The Steal: Four Right-Wing Hard-Liners, One Republican Presidency, and the Raid on America's Courts

by Alex Wagner

Alex Wagner—cable news anchor, acclaimed journalist, TV personality—tells the wild origin story of the conservative takeover of the American judiciary, and how it all started with the Reagan Revolution of 1980.

The election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 was a sharp right turn for American governance. After decades on the fringes, the conservative right had their eyes set on tax cuts, an aggressive foreign policy, and law and order. But there was one area of the federal government that was less talked about at the time, but no less the courts. In her first narrative book of political history, Alex Wagner shows how a few devoted Reaganites kept their focus when no one else would, and how we’re all still living with the effects.

Ed Meese, a native Californian, former DA, and aide to Reagan from his days as governor, saw that goal very clearly. Get as many judges on the bench as possible and make sure they’re as conservative as he on abortion rights, on taxes, on criminal justice. To help him achieve this goal, he enlisted a few fellow Paul Weyrich, the firebrand organizer; Joe Coors, the beer magnate whose fortune funded many of Weyrich’s efforts; and Robert Bork, the towering legal intellect of the right, and an important mentor to a few young law students starting a new organization called The Federalist Society.

Told with Alex Wagner’s trademark sardonic wit and deadpan delivery, TK is a wild romp through a slice of American history that proves that the long game pays off when championed by the right group of people, no matter how unlikely.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Politics, Law, Audiobook

307 pages

Published September 15, 2026

About the author

Alexandra Swe Wagner is an American journalist and author. She is the co-host of The Circus on Showtime and the author of FutureFace: A Family Mystery, an Epic Quest, and the Secret to Belonging. She is also a contributor for CBS News and a contributing editor at The Atlantic.

Reviews

[Faith · Rating 5 out of 5]

“[Democrats] failed to comprehend the conservative structures that had been built in those eight years that would far outlast any one, particular administration. With the creation of the Federalist Society, there was now a pipeline to move young conservative lawyers into the department of justice and, ultimately onto federal benches.”

“Every single federal judge appointed by the next two Republican presidents — George H.W. Bush and President George W. Bush — was either a Federalist Society member or was approved by members of the Federalist Society.”

I have a tendency to block out unpleasant memories, like Republican administrations. This book forced me to remember the Reagan years. He was really an awful piece of work. This book details the relentless efforts of Republicans to erase every aspect of civil rights, voting rights and the right to personal autonomy. For people who claim to abhor big government, they have been inordinately committed to controlling personal behavior and minding other people’s business. As Ed Meese said : “…a drift back towards the radical egalitarianism and expansive civil libertarianism of the Warren court would once again be a threat to the notion of limited but energetic government.” Imagine the “horrors” of equality and civil rights. Unfortunately, it took a while but they have achieved their goal.

This book is kind of painful to read. However, maybe it will act as a reminder to never again let anyone with any association with the Federalist Society anywhere near a position of authority, especially any court.

I received a free copy of this book from the publisher.

[Megan · Rating 2.75 out of 5]

2.75 stars, rounded up 🌟🌟🌟
title/author: The Steal by Alex Wagner
publisher: Flatiron Books
pub date: September 15, 2026

a sincere thank you to the publisher for providing this ARC through NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.

I want to at the very start flag some stuff. This is a review full of pedantry and a decent amount of haterade. I suspect this book will be well-liked and if you're one of the ones who liked it I do not fault you. If I were less in the trenches of working in public interest law, or perhaps if I had not steeped myself in the stew of leftist legal critique for the past few decades, I could have liked this more. I want you to like this book. But I just didn't.

And so I hereby insert my usual preface for legal/political nonfiction I did not particularly enjoy: I agree with the basic premise of this book. The state of the judicial branch is directly at odds with the majority of Americans; functionally, the federal judiciary is a christian nationalist bulldozer obliterating and burying the modicum of social progress the country has managed to achieve over the last hundred years.

