others seems to confirm that. It found that the Roberts court has held in favor of the business party more than 60% of the time, compared to some 42% historically.
Coyle cautions that the issue is more complicated. First, the coalitions shift depending on the issue. Second, what seems to be pro-business bias often has more mundane explanations. The Ledbetter decision, holding to strict time limits for sex-discrimination claims (since overruled by Congress) was straightforward statutory interpretation. The Twombly and Iqbal cases imposed higher specificity in pleading civil claims. This favored defendants, who tend to be corporations. But interviews with the justices (including some of the dissenters) show that the majority simply believed that there were too many frivolous lawsuits that threatened the integrity of the system.
Whether principled or not, the Roberts court has abandoned, in Coyle's view, the standard conservative belief in judicial restraint. She says the cases "reveal a confident conservative majority with a muscular sense of power, a notable disdain for Congress, and a willingness to act aggressively and in distinctly unconservative ways." But elsewhere she allows that for many people "judicial activism has come to mean a decision with which those making the charge disagree."
The reader might have hoped for a lot of inside dope on the interactions of the justices. For example, almost everyone would love to know the contortions that led Roberts to shift from striking down to upholding Obamacare, on the ground that it was a "tax" rather than a regulation of commerce. Nothing doing. She interviewed six of the justices, but they just don't give away much, except that, despite the passions, they remain collegial friends.
There is a distinct liberal tinge to Coyle's view of things, and it glimmers through occasionally. But on the whole she is fair and, to her credit, undoctrinaire. Anyone who is doctrinaire has not watched the court as long or as intensely as she has
March 2, 2016
Notes
Hi politics is a larger vision of constitutional principles about rights. There's nothing wrong with judges having high politic activism. Low politics manipulation of doctor and to give a specific group power or favor bush v gore
In the Constitution there arevery specific portions like the age of the president where there is little room for argument. In other areas there are principles/values where there is much broader interpretation such as unreasonable search and seizures. Sometimes these values compete. Citizens United case – free-speech versus equality. A judge must effectively communicate and convince why he or she is choosing one value over another. (This is an area where we need to be careful with the extremes)
Affirmative-action, school integration can't believe that the Constitution which allow discrimination based on race for over 200 years now prohibited positive discrimination based on race.
Guns-a decision on a scale. The argument seems to be whether the second amendment has an individual right component to own a gun or if it's just for militia purposes. But I think 99% of people who believe in individual right, don't believe that it is without limitations and regulations. How do you use the constitution to justify handguns but disallow machine guns. That would seem like a good distinction to make but how can you use the constitution to make that distinction. Maybe someone would argue that because handguns and rifles existed during the time of the constitutions writing and not machine guns that this takes handguns and rifles out of the gray area, leaves machine guns there. It would seem that the court trying to decide whether the Constitution guarantees the right to a handgun specifically. That seems very ambiguous.
Stare decisis is respect for precedents. Many judges sacrifice original intent for stare decisis
This book has caused me to lose confidence that there really can be a legitimate judicial philosophy. The one that I lean towards is being pragmatic, or supporting good ideas. But I don't think that plays well in determining whether something is constitutional, it seems better left to the jlegislative branch. I feel like the courts should step in only to strike down gross offenses to the constitution by state governments, and I guess occasionally federal laws. Maybe they should play a role in striking down Federal imposition on the states. I lean Towards deference to the legislator
Hi politics is a larger vision of constitutional principles about rights. There's nothing wrong with judges having high politic activism. Low politics manipulation of doctor and to give a specific group power or favor bush v gore
In the Constitution there arevery specific portions like the age of the president where there is little room for argument. In other areas there are principles/values where there is much broader interpretation such as unreasonable search and seizures. Sometimes these values compete. Citizens United case – free-speech versus equality. A judge must effectively communicate and convince why he or she is choosing one value over another. (This is an area where we need to be careful with the extremes)
Affirmative-action, school integration can't believe that the Constitution which allow discrimination based on race for over 200 years now prohibited positive discrimination based on race.
