What do you think?
Rate this book
Last Branch Standing: A Potentially Surprising, Occasionally Witty Journey Inside Today's Supreme Court
A myth-busting glimpse into the inner workings of the Supreme Court, revealing what we get wrong about the Roberts Court, what the justices' clerks gossip about, and how to fix a court in crisis—from the popular ABC news pundit and top legal podcaster
"Isgur has all your answers in these smart, snappy, clear-eyed pages.”
—Stacy Schiff, Pulitzer Prize-winning author of The Samuel Adams
Most people get the Supreme Court all wrong. A smattering of high-profile decisions have popularized a simplistic idea of the Court and its justices. Yes, six of them were appointed by Republicans, and only three by Democrats. So, how does that 6-3 conservative majority explain why in the 2024-25 term, conservative Brett Kavanaugh was more likely to agree with liberal Elena Kagan than conservative Neil Gorsuch? Or why the court threw shade at Florida’s attempt to ban drag shows?
To truly understand the Court, argues Sarah Isgur, you have to look beyond partisan politics—the “X-Axis.” The wisest court watchers apply another measuring stick, the “Y-Axis," where the nine justices span from order-loving institutionalists to true chaos agents. Once you appreciate these overlapping and even competing impulses, the Court begins to look a lot more like a 3-3-3 split than 6-3.
The ultimate insider, Isgur takes readers on a deep dive inside the Supreme how cases land at the Court’s doorstep, which justices attend clerk happy hours (and which ones even bother showing up to the office), why conservatives already have buyer’s remorse about Amy Coney Barrett, and how the whole judicial system is kind of a constitutional anomaly. She’ll even help you decide whether you should throw your hat in the ring and go to law school! Blending irreverent humor and incisive commentary, Isgur goes underneath the robes—and shows us what we need to do to preserve the rule of law amid dicey times in this little self-governing experiment we’ve been running for the last 250 years.
"Isgur has all your answers in these smart, snappy, clear-eyed pages.”
—Stacy Schiff, Pulitzer Prize-winning author of The Samuel Adams
Most people get the Supreme Court all wrong. A smattering of high-profile decisions have popularized a simplistic idea of the Court and its justices. Yes, six of them were appointed by Republicans, and only three by Democrats. So, how does that 6-3 conservative majority explain why in the 2024-25 term, conservative Brett Kavanaugh was more likely to agree with liberal Elena Kagan than conservative Neil Gorsuch? Or why the court threw shade at Florida’s attempt to ban drag shows?
To truly understand the Court, argues Sarah Isgur, you have to look beyond partisan politics—the “X-Axis.” The wisest court watchers apply another measuring stick, the “Y-Axis," where the nine justices span from order-loving institutionalists to true chaos agents. Once you appreciate these overlapping and even competing impulses, the Court begins to look a lot more like a 3-3-3 split than 6-3.
The ultimate insider, Isgur takes readers on a deep dive inside the Supreme how cases land at the Court’s doorstep, which justices attend clerk happy hours (and which ones even bother showing up to the office), why conservatives already have buyer’s remorse about Amy Coney Barrett, and how the whole judicial system is kind of a constitutional anomaly. She’ll even help you decide whether you should throw your hat in the ring and go to law school! Blending irreverent humor and incisive commentary, Isgur goes underneath the robes—and shows us what we need to do to preserve the rule of law amid dicey times in this little self-governing experiment we’ve been running for the last 250 years.
406 pages, Kindle Edition
Published April 14, 2026
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 107 reviews
May 28, 2026
Let's start with my admission that while we are both lawyers, Sarah Isgur is a lot smarter than I am, and exponentially more accomplished (and also connected -- she knows everyone on the right, and more than a few on the left, including Elana Kagan). That is why she is able to make this incredibly complicated subject understandable to just about anyone, and to do so without dumbing things down. That is a hard thing to do. Respect.
There are swaths of this book that are compelling and challenging. Her recommendations at the end for how to fix things are, perhaps surprisingly, things I mostly agree with. In fact, the part that addresses election issues, I was almost entirely on board with. The only thing I disagreed with in that section actually serves as a good example of what I see as wrong with her approach to the Constitution. She recommends that we not allow others to deliver ballots for absentee voters. It is easy to say "mail it yourself or have a family member do it", but there are plenty of people with disabilities or who are homebound or without transportation and far from post offices who cannot just run to the post office. Not having family to do your bidding, being poor, rural, disabled, etc should not be a justification for disenfranchisement unless you believe that we must hew to founders' intent as Isgur seems to. If we do that, we can accept that America's founders only gave the vote to White male landowners, people who would have the funds to get to the post office and pay for postage, and not worry about whether those who are not White male landowners have access to democracy.
Whatever her biases against people who don't look and live just like her, Isgur does a pretty good job of breaking down the major philosophies of jurisprudence at play in modern jurisprudence, and again, this is not an easy task. So why a 3-star? (This would be a 3.5 if Goodreads allowed that.) Isgur presents herself as non-partisan here and argues that the politicization of the Court, whether the Warren Court or the Roberts Court, does a disservice to our democracy. I partially agree that decisions should not be outcome-driven, but not fully. For instance (and this is her example, which she admits is a fly in her particular ointment), US schools would likely have never been desegregated if we had depended upon the political process. The whole system was rigged to keep boots on the throats of people of color, so they would have never gotten to the starting line through the democratic process. There is a textual constitutional ground for desegregation, but it is not strong, and I am grateful the Court took some liberties. Isgur is not. We do agree on some things, though. For instance, Roe was a badly decided, cobbled-together opinion that caused a lot of problems. There was some good energy behind legislative solutions to freedom of choice. That route would have taken a little longer, but we would all be in better shape if that had happened for a number of reasons -- our autonomy would be better protected, the Roe litmus test would not have existed, and we would likely have better justices as a result (almost certainly we would not have had Clarence Thomas). Even where I disagree with Isgur (and there are plenty of examples), I respect her reasoning and opinions. What I don't respect is her choice to cover up her biases and use statistics in a way I know that she knows is false.
Let's start with the most offensive example. Isgur passionately defends Justice Kavanaugh, whom she writes about at length and paints as a candidate for sainthood. Isgur has studied his career. She has a right to her opinion. However, she says she believes Christine Blassey Ford gave false testimony (she says she believes Blassey was attacked, but not by Kavanaugh), and that her testimony was clearly inconsistent, and that is why it did not carry the day. I disagree with that assessment of the testimony, which I both watched and read the transcripts for. She goes on to lament how terrible the public hearings were for Justice Kavanaugh. What she does not tell you is that she has a deep relationship with Brett Kavanaugh, that he even officiated at her wedding. Do we think that is relevant to Isgur's testimony on his behalf? Hard yes. Another example of her bending and obscuring facts: she states several times that this Court has overturned precedent fewer times than in previous eras. Well, yes, there are fewer cases overruling precedent, but that is because this SCOTUS is hearing a bit more than half of the number of cases heard by previous Courts. Her statement is not factually untrue, but it is false nonetheless, since the percentage of cases from the Court overturning precedent is actually slightly higher than the previous terms she compares it to. She also talks a lot about the smaller number of cases the Court is hearing (and yet does not connect to her math for overturning precedent). She blames this reduction, in large part, on how fragmented the court is. She sees the Court as a divided 3-3-3. Since you need four judges to grant cert, that limits the cases heard. That is likely part of the issue. Another issue is that a lot of time and energy goes to cases on the shadow docket, which are not counted in that total. The growth of the shadow docket is largely caused by the surge in the issuance of executive orders. (Obama and Biden laid the pavement for this problem, and Trump is dancing in glee, easing on down the road like he is on his way to the Emerald City as a result.) There are other things at play in this reduction, too, which she does not address. One is the fear of some Justices that taking cases impacting human rights at this juncture will make things worse. Anyway, the careful selection of concerns is problematic. Another thing that I don't think damaged the book, but might have, is Isgur not revealing her dealings with the Trump administration. She is clearly not MAGA, that is not an issue, but there is more to the story. She tells us her husband represented Harvard against the president, and also that he was SG of Texas when certain matters were decided. She doesn't tell us she was part of the first Trump administration and was fired by Trump. She can talk shit about the current king all she wants, and I will be happy, but I think it is only fair that readers know that history so they can decide if her musings about Trump's impact on the judicial branch come from her philosophy or her disgruntlement.