I also agree that this bulldozer, like Thomas the Tank Engine as born in a fedsoc wet dream, wears the amalgamated faces of people like Weyrich, Meese, Bork, Roberts, Reagan, etc. etc.

But god, how tedious this book is.

At the very least, I am bored of libs writing this exact book-cum-opinion piece. Yes, the supreme court is the result of several decades of the conservative id run through a thin intellectual mesh and force-fed to the public. This point was fresh a few decades back and has been made in better-written or spoken pieces. I question what the purpose of this exact book is at this exact moment.

Progressives have been aware of and raising the alarms about the supreme court's conservative drift since long before the 80's (which is where the author pinpoints the beginning of the institutional capture: more on that later). And those who haven't noticed until the year of our lord 2026 are already the type to tolerate a political movement where, as Peter Shamshiri wrote in his excellent substack String in a Maze, "idiocy is not only tolerated but celebrated." More from Shamshiri, who is a better writer and thinker than I'll ever be:

"You might have once thought that the right-wing base was distinguishable from the more reasoned, intellectual wing of the conservative movement; that somewhere behind the dimwitted rabble were serious people with serious ideas. Whether that was ever true, it’s decidedly not true now. Any vestigial intellectualism on the right has been leached away; it’s oafs and roadkill-eaters all the way down."

My emphasis added.

Back to The Steal. At times, this could be an outright irritating read. I was able to pin instances of what I would call thematic confusion along with omissions/inaccuracies.

I won't get into the inaccuracies in depth, but as an admittedly pedantic example: the author presents Meese's commentary about the virtues of Ebenezer Scrooge as if they were made without prompting. In fact, Meese was responding, clearly tongue-in-cheek, to a comment from SOH Tip O'Neill accusing him and Reagan of Scrooge behavior. In this book, it's presented as if Meese made this comment apropos of nothing.

Again, this is ticky-tack and I don't think that the omission represents a complete mischaracterization of events. But it did raise my lil antennas a bit, and led me to notice more significant discrepancies- for example, claiming that FDR embraced originalism but for progressive gains.

FDR did not embrace originalism, holy shit oh my god. This is absolutely not a fair representation of what FDR believed or said, and no honest analysis would accuse him of it (not least because, as the author notes, originalism did not exist in the form discussed in the book until Bork crystalized it).

Yes, FDR complained that SCOTUS engaged in judicial activism by rendering opinions consistent with conservative policy rather that the ambit of the Constitution. But in context, it is clear that what he was attempting to say was that the Court was setting itself up as an additional legislative body to override the will of public policy - not that it was failing to interpret and apply the Constitution in line with the intent of the founders.

As I mention below, there appears to be a lack understanding of legal history and concepts. Judicial restraint/activism is a separate thing from the methods of interpretation referred to as originalism/textualism.

Again, I’m afraid of making ticky tack bullshit points. But I think they’re worth it to note, because they point to weaknesses in the scaffolding holding this thing together.

Significant structural confusion abounded. The entire framing of this book is that there were four men & a presidency that served as the horseman of the conservative takeover. Specifically, Paul Weyrich, Ed Meese, Joe Coors, Robert Bork, and the Reagan presidency.

There’s no doubt that all four were significant individuals in the neo-con 80s. My palms begin to sweat and I grin with manic glee because we have, potentially set up a reasonable framing device!!! Oh lord!!

But in truth, this framing is more or less abandoned - and it kind of had to be. It was closer to about 40% Meese, 20% Reagan, 15% Bork, 15% Weyrich, a sprinkling of Coors, and then an entire boatload of random others.

And indeed these others play a significant part in the story, to the point that the "main characters" get pushed to the side frequently until the author remembers what the subtitle of the book is, realizes we’re asleep at the wheel, then jerks the car back onto pavement. At some point, the reader has to give up begging to stick to the route & just tuck and roll at 45mph.

These random others mostly come into play in the Meese, Weyrich, and Coors "sections." I have the sense that the author realized with a panic that you can't explain Weyrich without explaining Calabresi and Liberman Otis and McIntosh, and you can't explain them without explaining Goldstein and Winter and Scalia and holy shit do we have to talk about Scalia now, oh my god we have to mention Anne Gorsuch don't we??