Guns-a decision on a scale. The argument seems to be whether the second amendment has an individual right component to own a gun or if it's just for militia purposes. But I think 99% of people who believe in individual right, don't believe that it is without limitations and regulations. How do you use the constitution to justify handguns but disallow machine guns. That would seem like a good distinction to make but how can you use the constitution to make that distinction. Maybe someone would argue that because handguns and rifles existed during the time of the constitutions writing and not machine guns that this takes handguns and rifles out of the gray area, leaves machine guns there. It would seem that the court trying to decide whether the Constitution guarantees the right to a handgun specifically. That seems very ambiguous.
Stare decisis is respect for precedents. Many judges sacrifice original intent for stare decisis
This book has caused me to lose confidence that there really can be a legitimate judicial philosophy. The one that I lean towards is being pragmatic, or supporting good ideas. But I don't think that plays well in determining whether something is constitutional, it seems better left to the jlegislative branch. I feel like the courts should step in only to strike down gross offenses to the constitution by state governments, and I guess occasionally federal laws. Maybe they should play a role in striking down Federal imposition on the states. I lean Towards deference to the legislator
January 9, 2014
I was interested in this book because I think anyone who gets appointed to the Supreme Court is going to be very intelligent but a lot of the Roberts’ Courts decisions that I’ve read about in the news don’t make much sense to me. I wanted to understand the logic that lead them to decide (for example) Citizens United, because there had to be some logic at work there other than “they just wanted to undermine democracy”, which is the implication that a lot of reporting about that case gives off.
To that end I’m not sure that I’m totally satisfied with this book, since it doesn’t actually go into that much detail about the individual thought processes of the judges, and sometimes doesn’t even break down which judges voted which way on some of the relevant cases. I still don’t feel like I have a solid sense of who John Roberts is, which I find disappointing, nor do I have a solid sense of his rationale behind some of his more controversial decisions.
That said, the book is still very informative. It provides a concise but thorough case history for several of the most important court cases of the last decade, starting with profiles of the litigants, tracing the cases course up to the Supreme Court and placing the decisions that the Court handed down in context with historical precedents. Sometimes I think Coyle’s analysis of the cases is a bit biased – I get the impression that she thinks that Roberts is a bit too much of an activist judge who is pushing the court farther to the right than it should be – but I think she does give equal time to the people who are arguing both sides of the cases and her tone is neutral enough that I didn’t think she was unfair.
I would say that this book is a good starter for people who are interested in the specific cases that are profiled because her accounts of them are intelligent and readable (which is nice for a legal book), but I don’t know that this is the right book for someone who wants to understand the psychology of the Court because it doesn’t do a lot of analysis of their writing. It’s more of a history than it is an attempt to investigate the ideas at play. That’s not necessarily a criticism, it’s just an observation that maybe this book wasn’t exactly what I was looking for.
To that end I’m not sure that I’m totally satisfied with this book, since it doesn’t actually go into that much detail about the individual thought processes of the judges, and sometimes doesn’t even break down which judges voted which way on some of the relevant cases. I still don’t feel like I have a solid sense of who John Roberts is, which I find disappointing, nor do I have a solid sense of his rationale behind some of his more controversial decisions.
That said, the book is still very informative. It provides a concise but thorough case history for several of the most important court cases of the last decade, starting with profiles of the litigants, tracing the cases course up to the Supreme Court and placing the decisions that the Court handed down in context with historical precedents. Sometimes I think Coyle’s analysis of the cases is a bit biased – I get the impression that she thinks that Roberts is a bit too much of an activist judge who is pushing the court farther to the right than it should be – but I think she does give equal time to the people who are arguing both sides of the cases and her tone is neutral enough that I didn’t think she was unfair.
I would say that this book is a good starter for people who are interested in the specific cases that are profiled because her accounts of them are intelligent and readable (which is nice for a legal book), but I don’t know that this is the right book for someone who wants to understand the psychology of the Court because it doesn’t do a lot of analysis of their writing. It’s more of a history than it is an attempt to investigate the ideas at play. That’s not necessarily a criticism, it’s just an observation that maybe this book wasn’t exactly what I was looking for.