There is more, but I am near magnum opus length already, so cutting it here. There is a lot of good in this book, and I recommend a read for those interested in America's federal courts, but readers need ot be discerning and thoughtful; they ought not take her well-crafted arguments at face value. There is a lot to ponder, a lot to integrate into one's personal philosophy, and a lot to reject. Readers need to do the work.
ETA: Also, there are a lot of dad jokes, so if that is a problem, avoid! By way of example, there is a section entitled "Filibuster a Move."
ETA 2: There is an Appendix called Don't Go To Law School that is 10 out of 10. If you are thinking about law school, or care about someone who is thinking about law school, get your hands on this. FWiW, I am a lawyer who has been a career coach for lawyers for 20 years, and I currently study and write about the impact of technology on the business of law and I mint more lawyers at a well-known law school.
There are swaths of this book that are compelling and challenging. Her recommendations at the end for how to fix things are, perhaps surprisingly, things I mostly agree with. In fact, the part that addresses election issues, I was almost entirely on board with. The only thing I disagreed with in that section actually serves as a good example of what I see as wrong with her approach to the Constitution. She recommends that we not allow others to deliver ballots for absentee voters. It is easy to say "mail it yourself or have a family member do it", but there are plenty of people with disabilities or who are homebound or without transportation and far from post offices who cannot just run to the post office. Not having family to do your bidding, being poor, rural, disabled, etc should not be a justification for disenfranchisement unless you believe that we must hew to founders' intent as Isgur seems to. If we do that, we can accept that America's founders only gave the vote to White male landowners, people who would have the funds to get to the post office and pay for postage, and not worry about whether those who are not White male landowners have access to democracy.
Whatever her biases against people who don't look and live just like her, Isgur does a pretty good job of breaking down the major philosophies of jurisprudence at play in modern jurisprudence, and again, this is not an easy task. So why a 3-star? (This would be a 3.5 if Goodreads allowed that.) Isgur presents herself as non-partisan here and argues that the politicization of the Court, whether the Warren Court or the Roberts Court, does a disservice to our democracy. I partially agree that decisions should not be outcome-driven, but not fully. For instance (and this is her example, which she admits is a fly in her particular ointment), US schools would likely have never been desegregated if we had depended upon the political process. The whole system was rigged to keep boots on the throats of people of color, so they would have never gotten to the starting line through the democratic process. There is a textual constitutional ground for desegregation, but it is not strong, and I am grateful the Court took some liberties. Isgur is not. We do agree on some things, though. For instance, Roe was a badly decided, cobbled-together opinion that caused a lot of problems. There was some good energy behind legislative solutions to freedom of choice. That route would have taken a little longer, but we would all be in better shape if that had happened for a number of reasons -- our autonomy would be better protected, the Roe litmus test would not have existed, and we would likely have better justices as a result (almost certainly we would not have had Clarence Thomas). Even where I disagree with Isgur (and there are plenty of examples), I respect her reasoning and opinions. What I don't respect is her choice to cover up her biases and use statistics in a way I know that she knows is false.
Let's start with the most offensive example. Isgur passionately defends Justice Kavanaugh, whom she writes about at length and paints as a candidate for sainthood. Isgur has studied his career. She has a right to her opinion. However, she says she believes Christine Blassey Ford gave false testimony (she says she believes Blassey was attacked, but not by Kavanaugh), and that her testimony was clearly inconsistent, and that is why it did not carry the day. I disagree with that assessment of the testimony, which I both watched and read the transcripts for. She goes on to lament how terrible the public hearings were for Justice Kavanaugh. What she does not tell you is that she has a deep relationship with Brett Kavanaugh, that he even officiated at her wedding. Do we think that is relevant to Isgur's testimony on his behalf? Hard yes. Another example of her bending and obscuring facts: she states several times that this Court has overturned precedent fewer times than in previous eras. Well, yes, there are fewer cases overruling precedent, but that is because this SCOTUS is hearing a bit more than half of the number of cases heard by previous Courts. Her statement is not factually untrue, but it is false nonetheless, since the percentage of cases from the Court overturning precedent is actually slightly higher than the previous terms she compares it to. She also talks a lot about the smaller number of cases the Court is hearing (and yet does not connect to her math for overturning precedent). She blames this reduction, in large part, on how fragmented the court is. She sees the Court as a divided 3-3-3. Since you need four judges to grant cert, that limits the cases heard. That is likely part of the issue. Another issue is that a lot of time and energy goes to cases on the shadow docket, which are not counted in that total. The growth of the shadow docket is largely caused by the surge in the issuance of executive orders. (Obama and Biden laid the pavement for this problem, and Trump is dancing in glee, easing on down the road like he is on his way to the Emerald City as a result.) There are other things at play in this reduction, too, which she does not address. One is the fear of some Justices that taking cases impacting human rights at this juncture will make things worse. Anyway, the careful selection of concerns is problematic. Another thing that I don't think damaged the book, but might have, is Isgur not revealing her dealings with the Trump administration. She is clearly not MAGA, that is not an issue, but there is more to the story. She tells us her husband represented Harvard against the president, and also that he was SG of Texas when certain matters were decided. She doesn't tell us she was part of the first Trump administration and was fired by Trump. She can talk shit about the current king all she wants, and I will be happy, but I think it is only fair that readers know that history so they can decide if her musings about Trump's impact on the judicial branch come from her philosophy or her disgruntlement.
There is more, but I am near magnum opus length already, so cutting it here. There is a lot of good in this book, and I recommend a read for those interested in America's federal courts, but readers need ot be discerning and thoughtful; they ought not take her well-crafted arguments at face value. There is a lot to ponder, a lot to integrate into one's personal philosophy, and a lot to reject. Readers need to do the work.
ETA: Also, there are a lot of dad jokes, so if that is a problem, avoid! By way of example, there is a section entitled "Filibuster a Move."
ETA 2: There is an Appendix called Don't Go To Law School that is 10 out of 10. If you are thinking about law school, or care about someone who is thinking about law school, get your hands on this. FWiW, I am a lawyer who has been a career coach for lawyers for 20 years, and I currently study and write about the impact of technology on the business of law and I mint more lawyers at a well-known law school.
May 9, 2026
Last Branch Standing provides a comprehensive primer on the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). It is responsive to the contemporary political narrative that casts SCOTUS as a cheat code for Republicans or as just another venue for cynical power politics instead of high-minded legal jujitsu.
Isgur's rebuttal is robust drawing analytically on qualitative and quantitative evidence. In short, she forwards a "3-3-3" model of jurisprudence: The Deciders (Roberts, Kavanaugh, Barrett), The Conservative Honey Badgers (Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch), and The Lonely Liberals (Kagan, Sotomayor, Jackson). This model is built by decomposing the justices' voting records on finished cases, specifically the likelihood of being in the majority, where two major axes emerge: an x-axis that tracks judicial philosophy (i.e. the more partisan dimension) and a y-axis that tracks institutional priorities (i.e. also a political axis but one that does not part to the current left-right divide between Republicans and Democrats). Given the disjuncture between political narratives and the actual reality of SCOTUS decisions, Isgur argues this scrutiny is largely a sign of dysfunction in the other branches, especially the legislative branch, concluding that SCOTUS is the only branch of the federal government that is functioning in a way that the Framers would recognize and that SCOTUS should guard its institutional resilience vigorously.
The rest of the book provide a mixture of clerkship anthropology, quirky mini-biographies of the current justices, a review of major processes and concepts (e.g. cert, stare decisis, etc) on the court, a political history of SCOTUS, and a grab-bag of other connected topics or prominent cases. It really covers almost everything relevant to casual political observers of SCOTUS or any American citizen. It's a pithy and entertaining work. Definitely recommend.
P.S. Most of the criticism I see of the work concerns Isgur's quirky style, or that she's misunderstood her as a right-wing political operative simply because she's mildly right-of-center and has a professional history working for Republicans (so did Tim Miller and most of The Bulwark!). So that critique is bound to make solid Republicans laugh because she's a noted critic of Trump and is close with David French, who is one of the most hated nominal right-wingers (while not being one) media figures alive among the right.