Thus we take sideroads off of sideroads every several yards. Some people are mentioned twice and then never again. Some people are referred to fifteen times and the author feels the need to specifically re-introduce who they are and what they did every time. So not only have we lost the route we were following, but now we're upside down in a ditch and as I hang from my seatbelt I have picked up my true crime paperback again to take my mind off of it. Thank god for Ann Rule.

In any case, it's fascinating that the author chooses to have Just So Much Bork.

About the last fifth or so of the book seems to be entirely focused on the Borkening, when he got so clowned that he abandoned the bench altogether. The ostensible point being made is that Bork helped engineer the judiciary's right-wing turn - and he absolutely did! He'sthe originalism guy.

Why, then, I beg to know, do we spend so long on the one time he was very clearly unable to break down the doors of SCOTUS?

I don't propose that we ignore this chapter of history. If nothing else, it's very funny to re-watch his confirmation hearings and remember the time when a conservative ghoul was shocked and afeared when others pointed at him and said "wow you’re a scary little ghoulie, aren't you?" Make conservatives remember that they’re weirdos again is my 2028 campaign slogan.

But this Bork-isode lacks cohesion with the argument trying to be made. This is the exact instance of when weirdo neocons couldn’t finagle their little originalism fingers into the marble palace. What are we talking about? Why spend so much time on this failure when your stated goal was to talk about the successes of the movement? Do we have any snacks in the glove compartment? Let me off of this ride.

I catch no strong whiff of legal training or historical knowledge from the prose, and more importantly, I don’t see an abundance of talent for incisive or illuminating legal analysis. You simply cannot pin the conservative overtaking of the courts to four people and a presidency.

The Reagan administration, while certainly a flashpoint, is not ground zero. Many organizations started to pop up, and more money started to be funneled into the project, yes. People like Bork, Scalia, Weyrich, Liberman Otis et. al started to slap new label stickers onto modes of analysis for easier consumption. Admitted!

But SCOTUS has been cyclically sowing and reaping and sowing and reaping ghoulish fruits for centuries rather than decades.

A great example is the recent Trump v. Slaughter decision. On one hand, it is absolutely true that the interpretation offered by the majority in Slaughter relies on the strains of conservative thought that began to come in favor during the Reagan era - do not get me started on unitary executive theory or we'll be here even longer.

But the majority also relies on reasoning laid out in 1926 in Meyers v. United States, by Chief Justice and former president Howard Taft - who naturally had an expansive view of the power of the executive. While you could argue that the majority decision is the result of the type of pseudo-intellectual-aw-shucks-just-the-facts-ma'am interpretation that has been in vogue in the John Roberts era, that argument overlooks other large-scale explanations for the moral depravity. What I'm trying to say here is that there are cyclical theories of power seeded by conservatives going back ad infinitum. our current flavor of power-hungry fascist SCOTUS justice retains notes of the 80s, but it is reductionist to act as if these modes of thought began or were even popularized with Weyrich, Meese, and Bork.

In a similar way, this book often lacked consistent or understandable analysis. A short list of the top items from my notes:
• i cannot get a bead on whether the author felt moderates & libs were too stupid to understand the conservative movement around them or whether they acquiesced thereto.
•we are told rhetorically that the reader can never be sure whether Bork really believed that there was a conspiracy to turn all the freakin frogs gay (i.e. for law schools to indoctrinate lawyers into the liberal movement) or if he was simply projecting his desire to bend the Constitution for his own ends onto others. and to that, dear reader, we should answer: does it matter?
• am i meant to be under the impression that Reagan gave into the new right or that he was at the mercy of their whims?
• it is accurate to characterize Anthony Kennedy as a swing vote. it is not accurate to imply that he was liberal

Finally, at the most pedantic I can be, this was not particularly well-written on the sentence level. It often read more like a bullet-pointed list than a cohesive narrative. At times, you can't even see the scaffolding holding the organization of the story together for the random tangents.