June 22, 2016
The monograph was written in 2014, and the author recognizes in the epilogue that significant cases were coming before the Court in the ensuing term. Yet it captures key issues at a point in time. What no one could have foreseen was the death of Justice Scalia, and the long wait for the Senate to consider a replacement.
The early chapters of the book on topics like civil rights/affirmative action/gender equality, gun control, and the Affordable Care Act, are much stronger than the final chapters on procedural due process of law and economic issues. There are more cases in the first chapters, and more opinions/dissents to analyze. More of the final chapters--especially on business--do not analyze the decisions and dissents as much as they explain the significance of the issues. The author realizes that on some issues, Justice Scalia joined with the more liberal justices to form a majority. Moreover Coyle parses the differences between Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, and Justice Scalia's interpretations of the Constitution. The three most "conservative justices" did not "reason alike." Additionally Coyle utilizes the categories of libertarian and progressive, distinguishing them from liberal and conservative.
In her analysis, Coyle notes that lawyers are not trained as historians nor as political scientists--though both undergraduate majors are good stepping stones to law school--while this reader approaches reading about the Supreme Court with a strong background in both disciplines. Hence when Coyle comments that most of the rules about obscenity/pornography date to the 1950s-1970s, she does not recognize that Supreme Court had not struck down the local censorship boards' power to censor movies until the 1950s. Thus the issue had not percolated up to the Court but had been resolved at the local level.
The treatise provides a useful framework for understanding the cases that reached the Roberts Court since 2007, and its discussion of both dissents and concurring opinions, tells the reader where he/she can find more information about a given topic or justice's writing.
Overall I enjoyed most of the book, and I think that many readers would benefit from reading all or parts of it.
The early chapters of the book on topics like civil rights/affirmative action/gender equality, gun control, and the Affordable Care Act, are much stronger than the final chapters on procedural due process of law and economic issues. There are more cases in the first chapters, and more opinions/dissents to analyze. More of the final chapters--especially on business--do not analyze the decisions and dissents as much as they explain the significance of the issues. The author realizes that on some issues, Justice Scalia joined with the more liberal justices to form a majority. Moreover Coyle parses the differences between Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, and Justice Scalia's interpretations of the Constitution. The three most "conservative justices" did not "reason alike." Additionally Coyle utilizes the categories of libertarian and progressive, distinguishing them from liberal and conservative.
In her analysis, Coyle notes that lawyers are not trained as historians nor as political scientists--though both undergraduate majors are good stepping stones to law school--while this reader approaches reading about the Supreme Court with a strong background in both disciplines. Hence when Coyle comments that most of the rules about obscenity/pornography date to the 1950s-1970s, she does not recognize that Supreme Court had not struck down the local censorship boards' power to censor movies until the 1950s. Thus the issue had not percolated up to the Court but had been resolved at the local level.
The treatise provides a useful framework for understanding the cases that reached the Roberts Court since 2007, and its discussion of both dissents and concurring opinions, tells the reader where he/she can find more information about a given topic or justice's writing.
Overall I enjoyed most of the book, and I think that many readers would benefit from reading all or parts of it.
October 15, 2014
The Roberts Court: The Struggle for the Constitution
Not the sort of book I usually read, preferring thick histories and offbeat fictions with occasional excursions into baseball stories. However, a friend, who is an attorney and a regular attendee at Supreme Court sessions, strongly recommended the book. I listened, and am delighted that I did. I like so many others knew Marcia Coyle through her clear and articulate explanations on the PBS News Hour of what the Court ruled a few hours earlier. Unsurprisingly, she is also a very able writer, setting out with clarity the major decisions of the Roberts Court. She obviously knows the justices well, and many of their clerks, and has apparently gained well-deserved trust that she will report fairly and for the most part leave personal issues out. She divides her book quite sensibly into the major issues that the Court has dealt with -- on Race (e.g. affirmative action by university admissions), Guns (the Heller case in DC), Money (Citizens United), and Health Care (you know). In each instance she traces how the cases came to the Court -- how a particular case out of many was chosen to litigate to the Court, why a particular case was argued in a particular appeals court district but not another, how each was funded, how and why particular attorneys were chosen to argue the case, and, not least, how telling arguments emerged. She I think is fair throughout, and her views on particular decisions (and justices) remain quite subtle. That said she does note that John Roberts in his Senate hearing emphasized his respect for precedent and how that seemed to go astray in various cases. But that may be my prejudicial judgment.