Isgur's rebuttal is robust drawing analytically on qualitative and quantitative evidence. In short, she forwards a "3-3-3" model of jurisprudence: The Deciders (Roberts, Kavanaugh, Barrett), The Conservative Honey Badgers (Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch), and The Lonely Liberals (Kagan, Sotomayor, Jackson). This model is built by decomposing the justices' voting records on finished cases, specifically the likelihood of being in the majority, where two major axes emerge: an x-axis that tracks judicial philosophy (i.e. the more partisan dimension) and a y-axis that tracks institutional priorities (i.e. also a political axis but one that does not part to the current left-right divide between Republicans and Democrats). Given the disjuncture between political narratives and the actual reality of SCOTUS decisions, Isgur argues this scrutiny is largely a sign of dysfunction in the other branches, especially the legislative branch, concluding that SCOTUS is the only branch of the federal government that is functioning in a way that the Framers would recognize and that SCOTUS should guard its institutional resilience vigorously.
The rest of the book provide a mixture of clerkship anthropology, quirky mini-biographies of the current justices, a review of major processes and concepts (e.g. cert, stare decisis, etc) on the court, a political history of SCOTUS, and a grab-bag of other connected topics or prominent cases. It really covers almost everything relevant to casual political observers of SCOTUS or any American citizen. It's a pithy and entertaining work. Definitely recommend.
P.S. Most of the criticism I see of the work concerns Isgur's quirky style, or that she's misunderstood her as a right-wing political operative simply because she's mildly right-of-center and has a professional history working for Republicans (so did Tim Miller and most of The Bulwark!). So that critique is bound to make solid Republicans laugh because she's a noted critic of Trump and is close with David French, who is one of the most hated nominal right-wingers (while not being one) media figures alive among the right.
May 1, 2026
Decided to listen because my podcast diet includes the legal scholar trio of Strict Scrutiny, who report at the moment of Supreme Court decisions, but rarely give much background/long view.
One quickly finds out that the author, Sarah Isgur joined the Federalist Society early on in her legal career. Thus she turns out to be pretty much an apologist for the current nine of the Supreme Court, in particular CT (apparently one must refer to them by their initials, this being Clarence Thomas), BT, SA and especially The Chief. So I’m like, okay, I can stand to hear the other side of the argument, and soldier on.
The problem is, however, that the book is disjointed and hard to follow. Isgur brings up legal cases heard by the SC, but why, and to what end, is largely obscure. You could fault me, and say I don’t understand the law (I. AM. NOT. A. LAWYER.), but I’m reading this book because I would like to understand more about the law. Isgur’s major contribution is, I understand, not seeing the SC as a politicized (swallow that one whole!) 6 to 3 court, but as a 3-3-3 court where each of the triplet can occasionally opine with one of the other triplets. Meh.
Early on she RATES the justices, current and in the past. So and so is the best, in the top 10, top 20. But never (ever) does she say what her rating is based on.
At this point I was so disturbed, and thinking maybe I just didn’t get it - so I listened to her pod (Advisory Opinions - corrected, thanks Chance below) from 4/21/26 on the Shadow Docket - commenting on the absolutely smash NYTimes reveal of how the shadow docket came to be. I was not impressed by Isgur's podcast: same reasoning - which basically is "I like conservatives". Oh and so sorry, SI, that everyone nowadays wants to be in the Federalist Society, so it isn’t special anymore.
Isgur spends the last 1/3ish of the book saying that we have to support the justices because they are doing the hard work and can’t get out and have any fun. Wah-wah, giving lectures, talking about interesting things, meeting brilliant people, I’m supposed to feel sorry for them? Try being a shoe salesman!
There is a lot of career counseling as to whether the reader should or should not go to law school. After all, everyone can’t have the great job she has, and might have to work for millions of $ for a corporate law firm. (Or you could make way less than 100K/year and be a public defender who works just as hard and actually helps people, but that’s just not an option for the Federalist minions.)
OK, this is sounding like a screed. I did learn a few things. I do agree on a few things (like all the clerks shouldn't be from the Ivy Leagues, or that being able to select your lower district court to get the best outcome isn't helping anyone).
I listened to the book: at 1.2x the author’s voice is nasal and irritating. She thinks she’s quite the wit (see subtitle: "A potentially surprising, occasionally WITTY journey inside today’s SC"), but I didn’t laugh once. Yes, the Strict Scrutiny lawyers can be annoying too, what with their Taylor Swift/Harry Potter/ manicures/etc, but they are incisive, whip smart, and very often darn funny and witty.
One quickly finds out that the author, Sarah Isgur joined the Federalist Society early on in her legal career. Thus she turns out to be pretty much an apologist for the current nine of the Supreme Court, in particular CT (apparently one must refer to them by their initials, this being Clarence Thomas), BT, SA and especially The Chief. So I’m like, okay, I can stand to hear the other side of the argument, and soldier on.
The problem is, however, that the book is disjointed and hard to follow. Isgur brings up legal cases heard by the SC, but why, and to what end, is largely obscure. You could fault me, and say I don’t understand the law (I. AM. NOT. A. LAWYER.), but I’m reading this book because I would like to understand more about the law. Isgur’s major contribution is, I understand, not seeing the SC as a politicized (swallow that one whole!) 6 to 3 court, but as a 3-3-3 court where each of the triplet can occasionally opine with one of the other triplets. Meh.
Early on she RATES the justices, current and in the past. So and so is the best, in the top 10, top 20. But never (ever) does she say what her rating is based on.
At this point I was so disturbed, and thinking maybe I just didn’t get it - so I listened to her pod (Advisory Opinions - corrected, thanks Chance below) from 4/21/26 on the Shadow Docket - commenting on the absolutely smash NYTimes reveal of how the shadow docket came to be. I was not impressed by Isgur's podcast: same reasoning - which basically is "I like conservatives". Oh and so sorry, SI, that everyone nowadays wants to be in the Federalist Society, so it isn’t special anymore.
Isgur spends the last 1/3ish of the book saying that we have to support the justices because they are doing the hard work and can’t get out and have any fun. Wah-wah, giving lectures, talking about interesting things, meeting brilliant people, I’m supposed to feel sorry for them? Try being a shoe salesman!
There is a lot of career counseling as to whether the reader should or should not go to law school. After all, everyone can’t have the great job she has, and might have to work for millions of $ for a corporate law firm. (Or you could make way less than 100K/year and be a public defender who works just as hard and actually helps people, but that’s just not an option for the Federalist minions.)
OK, this is sounding like a screed. I did learn a few things. I do agree on a few things (like all the clerks shouldn't be from the Ivy Leagues, or that being able to select your lower district court to get the best outcome isn't helping anyone).
I listened to the book: at 1.2x the author’s voice is nasal and irritating. She thinks she’s quite the wit (see subtitle: "A potentially surprising, occasionally WITTY journey inside today’s SC"), but I didn’t laugh once. Yes, the Strict Scrutiny lawyers can be annoying too, what with their Taylor Swift/Harry Potter/ manicures/etc, but they are incisive, whip smart, and very often darn funny and witty.
April 20, 2026
WOW! If you told me one of the most entertaining books I have read this year would be about the Supreme Court, I would not have believed it. I absolutely loved this book and listened to it on audio and fully plan to get it on Kindle to reread it. I learned a ton and laughed quite a bit as well. I think people who know very little about the Supreme Court as well as those who know a lot would equally find value.
Read
April 26, 2026Wasn’t really reading this with the desire to review. Just been interested in the Supreme Court lately so I’m reading one from the advisory opinions host and I’ll read one from a strict scrutiny host next.
April 19, 2026
Thank goodness Sarah narrated the audiobook, it's like one long AO episode <3. Not thank goodness she released the pre-orders during exams—if I get a B in Remedies, it's her fault I was distracted by such a fun book
May 6, 2026
#processgirlinanoutcomesworld !!! (iykyk)
April 16, 2026
Engaging, and enjoyable to read. I am not in the legal field, but this book made the Supreme Court feel accessible and inviting. It struck a balance between clarity and depth, allowing me to appreciate the ideas of this “branch” and its players without feeling overwhelmed (or bored). More than anything, it deepened my interest in the topic and felt like a partner inviting me to have fun and learn something new.
May 13, 2026
A look at the Supreme Court; its history, legal theories, and legal profiles of the current members. The book jumped around with what it covered, but strongly focused on what political watchers would (or, what the author would likely suggest, should!) be interested in with the current court as of 2026. Written in a whimsical accessible style, it provides good background to the modern Court as well as a possible peek to its future.