I also noticed a shocking amount of what has been referred to as Netflix writing. You've probably noticed in your own life that Netflix shows these days have dialogue which goes way out of its way to describe what's happening on screen and/or says the same thing multiple times. This is to make sure that the viewer (who is almost certainly simultaneously dividing their attention with their phone) understands what is going on. Themes are spoken out loud and repetitively. Essentially, writers think you're a dummy who can't watch or understand a film or show as it plays out in front of you.

It's weird to see the same trick used in a book. I found myself writing "you said this already" in the notes of my ebook often. Readers are told upwards of three times that Meese had a collection of miniature squad cars. Did you know that Reagan's electoral map was metaphorically referred to as a sheet cake? If not, you'll hear it four more times, so don't worry. And I could go another year without reading the term "squishes". There were consecutive sentences saying essentially the same thing, leading me to believe that someone out there is under the impression that I cannot read. I can read. I swear.

The punctuation was its own uphill battle. I made a game of highlighting all the ellipses the author used, then got so bored and annoyed of my own game that I abandoned it halfway through. Ellipses as used to shorten a quote are acceptable, but I'm talking using them...like this. Like how your 56-year old boss scares you in an email that says "can you come to my office...we need to talk..." but then it turns out he just wants you to explain Spotify Wrapped to him.

There was a suspicious overuse of hyphens and m-dashes. You'll see in this review that I love an m-dash, and I do not believe that use of m-dashes automatically signal AI use. However, there are frequencies of and types of m-dash usage that do ping AI-radar, and holy god does this author love to use m-dashes in a way that pings.

There were instances of sentences with multiple colons, two m-dashes, and a parenthesis in one. Multiple runs of consecutive sentences with parentheses. I counted three sentences in a row, each with colons. There was a sentence with two semi-colons. It's taboo to quote an ARC directly, since there should be a opportunity for last-minute editing. But suffice it to say that I wrote "this is a horrible sentence" multiple times in my copy. I won't quote directly, but there was an avengers reference that made me want to crawl out of my skin. Maybe I'm a snob, but I just think that mass-market nonfiction should be readable. The Steal needed a few more rounds of development editing and a proofreader with bloodthirst and a thick red pen.

I feel bad. I should have liked this book, and I really wanted to. But to me, it failed on the important fronts: on the sentence-to-sentence level, on a thematic level, and on the analytic level. I suspect that other people will enjoy this because it captures the zeitgeist of finger-pointing and catastrophizing about the State of the Country Right Now™. Maybe if you're a bit less jaded or entrenched in the legal world than I am, you will find this illuminating. I just did not.

[Janine · Rating 5 out of 5]

First, I enjoyed getting to know Alex Wagner when she had her own show on the former MSNBC. She was tough, articulate and credible - and I especially remember an interview she did with several Trump voters in Philadelphia, allowing them to showcase their horrible ignorance with no side commentary. She’s very fair and even handed. In this book, she’s bringing to the fore “a story of the men in the shadows who brought our country and its courts this moment . . . in a harebrained plot to retake this country.” And which started in the Reagan administration.

Ed Meese and his cronies, Joe Coors, Paul Weyrich and Robert Bork were on a mission in the Reagan Administration to change the Supreme Court among other tasks to bring the country into a conservative stranglehold of America. In 1980 the Free Congress Foundation released its Blueprint for Judicial Reform determined to change the “nature of the judiciary” to correct its “verbicide” of the Constitution along with the nascent Federalist Society. To achieve this it would be necessary to put conservative judges on the court and move away from activist thinkers, I.e. liberals. These men had never forgiven the Brown v School Board decision and disdained the Fourteenth Amendment.

Particularly interesting to me was how Clarence Thomas fit into this administration. He was the head of the EEOC and worked with Meese to shut down a New Orleans police mandate to hire new policemen - one white/one black due to inequalities in hiring. Of course, Thomas stuck to his rubric: blacks were not disadvantaged. I also learned that Neil Gorsuch’s mother, Anne, served as head of the EPA and didn’t do that agency any good. We can thank Weyrich for perverting the idea of separation of church and state.