Not the sort of book I usually read, preferring thick histories and offbeat fictions with occasional excursions into baseball stories. However, a friend, who is an attorney and a regular attendee at Supreme Court sessions, strongly recommended the book. I listened, and am delighted that I did. I like so many others knew Marcia Coyle through her clear and articulate explanations on the PBS News Hour of what the Court ruled a few hours earlier. Unsurprisingly, she is also a very able writer, setting out with clarity the major decisions of the Roberts Court. She obviously knows the justices well, and many of their clerks, and has apparently gained well-deserved trust that she will report fairly and for the most part leave personal issues out. She divides her book quite sensibly into the major issues that the Court has dealt with -- on Race (e.g. affirmative action by university admissions), Guns (the Heller case in DC), Money (Citizens United), and Health Care (you know). In each instance she traces how the cases came to the Court -- how a particular case out of many was chosen to litigate to the Court, why a particular case was argued in a particular appeals court district but not another, how each was funded, how and why particular attorneys were chosen to argue the case, and, not least, how telling arguments emerged. She I think is fair throughout, and her views on particular decisions (and justices) remain quite subtle. That said she does note that John Roberts in his Senate hearing emphasized his respect for precedent and how that seemed to go astray in various cases. But that may be my prejudicial judgment.
July 23, 2018
The Roberts Court, seven years old, sits at the center of a constitutional maelstrom. Through four landmark decisions, Marcia Coyle, one of the most prestigious experts on the Supreme Court, reveals the fault lines in the conservative-dominated Court led by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr.
Seven minutes after President Obama put his signature to a landmark national health care insurance program, a lawyer in the office of Florida GOP attorney general Bill McCollum hit a computer key, sparking a legal challenge to the new law that would eventually reach the nation’s highest court. Health care is only the most visible and recent front in a battle over the meaning and scope of the U.S. Constitution. The battleground is the United States Supreme Court, and one of the most skilled, insightful, and trenchant of its observers takes us close up to watch it in action.
Marcia Coyle’s brilliant inside account of the High Court captures four landmark decisions—concerning health care, money in elections, guns at home, and race in schools. Coyle examines how those cases began—the personalities and conflicts that catapulted them onto the national scene—and how they ultimately exposed the great divides among the justices, such as the originalists versus the pragmatists on guns and the Second Amendment, and corporate speech versus human speech in the controversial Citizens United campaign case. Most dramatically, her analysis shows how dedicated conservative lawyers and groups are strategizing to find cases and crafting them to bring up the judicial road to the Supreme Court with an eye on a receptive conservative majority.
Seven minutes after President Obama put his signature to a landmark national health care insurance program, a lawyer in the office of Florida GOP attorney general Bill McCollum hit a computer key, sparking a legal challenge to the new law that would eventually reach the nation’s highest court. Health care is only the most visible and recent front in a battle over the meaning and scope of the U.S. Constitution. The battleground is the United States Supreme Court, and one of the most skilled, insightful, and trenchant of its observers takes us close up to watch it in action.
Marcia Coyle’s brilliant inside account of the High Court captures four landmark decisions—concerning health care, money in elections, guns at home, and race in schools. Coyle examines how those cases began—the personalities and conflicts that catapulted them onto the national scene—and how they ultimately exposed the great divides among the justices, such as the originalists versus the pragmatists on guns and the Second Amendment, and corporate speech versus human speech in the controversial Citizens United campaign case. Most dramatically, her analysis shows how dedicated conservative lawyers and groups are strategizing to find cases and crafting them to bring up the judicial road to the Supreme Court with an eye on a receptive conservative majority.
June 22, 2013
A good book about four major cases that define the current Roberts Court in the United States Supreme Court. It could have been closer to four stars if it were not so entrenched in partisan, often already-discredited, liberal thinking on the legal matters.