“The Courts…purpose is to say no to what the majority wants and to stand athwart fleeting popular movements. The should come as any surprise. Our Founders were terrified of mobs and the tyranny of the majority.”
“The Courts…purpose is to say no to what the majority wants and to stand athwart fleeting popular movements. The should come as any surprise. Our Founders were terrified of mobs and the tyranny of the majority.”
April 20, 2026
Takes a stand
Had to unsub from the AO pod due to Isgur and this book reminded me why. On style, I think if you placed Isgur and Jerusalem Demsas in a podcast booth both forced to drink from a keg of Red Bull one of their heads would explode due sheer excitedness - the energizer bunny voice is grating and if she had hired a professional voice reader and not tried her odd form of levity it might have been more tolerable. On substance, I don't know that I learned a great deal - perhaps that Isgur is not as doctrinaire on the law as I had assumed. Learned a little court history, probably more than I wanted to know about the justices, but rehash of general grievances on modern US Pol and overreliance on the court for what should otherwise be legislative measures was not that enlightening.
Had to unsub from the AO pod due to Isgur and this book reminded me why. On style, I think if you placed Isgur and Jerusalem Demsas in a podcast booth both forced to drink from a keg of Red Bull one of their heads would explode due sheer excitedness - the energizer bunny voice is grating and if she had hired a professional voice reader and not tried her odd form of levity it might have been more tolerable. On substance, I don't know that I learned a great deal - perhaps that Isgur is not as doctrinaire on the law as I had assumed. Learned a little court history, probably more than I wanted to know about the justices, but rehash of general grievances on modern US Pol and overreliance on the court for what should otherwise be legislative measures was not that enlightening.
May 12, 2026
Really appreciated the current breakdown of the court and how they are divided into three camps. I really found her Court Reform suggestions helpful and wonder if any of them could be adopted. Would highly recommend this for observers of the Supreme Court.
April 25, 2026
Listening to the audio version. Could this woman be anymore condescending? When she tells you how Republican she is, believe her, because she is bound and determined to make a listener feel belittled and stupid. "He's Chiefy like that." Not cute, Ms. Isgur. Have not gotten to the part where she justifys giving Donald Trump inexcusible powers. Betting she does not cover it. Let me know if I am wrong because I don't think I can take her demeanor for much longer.
April 12, 2026
**I received an advance reader copy from the author**
Even if you don’t immediately find this subject appealing, I’m a firm believer that good writing makes any subject interesting, and Sarah Isgur accomplishes that with Last Branch Standing. This book is for anyone that should be more informed about the way our government—not just the judicial branch—functions today. And that is all of us! Her writing is a mix of Sarah Vowell and Mary Roach—witty, intelligent, and full of substance without being dense. I learned so much from this book that was immediately applicable to understanding today’s headlines and political climate. Buy it, read it, and get a copy for a friend so you can discuss!
Even if you don’t immediately find this subject appealing, I’m a firm believer that good writing makes any subject interesting, and Sarah Isgur accomplishes that with Last Branch Standing. This book is for anyone that should be more informed about the way our government—not just the judicial branch—functions today. And that is all of us! Her writing is a mix of Sarah Vowell and Mary Roach—witty, intelligent, and full of substance without being dense. I learned so much from this book that was immediately applicable to understanding today’s headlines and political climate. Buy it, read it, and get a copy for a friend so you can discuss!
May 17, 2026
I thoroughly enjoyed this book by podcaster and SCOTUSblog editor Sarah Isgur on the inner workings of the Supreme Court today. Her thesis is that most people are wrong in their views of the supreme court as driven by partisan politics based on the high profile cases which get all the attention, vice the cases that affect actual people and are decided with large majorities. In addition, she says the justices are aligned not necessarily on the x-axis (the partisan axis) but rather on the Y axis where the 9 justices span from order loving institutionalists to true agents of chaos. This she says explains why in the 2024-25 term, conservative Brett Kavanaugh was more likely to agree with liberal Elena Kagan than conservative Neil Gorsuch. She defines the current court as being a 3-3-3 split court. Some of Isgur’s arguments - that the court should defer to the legislature and legislative process and not act in its place is a tenet of past Federalist Society philosophy that she admits is being overcome in younger Fed Soc members today. Personally I think she is right on issues like abortion but not on desegregation and voting rights. But Isgur takes all opinions and views and considers them fairly, and she has friends from all sides of the political/judicial spectrum from Ted Cruz to Elena Kagan. Her book is funny and wry and sometimes snarky and filled with insider gossip about the justices, their clerks, court commentators and watchers. She includes commentary on what we can do to preserve the rule of law and even if you should go to law school. I love her podcast with David French (which I discovered recently thanks to my son) and the book has a similar vibe. A perfect read for a legal nerd or anyone interested in learning more about the Supreme Court and the legal process
May 12, 2026
I’m already a big fan of Sarah Isgur’s podcast with David French, Advisory Opinions, so I’ve been hearing about this book for MONTHS prior to its actual release. I can testify it stands up to the hype! I find her argument that the Court is split 3-3-3 rather than 6-3 to be compelling and I definitely agree with her analysis of the Court’s “partisanship” (or rather, its resistance to the popular, erroneous, narrative of a conservative court that just hands Trump whatever he wants. Learning Resources v. Trump, anyone?). I definitely find a lot of explanatory power in her reframing that the Court is engaged in a so-far semi-successful attempt to get Congress to actually do stuff again, and that the Robert Court’s real institutional mission today is to make the boundaries clear between the Legislature and the Executive.
I feel like the majority of the criticism I see of this book is that it ignores the fact that the Court has 6 conservatives and 3 liberals. I think if that’s your takeaway, you should pay closer attention bc her whole argument is why that is not an effective framework to interpret/predict the Court’s decisions. I think most critics I’ve seen have missed the point.
In sum, if you want to understand the current Supreme Court deeper than just “there are 3 liberals and 6 conservatives”, this is the book for you.
I feel like the majority of the criticism I see of this book is that it ignores the fact that the Court has 6 conservatives and 3 liberals. I think if that’s your takeaway, you should pay closer attention bc her whole argument is why that is not an effective framework to interpret/predict the Court’s decisions. I think most critics I’ve seen have missed the point.
In sum, if you want to understand the current Supreme Court deeper than just “there are 3 liberals and 6 conservatives”, this is the book for you.
Read
May 2, 2026As a regular listener of Advisory Opinions, I had assumed that this would be something of a rehash of points I had already heard on the podcast. I was half right. Many of the points are familiar, but this is no rehash. Rather, Isgur has organized her argument in such a way as to lead the reader step by step from the creation of the Supreme Court through it’s history, explaining it’s function and how that has evolved in response to changes in the Congress and the Executive Branch.
I was particularly interested in Isgur’s explanation of the consequences of ending the filibuster for confirmation of federal judges. It had seemed like a foolish move to me, but I hadn’t considered how damaging it could end up being for the court. Also, her discussion of how the justices determine whether to hear a case, and the effects of hearing fewer cases each term, were helpful in understanding this opaque process.
Although I listen to every episode of AO, I don’t have a law degree, or even a college degree. Neither is required to appreciate the arguments she lays out here. Most of the legal concepts and jargon are explained fully in the text, and there is a short glossary if you need it. All you need to bring to the book is an interest in the topic and the willingness to accept, just for the sake of argument, that none of the justices are villains. It’s not that kind of book.
I was particularly interested in Isgur’s explanation of the consequences of ending the filibuster for confirmation of federal judges. It had seemed like a foolish move to me, but I hadn’t considered how damaging it could end up being for the court. Also, her discussion of how the justices determine whether to hear a case, and the effects of hearing fewer cases each term, were helpful in understanding this opaque process.
Although I listen to every episode of AO, I don’t have a law degree, or even a college degree. Neither is required to appreciate the arguments she lays out here. Most of the legal concepts and jargon are explained fully in the text, and there is a short glossary if you need it. All you need to bring to the book is an interest in the topic and the willingness to accept, just for the sake of argument, that none of the justices are villains. It’s not that kind of book.