This book is an excellent history of how the right wing conservatives in conjunction with the Reagan administration changed the Supreme Court to reflect their values that have had far reaching consequences we see today. What is important about this book is that it clears up what happened to the Supreme Court while many of us slept. While most citizens are busy with their everyday world, they can’t know the ins/outs of political circles, the secret meetings, and the subterfuge that goes behind the scenes. So fifty years later they find themselves betrayed, obfuscated and angry - why do these rich people get to tell us what to do? While this book doesn’t espouse to answer that question, this book does expose dirty secrets and confirms why I’ve believed for so long that Reagan started the path to destruction of our democracy.

For much of what I wrote in the paragraph above are some of the reasons I gave this book five stars. It’s also well researched and written - it’s easy to read too (other reasons for five stars). But mostly I’m grateful that a book like this has been written at all. We should have information that explains our history accurately and truthfully. My thanks to Alex Wagner. Highly recommend.

My thanks also to NetGalley and Flatiron Books for allowing me access to this ARC.

[Richard Jaffe · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thank you NetGalley and Flatiron Books for this advance ARC in return for an honest review.

In The Steal, former MSNBC news Anchor, Alex Wagner, attempts to explain the genesis of the Republican's fascination with the conservative take over of the American Judicial System. Coming at this phenomena from a different angle than say Lisa Grave's Without Precedent or Amy Littlefield's Killers of Roe, Wagner focuses on the genesis of the Federalist Society at Yale Law School and its influence on the Reagan White House, including Ed Meese and Paul Weyrich, along with funding from Joe Coors of Coors beer fame. The last "culprit" was firebrand Law Professor, Robert Bork, who influenced many of the conservative law students, in the otherwise Liberal halls of Yale Law School.

Before Reagan was elected to the White House, Steven Calabresi, David McIntosh, and Lee Liberman founded the Federalist Society at Yale Law School, which eventually spread nationwide with the "New Right" conservative wave in the late 70's and 1980 leading up to his landslide Presidential victory. Taking this victory as a mandate, the "New Right" within the Administration hatched a plan to take over the third branch of government, the Judiciary, and fill it with conservative leaning Judges to essentially side step Congress, by making law and essentially turning back the clock.

Bork, and some of his accolades like Scalia, came up with the cockamamie theory of "Originalism" to reverse many of the Holdings of the Burger Court, with an eye on reversing Roe v. Wade and other so-called made up Rights not specifically delineated in the Constitution, like abortion, contraception, desegregation etc.

Biding their time while waiting for some of the Older Supreme Court Justices to retire, and after Reagan appointed Sandra Day O'Conner to the bench to appease women voters whom he was losing. Meese and those behind the Federalist Society were able to infiltrate the Justice Department and influence almost all of the other Federal Court appointments. During his 8 years in office Reagan appointed over half of the sitting Federal Judges.

Eventually with the retirement of Chief Justice Burger it came down to Scalia and Bork. Due to his Italian heritage, Scalia got the nod, and Bork would have to wait his turn again.

With the eventual retirement of Justice Powell, it was finally Bork's turn. Frankly it was somewhat painful to relive Wagner's retelling of the Bork Confirmation Hearings, which took place a couple years after I graduated from Law School. Eschewing any true preparation, the unkempt Bork pontificated when questioned by Senators Biden and Kennedy ( amongst others ) and truly dug his own grave with his backwards ideas and crazy Originalism theories. As Wagner points out, although the Democrats ( who controlled the Senate and the Congress in 1987 ) won the battle and kept Bork off the Supreme Court, they seem to have lost the war, as every Conservative Judge appointed by a Republican President since then refuses to answer most questions, and give away nothing. One could even say that Thomas, Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett, lied and/or misrepresented their views during their Confirmation Hearings.