The book effectively picks up on the history and judicial results of four cases: a voting rights act case early in Roberts's tenure, DC v. Heller, Citizens United, and last summer's health care reform cases. In each one, Coyle discusses the history of how the cases came to be, takes some time with the lower court trajectories in various detail, through the oral arguments and into the actual decisions. A lot of this is very interesting inside baseball stuff for court-watchers who would otherwise not read legal magazines or journals, and that in particular ends up being very valuable.
Where the book flops is in its historical accounts, especially in regards to the arguments made by Roberts in regards to Brown v. Board of Education and with the historical record surrounding the second amendment's guarantee of an individual right. While some of the partisanship in the book can be forgiven as such, the allegiance to these points of view when even cursory research corrects them is a significant flaw that detracts from the book on a whole.
Still, an interesting read that probably shouldn't be ignored for those interested in the Court, but maybe not something taken as gospel.
The book effectively picks up on the history and judicial results of four cases: a voting rights act case early in Roberts's tenure, DC v. Heller, Citizens United, and last summer's health care reform cases. In each one, Coyle discusses the history of how the cases came to be, takes some time with the lower court trajectories in various detail, through the oral arguments and into the actual decisions. A lot of this is very interesting inside baseball stuff for court-watchers who would otherwise not read legal magazines or journals, and that in particular ends up being very valuable.
Where the book flops is in its historical accounts, especially in regards to the arguments made by Roberts in regards to Brown v. Board of Education and with the historical record surrounding the second amendment's guarantee of an individual right. While some of the partisanship in the book can be forgiven as such, the allegiance to these points of view when even cursory research corrects them is a significant flaw that detracts from the book on a whole.
Still, an interesting read that probably shouldn't be ignored for those interested in the Court, but maybe not something taken as gospel.
December 30, 2013
This book should be required reading for all court observers. It is divided into sections on race, guns, money, and healthcare, but does not limit itself to just the hallmark cases and their procedural history, rather it fleshes out the other cases that justices decided at the same time. Consequently, the book at times is more narrative than topical. Even though the author rather clearly is more favorable of the liberal wing of the court (and I am more favorable of the conservative wing), she is quite adept at summarizing conservative arguments, something of which other famous court observers (eg Jeffry Toobin) are incapable. In all, the book argues that with swapping Rehnquist/O'Connor for Robert/Alito the fulcrum of the court has moved in a conservative, pro-business, pro-1st & 2nd amendment direction. However, the 5 conservatives versus 4 liberals model is inadequate for explaining a lot of consequential decisions the court makes.
The book's greatest weakness is that it is tediously repetitive. Attorneys who appear in various cases are introduced multiple times. Smaller cases that are referenced multiple times are summarized with each reference. This renders the book somewhat disjointed, as if each chapter were written in isolation from the rest of the book.
The book's greatest weakness is that it is tediously repetitive. Attorneys who appear in various cases are introduced multiple times. Smaller cases that are referenced multiple times are summarized with each reference. This renders the book somewhat disjointed, as if each chapter were written in isolation from the rest of the book.
December 4, 2013
This was a handy book, looking over the past couple of years of the Roberts US Supreme Court. It's broken down in to four parts: racial integration in schools; guns; money in elections; and the Affordable Care Act. Coyle, the author is largely fair, though she is a bit more critical of the conservatives' arguments, whether from litigators or justices. But she's not overwhelmingly biased.
It might be a tougher read for those just jumping into books on the Court. I would start with Gideon's Trumpet or a textbook on SCOTUS. But with a tad of background, this is a great book.
It was published the year before the big decisions on the Voting Rights Act (that the right liked) and the two gay marriage cases (that the left largely celebrated), so a similar project on those two issues and cases would be well received by me. Until then, for anyone interested in the topics that this book covers, this is an important "must-read."
It might be a tougher read for those just jumping into books on the Court. I would start with Gideon's Trumpet or a textbook on SCOTUS. But with a tad of background, this is a great book.
It was published the year before the big decisions on the Voting Rights Act (that the right liked) and the two gay marriage cases (that the left largely celebrated), so a similar project on those two issues and cases would be well received by me. Until then, for anyone interested in the topics that this book covers, this is an important "must-read."