May 22, 2026
I guess I didn’t know how much I didn’t know. The Court and its role in our government has changed drastically over the years, apparently. It’s never been as public-facing as it is now…as accessible..or, arguably, as important. As the Legislative branch continues to grow more and more ineffective and the Executive Branch continues to accumulate more and more power, the Court is expected to step in more and more often. We forget that it doesn’t exist to MAKE the law, but rather tell us what the law IS. If you don’t like that and want it changed..hey, Legislature, we need a word! One of the things I found most interesting in this book was the analysis of the current court and each Justice’s ideological makeup (not only described along the Conservative/Liberal axis but also along how they believe the law and the Constitution SHOULD be interpreted (originalism vs textualism vs institutionalism etc). When viewed in this light and when looking at who concurred and dissented, it becomes harder to say any of them are just voting party lines. An incredibly interesting read.
April 25, 2026
Last Branch Standing by Sarah Isgur is a sharp, engaging, and surprisingly accessible look at one of the most complex institutions in American government. In just 300 pages, Isgur manages to break down not only the history of the Supreme Court of the United States, but also its inner workings and the philosophies that drive its justices.
What stands out most is her tone. She brings wit and clarity to a subject that often feels dense or overly technical. Rather than getting lost in legal jargon, she translates the Court’s processes and decisions into something readable and genuinely interesting.
This isn’t just a surface-level overview. Isgur connects personalities, legal philosophy, and institutional design in a way that helps you understand not just what the Court does, but how and why it operates the way it does.
By the end, you walk away with a much stronger grasp of the Supreme Court—and why it matters, especially in today’s political climate. In 2026, this feels like a must-read for anyone even remotely interested in politics.
A fantastic piece of work.
What stands out most is her tone. She brings wit and clarity to a subject that often feels dense or overly technical. Rather than getting lost in legal jargon, she translates the Court’s processes and decisions into something readable and genuinely interesting.
This isn’t just a surface-level overview. Isgur connects personalities, legal philosophy, and institutional design in a way that helps you understand not just what the Court does, but how and why it operates the way it does.
By the end, you walk away with a much stronger grasp of the Supreme Court—and why it matters, especially in today’s political climate. In 2026, this feels like a must-read for anyone even remotely interested in politics.
A fantastic piece of work.
May 2, 2026
Well Worth Your Time
So little about politics is readable these days so this book stands out. An interesting discussion of where we are today in politics, law, and governance. Isgur shines a light on what is not working and what might fix it. If you are open minded and care about our country, read this book.
So little about politics is readable these days so this book stands out. An interesting discussion of where we are today in politics, law, and governance. Isgur shines a light on what is not working and what might fix it. If you are open minded and care about our country, read this book.
May 25, 2026
Witty is a great way to describe this book. I watch Sarah Isgur on This Week and her book reads like Sarah speaks…insightful and sometimes a little irreverent. I learned a lot reading this book and had a few laughs too. I would definitely recommend it!
May 10, 2026
this is a breezy, readable, essential work, whether you agree with her on some things or not. I learned so much about the Supreme Court, and I enjoyed learning it!
May 13, 2026
Isgur is engaging when she describes the institution of the Court, but then overzealously defends it even against reasonable criticisms, and then goes full-on partisan in recounting recent Court-related political confrontations, blaming Democrats for everything Republicans did to them.
May 12, 2026
Isgur's aim with this book is to explain what critics who analyse the US Supreme Court through a partisan 6-3 lens (based on the political party of the President who appointed them). She seeks to give readers "a more nuanced understanding of how decisions are getting made and what those decisions even are", countering popular and widespread political commentary that "the person who disagrees with us isn’t just wrong. They are bad. They’re not mistaken; they’re morally corrupt and their motivations are evil. We’ve forgotten how to disagree because we’re so convinced of our righteousness. It’s how we judge one another, and it’s how we judge institutions."
Isgur's main thesis is that a 6-3 conservative-liberal framing of the Court fails to explain why Roberts CJ, Kavanaugh J, and Barrett J side with the 3 "liberal" justices in 'culture-war-y'/'important' cases such as Griffin v HM Florida-Orl (2023), which involved Florida's Protection of Children Act. From a macro view, in the 2024-25 term, the 3 "liberal" justices dissent together in 9% of 6-3 decisions, but Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch JJ dissent together in 6% of of 6-3 decisions. Expanding the denominator to include 5-4 decisions as well, the "liberal" justices dissent together in 15% of all such decisions, but Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch JJ also dissent together in 15% of such decisions. Roberts CJ, Kavanaugh J, and Barrett J with the highest frequency of being in the majority, followed by Kagan J. Indeed, Kagan J breaks away from her two "liberal" colleagues in a number of cases, such as Department of Homeland Security v D. V. D. (on clarification of opinion) (where only Sotomayor and Jackson JJ dissented), which concerned whether or not to uphold an injunction against the second Trump administration's deportation policy. Isgur's theory, therefore, is that apart from a conservative-liberal (in terms of judicial philosophy) x-axis, there is also an institutional y-axis, where Roberts CJ, Kavanagh J, and Barrett J are further up the y-axis compared to Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch JJ, and Kagan J is similarly further north the y-axis compared to Sotomayor and Jackson J. A summary of her thesis, accompanied by a diagram of this 3-3-3 graph, is available at Politico at this link.
The rest of the book includes brief profiles of every justice, Isgur's survey of the history of the Court (with "Confirmation Wars" escalating starting from Robert Bork to the elimination of the judicial filibuster), her explanation of originalism (the judicial philosophy of the "conservative" justices) and the rise of the Federalist Society, and her proposals at court reform and Constitutional amendments. She also criticises Congress, which she charges with going "AWOL" due to the political cost to making compromises in the legislation process, which has led to the Court now becoming "the final arbiter of every major political dispute." An interesting read, albeit a little disorganised at times – the last 3 substantive chapters jump from the law on precedents and stare decisis to threats against the Court and its justices, to proposals for law reform. Quite a jump from one topic to another.
I think I am persuaded by Isgur's thesis that an analysis of the Court with a 6-3 "conservative"-"liberal" lens, as if the justices were just politicians in robes, is lacking. Her 3-3-3 theory seems persuasive to me, at least until a better analytical framework presents itself.
Isgur's main thesis is that a 6-3 conservative-liberal framing of the Court fails to explain why Roberts CJ, Kavanaugh J, and Barrett J side with the 3 "liberal" justices in 'culture-war-y'/'important' cases such as Griffin v HM Florida-Orl (2023), which involved Florida's Protection of Children Act. From a macro view, in the 2024-25 term, the 3 "liberal" justices dissent together in 9% of 6-3 decisions, but Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch JJ dissent together in 6% of of 6-3 decisions. Expanding the denominator to include 5-4 decisions as well, the "liberal" justices dissent together in 15% of all such decisions, but Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch JJ also dissent together in 15% of such decisions. Roberts CJ, Kavanaugh J, and Barrett J with the highest frequency of being in the majority, followed by Kagan J. Indeed, Kagan J breaks away from her two "liberal" colleagues in a number of cases, such as Department of Homeland Security v D. V. D. (on clarification of opinion) (where only Sotomayor and Jackson JJ dissented), which concerned whether or not to uphold an injunction against the second Trump administration's deportation policy. Isgur's theory, therefore, is that apart from a conservative-liberal (in terms of judicial philosophy) x-axis, there is also an institutional y-axis, where Roberts CJ, Kavanagh J, and Barrett J are further up the y-axis compared to Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch JJ, and Kagan J is similarly further north the y-axis compared to Sotomayor and Jackson J. A summary of her thesis, accompanied by a diagram of this 3-3-3 graph, is available at Politico at this link.
The rest of the book includes brief profiles of every justice, Isgur's survey of the history of the Court (with "Confirmation Wars" escalating starting from Robert Bork to the elimination of the judicial filibuster), her explanation of originalism (the judicial philosophy of the "conservative" justices) and the rise of the Federalist Society, and her proposals at court reform and Constitutional amendments. She also criticises Congress, which she charges with going "AWOL" due to the political cost to making compromises in the legislation process, which has led to the Court now becoming "the final arbiter of every major political dispute." An interesting read, albeit a little disorganised at times – the last 3 substantive chapters jump from the law on precedents and stare decisis to threats against the Court and its justices, to proposals for law reform. Quite a jump from one topic to another.
I think I am persuaded by Isgur's thesis that an analysis of the Court with a 6-3 "conservative"-"liberal" lens, as if the justices were just politicians in robes, is lacking. Her 3-3-3 theory seems persuasive to me, at least until a better analytical framework presents itself.