July 14, 2013
I won this book as part of Goodreads' First Read program.
Anyone who enjoyed Jeffrey Toobin's books on the Supreme Court will enjoy this book. Coyle tracks the evolution of the Court from the more balanced Rehnquist Court to the Conservative Roberts Court through 4 major cases. Also thrown in are numerous short summaries of other cases decided to give a good look at the Court as a whole. I thought it was fair and balanced (although anyone who strongly considers themselves a Democrat or Republican would disagree) that presented the facts with little editorializing or speculation. With any book of this sort, a working knowledge is necessary to fully understand the depth of the Court. At times, anyone without an interest in politics or the law could feel overwhelmed and lost.
I gave this book 4 stars as it was a insightful read into how the Roberts Court is developing.
Anyone who enjoyed Jeffrey Toobin's books on the Supreme Court will enjoy this book. Coyle tracks the evolution of the Court from the more balanced Rehnquist Court to the Conservative Roberts Court through 4 major cases. Also thrown in are numerous short summaries of other cases decided to give a good look at the Court as a whole. I thought it was fair and balanced (although anyone who strongly considers themselves a Democrat or Republican would disagree) that presented the facts with little editorializing or speculation. With any book of this sort, a working knowledge is necessary to fully understand the depth of the Court. At times, anyone without an interest in politics or the law could feel overwhelmed and lost.
I gave this book 4 stars as it was a insightful read into how the Roberts Court is developing.
August 10, 2016
If you've read the book jacket, you'll already know that "The Roberts Court" discusses the direction of the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Roberts. Marcia Coyle traces the paths and resolutions of five landmark decisions on race, guns, immigration, campaign finance, and health care, and how a smart group of conservative lawyers has crafted cases with an eye toward an increasingly receptive conservative majority.
Unfortunately, the book didn't always keep me engaged, seemed a little long, and often dry. Something seemed to be missing (for me). The description is all there, but some additional commentary and analysis might have helped me. If you're interested in the Supreme Court under John Roberts, I'd recommend Jeffery Toobin's similar book, "The Oath". I think Toobin's book is much better.
Unfortunately, the book didn't always keep me engaged, seemed a little long, and often dry. Something seemed to be missing (for me). The description is all there, but some additional commentary and analysis might have helped me. If you're interested in the Supreme Court under John Roberts, I'd recommend Jeffery Toobin's similar book, "The Oath". I think Toobin's book is much better.
June 13, 2013
I liked the comments from current and former clerks and justices, offering more information about how the justices work together. I didn't realize how much justice turnover affects SCOTUS until I read this, and of course the Roberts Court has had significant turnover to date. I would have liked a little bit more about what the rulings covered in the book may mean for the future: what kind of cases will further refine the recent rulings on race, guns, and money? I didn't think health care deserved a section, but it was still interesting. There are a lot of brilliants peeps (the justices, clerks, those who argue cases) around SCOTUS. I recommend it to peeps who are interested in how the court has conducted its business recently.
June 11, 2014
Eminently readable march through the Roberts Court. The book is laid out in four parts, covering issues of race, guns, campaign finance and the health care law. At first I feared this would limit Coyle's ability to tell the full story of the Robert Court, but she does an excellent job of using this framework as a guide rather than being rigidly limited by it. As an avid follower of the court there was not a lot here that was new to me, but it was a very solid reconstruction of how the Court has operated under Chief Justice Roberts. Anyone who is interested in law will find this a compelling read.
March 12, 2016
A book published whose central topic is a relatively guarded institution seven years after the start of the books focus will likely not be very insightful. This book is no exception. Author's contribution consisted of interviews with most of the Justices (it seems these did not generate much insight) and the principal advocates on some of the cases (which produced more insight).
The book is an easy read presents the issues from both sides (author viewpoint is clear, however). You will come away thinking that a truly moderate and temperate judge is one who agrees with the author.
Author covers the cases notable to the public - gun rights, Citizens United, and health care.
The book is an easy read presents the issues from both sides (author viewpoint is clear, however). You will come away thinking that a truly moderate and temperate judge is one who agrees with the author.
Author covers the cases notable to the public - gun rights, Citizens United, and health care.
July 6, 2013
Marcia Coyle discusses cases the Supreme Court has ruled on since John Roberts became chief justice in 2005. The book is divided into four sections: Race, Guns, Money, and Health Care. Race addresses public magnet/charter school admission criteria; Guns, the handgun ban in Washington DC; Money, the Citizens United case; and Health Care, of course, the Affordable Care Act. Coyle dips into previous cases in these areas, as well as other cases the Roberts Court has heard throughout its history. Very readable, and with the recent conclusion of the 2012-13 court, she needs to write another book.
October 13, 2013
An evenhanded non-partisan look at how the current court does business in four major cases. Marcia coyle has an easy to read style and yet does not sacrifice any of the needed depth or research.
The Roberts Court shows clearly and cogently how a court supposedly led by a "miminalist" Chief Justice is actually big business first and consumers/workers second.
Scalia Thomas and Alito can't retire soon enough.
An excellent look into a vitally important branch of government- especially in the toxic environment of present day Washington D.C.
The Roberts Court shows clearly and cogently how a court supposedly led by a "miminalist" Chief Justice is actually big business first and consumers/workers second.
Scalia Thomas and Alito can't retire soon enough.
An excellent look into a vitally important branch of government- especially in the toxic environment of present day Washington D.C.
August 27, 2014
The way this book was organized (in four sections: Money, Guns, Health Care, Race) and written made it hard to stay engaged, but I very much appreciated getting more information about recent big deal decisions - Citizens United, Affordable Care Act, and some affirmative action rulings, in particular. it is fascinating to learn about the various ways the court has split and written individual or joint majority opinions and dissents. So interesting.
That's three Supreme Court books and several podcast subscriptions this summer. I am ready for the 2014-2015 session!
That's three Supreme Court books and several podcast subscriptions this summer. I am ready for the 2014-2015 session!
July 19, 2013
I enjoyed this look at the Roberts Court by a veteran Supreme Court reporter. She focused on four cases that illustrate the court's positions on race (school desegregation), guns (D.C.'s handgun ban), money (Citizens United), and health care (Affordable Care Act). She included enough legal analysis for a lawyer or politically-informed reader, but her style is very readable. I enjoyed her interviews with the justices and former clerks.
August 27, 2013
Marcia Coyle told me things I never knew about the procedures of the Supreme Court. You can ask me what the cert pool is now. Her verdict on Roberts is that he is the kind of judge Chuck Schumer wanted him to be, a "modest judge".
It was fascinating too to see the nuance between the Thomas and Scalia camp and the Roberts and Alito camp. Too often we think of all four as originalists, when that's arguably only the case with the first two.
It was fascinating too to see the nuance between the Thomas and Scalia camp and the Roberts and Alito camp. Too often we think of all four as originalists, when that's arguably only the case with the first two.
September 2, 2013
An excellent book by one of our favorite commentators from the PBS News Hour. The focus is on the Roberts Court through the lens of specific cases--health care, race in school, gun control and money in elections. Coyle explores the history and background of the recent cases (Heller and Citizens United for example) in these areas, including the lawyers who brought them and the intellectual underpinnings of the legal arguments supporting each side. Compelling reading.
January 26, 2014
Haven't finished this book yet, but I'm going to finish it today. This book is little more than a series of news reports. If you read or listened to the news since Roberts has been Chief Justice, you have already read this book. There is some commentary from the justices, but not much and it's not very revealing.
But, if you haven't followed the Court hardly at all, then I would think this book would be a nice summary.
But, if you haven't followed the Court hardly at all, then I would think this book would be a nice summary.
July 28, 2014
What a fascinating book. The author shares insights about the court in a straight forward, clear manner allowing the reader to obtain a greater knowledge of the court. Decisions that had me shaking my head are now clearer.
The research and presentation are both excellent. I was amazed at how much I did not know about the Supreme Court.
Thank you to Goodreads and Simon Schuster for the opportunity to receive this book.
The research and presentation are both excellent. I was amazed at how much I did not know about the Supreme Court.
Thank you to Goodreads and Simon Schuster for the opportunity to receive this book.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 42 reviews