May 28, 2026
I first heard Sarah Isgur on my two political podcasts: The Fifth Column and Getting Hammered promoting her book, Last Branch Standing. In both interviews, what drew me to her was her balanced and nuanced view of the SCOTUS. She was critical of the media coverage of the court, pointing out that the media cannot actually reliably predict the “big cases.” Often, they assume one case will be big only for it to be a unanimous decision, forcing them to choose a different “controversial” ruling that fits the narrative of a divided court. She also pointed out some of the numbers that I think a lot of people don’t realize: namely, that SCOTUS has far more unanimous decisions than decisions where it is perfectly split along ideological lines. There was enough substance in these interviews for me to immediately move this book to the front of my “to-read” list.
I had never heard of Mrs. Isgur before I listened to her on these podcasts. I had heard of her co-host David French (though I don’t really know him that well either). But I knew enough to know he is an anti-Trump conservative which, after eleven years or so since Trump first started running for president, I can appreciate. After reading this book, I can definitely see how they host a podcast together. You can tell she is conservative, but she also clearly treats Trump as a normal person (not as if she was a hater or a Trump cult follower). That’s something I really appreciated about this book.
In fact, she treats everyone in the book this way including all the justices. No matter what you think of any justice's opinions or politics, if you read this book you should come away with some respect for them as people and for their intellectual capacity. Mrs. Isgur also has an interesting way of categorizing the justices. Rather than along straight ideological lines (what she calls the “x-axis”), she creates a “y-axis” to measure their institutionalist/chaos dynamic. She uses this to explain that SCOTUS would more accurately be split into three separate factions: the libs, the institutional conservatives, and the chaos conservatives. If you understand these dynamics, you can see why certain conservatives vote with the liberals at times.
I could go on about her breakdown of the court, but I just cannot do it justice. But there was one other thing I wanted to mention about this book and that was some of the legal and historical anecdotes. I am an American history guy, and the vast majority of the historical anecdotes that I read in books I have already heard. Mrs. Isgur mentions two that stuck out in my mind that I never heard of before. One was the 1788 doctors’ riot and the other was the Jehovah’s Witnesses Riots (1940-42). I won’t describe them in detail here, but it is always nice to read something genuinely new.
If you want to learn more about SCOTUS, I highly recommend this book (and if that is too much you could get by with just the first half of the book). If the book is too much, then I would suggest the Getting Hammered podcast episode from April 14, 2026. Regardless of which route you choose, unless you are already a SCOTUS nerd, you will learn a lot. I know for sure that the next time there is a controversial ruling, I will go straight to Mrs. Isgur’s podcast Advisory Opinions for a legal breakdown. Four stars. Very informative, but the book probably dragged on a little much in the second half.
I had never heard of Mrs. Isgur before I listened to her on these podcasts. I had heard of her co-host David French (though I don’t really know him that well either). But I knew enough to know he is an anti-Trump conservative which, after eleven years or so since Trump first started running for president, I can appreciate. After reading this book, I can definitely see how they host a podcast together. You can tell she is conservative, but she also clearly treats Trump as a normal person (not as if she was a hater or a Trump cult follower). That’s something I really appreciated about this book.
In fact, she treats everyone in the book this way including all the justices. No matter what you think of any justice's opinions or politics, if you read this book you should come away with some respect for them as people and for their intellectual capacity. Mrs. Isgur also has an interesting way of categorizing the justices. Rather than along straight ideological lines (what she calls the “x-axis”), she creates a “y-axis” to measure their institutionalist/chaos dynamic. She uses this to explain that SCOTUS would more accurately be split into three separate factions: the libs, the institutional conservatives, and the chaos conservatives. If you understand these dynamics, you can see why certain conservatives vote with the liberals at times.
I could go on about her breakdown of the court, but I just cannot do it justice. But there was one other thing I wanted to mention about this book and that was some of the legal and historical anecdotes. I am an American history guy, and the vast majority of the historical anecdotes that I read in books I have already heard. Mrs. Isgur mentions two that stuck out in my mind that I never heard of before. One was the 1788 doctors’ riot and the other was the Jehovah’s Witnesses Riots (1940-42). I won’t describe them in detail here, but it is always nice to read something genuinely new.
If you want to learn more about SCOTUS, I highly recommend this book (and if that is too much you could get by with just the first half of the book). If the book is too much, then I would suggest the Getting Hammered podcast episode from April 14, 2026. Regardless of which route you choose, unless you are already a SCOTUS nerd, you will learn a lot. I know for sure that the next time there is a controversial ruling, I will go straight to Mrs. Isgur’s podcast Advisory Opinions for a legal breakdown. Four stars. Very informative, but the book probably dragged on a little much in the second half.
May 24, 2026
Sarah Isgur’s book first caught my attention after hearing her interviewed on David Pakman's podcast earlier this month. The conversation immediately stood out because Isgur approached the Supreme Court in a way that felt different from the usual media framing of the Court as simply divided between conservatives and liberals. One of the most interesting ideas she presents in the book is her “3–3–3” framework, where the justices are not just placed on a left-right ideological spectrum, but are also evaluated according to how strongly they prioritize protecting the institution of the Court itself. This combination of ideological leanings and institutionalism gives a more nuanced explanation of how and why certain coalitions form on major cases.
What makes this framework particularly interesting is how much it conflicts with the common media portrayal of the Supreme Court. News coverage often reduces decisions to a predictable conservative-versus-liberal battle that supposedly guarantees constant 6–3 rulings. Isgur argues that the reality is far more complicated. Institutional concerns, judicial philosophy, and case-specific reasoning often create unusual alliances among the justices, leading to outcomes that do not fit neatly into partisan expectations. The book does a good job challenging the assumption that ideology alone explains every decision the Court makes.
One of the book’s greatest strengths is that it is intellectually accessible without becoming simplistic. Isgur explains complex legal ideas, judicial philosophies, and institutional issues in a way that general readers can understand while still respecting the seriousness and nuance of the topics. The book never feels watered down.
The tone of the book is also effective. Isgur approaches the Court from a generally conservative institutional perspective, but the book never becomes alarmist or overly partisan. Even readers who disagree with her politically can still appreciate her attempt to explain the Court as an institution rather than simply as a political weapon. The book feels institutionally conservative without becoming hysterical.
Another strength is the humor throughout the book. Isgur’s writing is witty and conversational, which helps make discussions about constitutional law and judicial procedure much more enjoyable to read. At the same time, the humor rarely distracts from the subject matter or undermines the seriousness of the Court. The book stays witty without becoming flippant.
The strongest parts of the book are the sections explaining how the Supreme Court actually functions internally. Isgur does an excellent job showing readers how the justices interact, how cases move through the Court, and how institutional concerns often shape decisions in ways the public does not always recognize. These behind-the-scenes explanations make the Court feel far more human and complex than the simplistic political narratives that often dominate public discussion.
Overall, this book succeeds because it combines accessibility, humor, and institutional analysis into a book that helps readers better understand the modern Supreme Court without reducing everything to partisan talking points.
What makes this framework particularly interesting is how much it conflicts with the common media portrayal of the Supreme Court. News coverage often reduces decisions to a predictable conservative-versus-liberal battle that supposedly guarantees constant 6–3 rulings. Isgur argues that the reality is far more complicated. Institutional concerns, judicial philosophy, and case-specific reasoning often create unusual alliances among the justices, leading to outcomes that do not fit neatly into partisan expectations. The book does a good job challenging the assumption that ideology alone explains every decision the Court makes.
One of the book’s greatest strengths is that it is intellectually accessible without becoming simplistic. Isgur explains complex legal ideas, judicial philosophies, and institutional issues in a way that general readers can understand while still respecting the seriousness and nuance of the topics. The book never feels watered down.
The tone of the book is also effective. Isgur approaches the Court from a generally conservative institutional perspective, but the book never becomes alarmist or overly partisan. Even readers who disagree with her politically can still appreciate her attempt to explain the Court as an institution rather than simply as a political weapon. The book feels institutionally conservative without becoming hysterical.
Another strength is the humor throughout the book. Isgur’s writing is witty and conversational, which helps make discussions about constitutional law and judicial procedure much more enjoyable to read. At the same time, the humor rarely distracts from the subject matter or undermines the seriousness of the Court. The book stays witty without becoming flippant.
The strongest parts of the book are the sections explaining how the Supreme Court actually functions internally. Isgur does an excellent job showing readers how the justices interact, how cases move through the Court, and how institutional concerns often shape decisions in ways the public does not always recognize. These behind-the-scenes explanations make the Court feel far more human and complex than the simplistic political narratives that often dominate public discussion.
Overall, this book succeeds because it combines accessibility, humor, and institutional analysis into a book that helps readers better understand the modern Supreme Court without reducing everything to partisan talking points.
May 4, 2026
I couldn't disagree more with Isgur's politics, but it was an entertaining read. Although conservative, she writes with verve and open-mindedness, and is a good teacher of constitutional-related law. My criticisms are as follows-- in her attempt to be witty and conversational, she dilutes the impact of her writing. The section about the current Supreme Court justices, " Most likely to ..." is too cute by half. Although she touches on Clarence Thomas's acceptance of gifts and Anita Hill's claims at his confirmation history, she writes, "...nobody has been able to point to a case from which he should have recused himself or a case in which he might have changed his vote." This is ridiculous. First, an ideologue does not have to change his vote if (s)he has a prenatural disposition to an outcome. Second, I am a physician, and major academic medical centers have banned drug representatives from even handing out pens bearing a drug's name because evidence has shown that gifts--the concept of reciprocity--have influenced physicians' prescribing patterns.
Isgur also brings relationships into her writing which impacts her judgment. She knows Brett Kavanaugh, and somehow feels the need to thread the needle by saying, "... I believe Blasey Ford was attacked by someone. I do not believe she remembers who did it. And I do not believe the person was Brett Kavanaugh." WTF? To snark back at her, allow me to quote her about Sam Alito, "Unlike many men, Justice Alito doesn't say, "They're my wife's cats." Humanizing him by relaying that Alito made U.S. marshals wait while trying to rescue a cat. Alito has no problems though throwing his wife under the bus when she flies her freak flags displaying her/his troglodyte political opinions.
Additionally, unwittingly, she sinks the whole premise of the Federalist Society and the supposed intellectual rigor of textualism, originalism, etc., when she labels it 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0. This evolution is really a bias and similar to a living constitution--the idea that contemporary society should influence the interpretation of a law. Of course it should. If not, go back and treat your illness with blood letting based on the four humors. That said, the premise of an x-axis-- a judge's political leanings, and a y-axis-- whether a judge wants to preserve the credibility of the court by respecting precedent and garnering consensus is beautifully articulated.
In conclusion, this is an eminently readable and intelligently written book that should have trusted the reader to follow her arguments without a "Sex in the City" style that dilutes her argument. That said, although I don't agree with her politically, she is certainly an esteemed, articulate, lawyer with a gift of writing clearly and powerfully, but easily defeated in the court of a liberal Goodreads reviewer. Cheers!
Isgur also brings relationships into her writing which impacts her judgment. She knows Brett Kavanaugh, and somehow feels the need to thread the needle by saying, "... I believe Blasey Ford was attacked by someone. I do not believe she remembers who did it. And I do not believe the person was Brett Kavanaugh." WTF? To snark back at her, allow me to quote her about Sam Alito, "Unlike many men, Justice Alito doesn't say, "They're my wife's cats." Humanizing him by relaying that Alito made U.S. marshals wait while trying to rescue a cat. Alito has no problems though throwing his wife under the bus when she flies her freak flags displaying her/his troglodyte political opinions.
Additionally, unwittingly, she sinks the whole premise of the Federalist Society and the supposed intellectual rigor of textualism, originalism, etc., when she labels it 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0. This evolution is really a bias and similar to a living constitution--the idea that contemporary society should influence the interpretation of a law. Of course it should. If not, go back and treat your illness with blood letting based on the four humors. That said, the premise of an x-axis-- a judge's political leanings, and a y-axis-- whether a judge wants to preserve the credibility of the court by respecting precedent and garnering consensus is beautifully articulated.
In conclusion, this is an eminently readable and intelligently written book that should have trusted the reader to follow her arguments without a "Sex in the City" style that dilutes her argument. That said, although I don't agree with her politically, she is certainly an esteemed, articulate, lawyer with a gift of writing clearly and powerfully, but easily defeated in the court of a liberal Goodreads reviewer. Cheers!
May 7, 2026
As I was chatting about this book with someone, I asked a question. "Would America be better off if everyone read this?" Her answer was, "YES!" I agree.
Granted, that could be true of many books, but Last Branch Standing is timely. Sarah Isgur's essential point is that only the judiciary is a functioning branch of government, performing something like its intended purpose and operating somewhere within its expected powers.
The implication is that the other branches--the executive and legislative--are dysfunctional. The executive is too powerful (for a host of reasons) and the legislature has just abdicated its role as the author of our laws. The Court is often left to clean up the mess as Congress delegates too much power and the executive tries to solve problems that require real laws as opposed to executive orders or agency rule-making.
Each partisan side blames the Court for standing in the gap, and its legitimacy hangs in the balance because it manages to frustrate everyone. Politicians make promises they can't keep legally and then critique the Court for enforcing the law.
American politics lives now on a knife's edge. Isgur's book is a timely plea for citizens to do better. In her mind, knowing how the Court works is the way to do that. For Isgur, and for me, the law and the Constitution are about process and not about outcomes or results. They set the rules of the game. We need to choose better players instead of demanding the referees/justices change the rules.
The book has so much more than this basic argument. Isgur provides a reasonable overview of the Court's history, its different interpretive eras and methods, and a great deal of insight into how the Supreme Court functions. She also provides lots of unusual background information, but it rarely feels trivial.
I do have some small beefs with the book. I think the book's organization is lacking. Some of the chapters are less coherent and more smashed together. I suspect this reflects three things. 1) The book was written and executed relatively quickly because it was timely, and this might be why it sometimes feels overstuffed. 2) Isgur wanted to write something more discursive than something purely analytical or argumentative. This makes it more accessible, but also strains the organization. 3) Isgur probably thinks inductively by nature. She pieces together lots of kinds of information. I think this increases the breadth and interest level, but it is also why sometimes it feels scattered.
Regardless, this is an excellent book. We have been blessed with two accessible "law" books during the past year. Justice Barrett's Listening to the Law and now Isgur's Last Branch Standing. Let's hope this is a trend and that more people will learn more about the judiciary, the Constitution, and the law. A civic revival born out of the law and Constitution would be most welcome.
Granted, that could be true of many books, but Last Branch Standing is timely. Sarah Isgur's essential point is that only the judiciary is a functioning branch of government, performing something like its intended purpose and operating somewhere within its expected powers.
The implication is that the other branches--the executive and legislative--are dysfunctional. The executive is too powerful (for a host of reasons) and the legislature has just abdicated its role as the author of our laws. The Court is often left to clean up the mess as Congress delegates too much power and the executive tries to solve problems that require real laws as opposed to executive orders or agency rule-making.
Each partisan side blames the Court for standing in the gap, and its legitimacy hangs in the balance because it manages to frustrate everyone. Politicians make promises they can't keep legally and then critique the Court for enforcing the law.
American politics lives now on a knife's edge. Isgur's book is a timely plea for citizens to do better. In her mind, knowing how the Court works is the way to do that. For Isgur, and for me, the law and the Constitution are about process and not about outcomes or results. They set the rules of the game. We need to choose better players instead of demanding the referees/justices change the rules.
The book has so much more than this basic argument. Isgur provides a reasonable overview of the Court's history, its different interpretive eras and methods, and a great deal of insight into how the Supreme Court functions. She also provides lots of unusual background information, but it rarely feels trivial.
I do have some small beefs with the book. I think the book's organization is lacking. Some of the chapters are less coherent and more smashed together. I suspect this reflects three things. 1) The book was written and executed relatively quickly because it was timely, and this might be why it sometimes feels overstuffed. 2) Isgur wanted to write something more discursive than something purely analytical or argumentative. This makes it more accessible, but also strains the organization. 3) Isgur probably thinks inductively by nature. She pieces together lots of kinds of information. I think this increases the breadth and interest level, but it is also why sometimes it feels scattered.
Regardless, this is an excellent book. We have been blessed with two accessible "law" books during the past year. Justice Barrett's Listening to the Law and now Isgur's Last Branch Standing. Let's hope this is a trend and that more people will learn more about the judiciary, the Constitution, and the law. A civic revival born out of the law and Constitution would be most welcome.
May 30, 2026
A lightheaded, but very informative, look through the Supreme Courts past, present, and (possible) future. Isgur was recently named an editor for SCOTUSBlog (one of the best news sites on the internet), which helped push me to try this out. In my case, it was a good refresher on information I learned in undergrad law classes, with some important updates (When I was taking those classes, we learned Chevron as if it was never going away...). I really appreciated the nuanced approach to some of the hot-button issues. And the profiles of the current justices were all very interesting, focusing more on them as people v. who they are as judges (both in reality and in the popular imagination).
There's two caveats with this rating. The first is the humor. It's very Millennial/Gen Z, meme heavy. That isn't always a bad thing; In fact, I laughed out loud many times. There were also times where the humor felt shoe-horned in. That element alone makes it hard to recommend to the older readers I know.
The second is the way Isgur portrays her background. She knows a lot of people, both professionally and personally, name drops them several times. Those connections (with a few notably exceptions) are very conservative. She's worked on Republican presidential campaigns. She was the communications director for first-term Trump DOJ. She's married to the gentlemen who followed Ted Cruz as Texas' lead attorney (and as she notes, represented this or that client before the Supreme Court talked about in the text). Granted, reading the text shows me that Isgur is no ideologue. She rightly calls out b.s. coming from both directions and from the Court itself . I still got the impression that she was constantly trying to tread this needle between showing off her Federalist Society bonfides and being neutral headed enough to show liberals that 'hey, the Court isn't that bad.'
Despite that, however, I do think she does a good job overall, and someone who knows little about the inner workings of the Court (and can handle her humor levels) would greatly benefit
There's two caveats with this rating. The first is the humor. It's very Millennial/Gen Z, meme heavy. That isn't always a bad thing; In fact, I laughed out loud many times. There were also times where the humor felt shoe-horned in. That element alone makes it hard to recommend to the older readers I know.
The second is the way Isgur portrays her background. She knows a lot of people, both professionally and personally, name drops them several times. Those connections (with a few notably exceptions) are very conservative. She's worked on Republican presidential campaigns. She was the communications director for first-term Trump DOJ. She's married to the gentlemen who followed Ted Cruz as Texas' lead attorney (and as she notes, represented this or that client before the Supreme Court talked about in the text). Granted, reading the text shows me that Isgur is no ideologue. She rightly calls out b.s. coming from both directions and from the Court itself . I still got the impression that she was constantly trying to tread this needle between showing off her Federalist Society bonfides and being neutral headed enough to show liberals that 'hey, the Court isn't that bad.'
Despite that, however, I do think she does a good job overall, and someone who knows little about the inner workings of the Court (and can handle her humor levels) would greatly benefit
May 13, 2026
I liked parts of Sarah Isgur’s Last Branch Standing, but overall it reads more like enthusiastic PR for the Court than the skeptical, analytical book I hoped for.
What I liked
Isgur’s experience covering the Court gives the book lively, readable scenes that demystify how cases arrive at the justices and how the chambers operate.
The chapters that explain what the Supreme Court and a functioning judicial branch are meant to be - their institutional role, why they exist, and how they fit into separation-of-powers design - are the book’s strongest, most objective material.
What bothered me
The portraits of the individual justices read like fan mail more than incisive profiles; Isgur’s admiration - which I’ve enjoyed on panels like Real Time with Bill Maher - becomes a liability here because she rarely pushes the justices hard enough on their jurisprudence or inconsistencies.
Where I expected tougher critique (e.g., probing how certain doctrinal moves sit uneasily with earlier precedent or exploring the political consequences of the Court’s recent docket choices), the tone often slides into cheerleading and institutional defense.
That overall stance makes the book feel like a case for restoring the Court’s reputation rather than a sustained effort to hold it accountable; readers looking for rigorous, evenhanded critique will be left wanting.
Who should read it
Recommended if you want an insider’s, accessible primer on the Court that skews sympathetic and offers practical fixes (ethics reform, clearer public communication).
Not the best choice if you want a tough-minded or ideologically neutral audit of recent decisions or the current majority’s legal reasoning.
Final verdict: A useful, readable introduction from a practiced court watcher, with genuinely valuable explanatory sections — but marred by a consistently admiring tone toward the justices that keeps the book from being the sharper critique I expected.
What I liked
Isgur’s experience covering the Court gives the book lively, readable scenes that demystify how cases arrive at the justices and how the chambers operate.
The chapters that explain what the Supreme Court and a functioning judicial branch are meant to be - their institutional role, why they exist, and how they fit into separation-of-powers design - are the book’s strongest, most objective material.
What bothered me
The portraits of the individual justices read like fan mail more than incisive profiles; Isgur’s admiration - which I’ve enjoyed on panels like Real Time with Bill Maher - becomes a liability here because she rarely pushes the justices hard enough on their jurisprudence or inconsistencies.
Where I expected tougher critique (e.g., probing how certain doctrinal moves sit uneasily with earlier precedent or exploring the political consequences of the Court’s recent docket choices), the tone often slides into cheerleading and institutional defense.
That overall stance makes the book feel like a case for restoring the Court’s reputation rather than a sustained effort to hold it accountable; readers looking for rigorous, evenhanded critique will be left wanting.
Who should read it
Recommended if you want an insider’s, accessible primer on the Court that skews sympathetic and offers practical fixes (ethics reform, clearer public communication).
Not the best choice if you want a tough-minded or ideologically neutral audit of recent decisions or the current majority’s legal reasoning.
Final verdict: A useful, readable introduction from a practiced court watcher, with genuinely valuable explanatory sections — but marred by a consistently admiring tone toward the justices that keeps the book from being the sharper critique I expected.
April 22, 2026
Last Branch Standing: A Potentially Surprising, Occasionally Witty Journey Inside Today's Supreme Court (Sarah Isgur, 2026) is an insider-informed, analytically structured examination of the modern U.S. Supreme Court under the Roberts era, designed to challenge simplified partisan interpretations of judicial behavior.
Sarah Isgur’s central contribution is a dual-axis interpretive model that reframes how the Court is commonly understood. Rather than treating justices as fixed ideological actors along a single liberal–conservative continuum, she introduces a second structural dimension, institutional temperament, that helps explain unexpected alignments, case selection behavior, and internal Court dynamics. This framework is used to reinterpret patterns that often appear inconsistent under standard ideological analysis.
The book is strongest when it moves away from anecdotal observation and into institutional explanation. It treats the Court not as a static ideological body, but as a complex decision-making system shaped by procedural incentives, internal norms, and strategic judicial behavior. This systems-oriented framing allows for a more granular understanding of why justices with opposing ideological reputations may frequently converge on outcomes.
Stylistically, the work combines explanatory legal analysis with accessible, occasionally irreverent commentary, which broadens its reach beyond strictly academic audiences. However, its most durable contribution lies in its attempt to normalize a more structural reading of judicial behavior, one that resists overreliance on partisan labeling.
Overall, the book occupies a space between legal journalism, institutional analysis, and political commentary, with particular relevance for readers interested in judicial behavior, constitutional structure, and the mechanics of high court decision-making.
Sarah Isgur’s central contribution is a dual-axis interpretive model that reframes how the Court is commonly understood. Rather than treating justices as fixed ideological actors along a single liberal–conservative continuum, she introduces a second structural dimension, institutional temperament, that helps explain unexpected alignments, case selection behavior, and internal Court dynamics. This framework is used to reinterpret patterns that often appear inconsistent under standard ideological analysis.
The book is strongest when it moves away from anecdotal observation and into institutional explanation. It treats the Court not as a static ideological body, but as a complex decision-making system shaped by procedural incentives, internal norms, and strategic judicial behavior. This systems-oriented framing allows for a more granular understanding of why justices with opposing ideological reputations may frequently converge on outcomes.
Stylistically, the work combines explanatory legal analysis with accessible, occasionally irreverent commentary, which broadens its reach beyond strictly academic audiences. However, its most durable contribution lies in its attempt to normalize a more structural reading of judicial behavior, one that resists overreliance on partisan labeling.
Overall, the book occupies a space between legal journalism, institutional analysis, and political commentary, with particular relevance for readers interested in judicial behavior, constitutional structure, and the mechanics of high court decision-making.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 107 reviews