The "Four Right-Wing Hardliners and One Republican President" basically played the long game and as evidenced by Robert's restraint when the Court was evenly balanced, eventually gave the "New Right" conservatives the last laugh as this current super majority, all long standing Federalist Society members, have been slowly whittling away at the Freedoms granted US Citizens by the Burger Court, and even Opinions authored by Justice Kennedy and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

"Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it" Given Wagner's recitation of the "New Right" plot to overtake the Judiciary and install hard line conservatives on the bench it is imperative that Liberals or Democrats take back both Houses, especially the Senate, in November, to prevent any more Federalist Society members from becoming confirmed Supreme Court Justices, or any Federal Judge for that matter. Its also imperative that a strategy for Supreme Court Reform be implemented sooner than later, as this Country can't survive another generation of "Originalism" Bullshit as an excuse to erode any further personal freedoms.

This book is well researched, well written and thought provoking, and very timely with the mid-terms on the horizon.

#TheSteal #NetGalley

[Hope Stewart · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Steal by Alex Wagner is a fascinating and deeply researched book that kept me turning the pages. It reminded me of the way Rachel Maddow weaves together seemingly separate stories into a compelling, larger narrative. Wagner has a gift for connecting politics, business, and history in a way that's engaging without feeling overwhelming.

One of the things I appreciated most was how much I learned about the role major corporations and wealthy individuals played behind the scenes during the 1970s and 1980s. There were so many historical connections and influential figures I hadn't known about before, and the book gave me a new perspective on how those relationships continue to shape American politics and society today.

If you enjoy smart, investigative storytelling that uncovers the hidden forces behind major events, The Steal is well worth reading. I highly recommend it.

[Susan · Rating 3.75 out of 5]

I wasn’t going to read The Steal originally because I listened to the podcast, The Lever called Master Plan. I thought it was pretty much a copy. I was totally wrong. The book is about the attempt to take over the moderate Republican Party during the Reagan administration. What most people didn’t realize even after administration. Outside political groups outside the White House moving further to the right. Which continues to this day. I still recall for years a candidate named, Buchanan. I saw as an example an extreme nut. What no one realized just because he disappeared. The issue was gone. Not! They were working behind the scenes for over forty years. Everything that we are seeing in 2026 was happening during the Reagan administration. If you think he’s original he wasn’t. Just copy. Why did they decide to leave the White House after his defeat. I don’t understand the difference. Perhaps too radical then. But now it is possible. The writing isn’t great but the content is worth reading to contrast Reagan vs. Trump.

[Thief of Pages (Ty) · Rating 4.25 out of 5]

A damn good breakdown of how the Reagan presidency reshaped the judiciary system. This led to the advancement of conservative ideologies in areas such as abortion, taxes, and the entire criminal justice system. One could argue all of this had monumental implications and completely altered the course America was headed. And that’s not even mentioning Reagan’s disastrous trickle-down economics or “Reaganomics” and how that changed America’s course for the worse. It’s books like this that really showcase how certain decisions can have such profound consequences. Sobering and depressing but a book I highly recommend nonetheless.

[Caesar Murillo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Alex Wagner presents a well-researched and engaging look at the decades-long effort to reshape the American judiciary. The book reads more like a political thriller than a history text, making a complex subject accessible without sacrificing depth. Even readers who don't agree with every conclusion will likely appreciate the extensive reporting and clear storytelling. A thought-provoking read that offers important context for understanding today's legal and political landscape.

Thank you to Netgalley for an ARC of this book

[Mandi · Rating 5 out of 5]

Chronicles who created the building blocks for current-day conservatism. Highlights the actions, rulings, words and rhetorics that snowballed and ultimately led to the Republican takeover of the SCOTUS.

This is very informative & packed with so much political & judicial history of the US.

Thank you to NetGalley, Macmillan Audio and Alex Wagner for allowing me to access the ALC in exchange for an honest review.

[Sandy · Rating 4 out of 5]

An accounting of how Ed Meese, Joe Coors, Paul Weyrich and Robert Bork determinedly set out during the Reagan administration to make the Supreme Court into an ultra conservative court. It is depressing to see how money influences politics and how naive the Democratic party was to the machinations of the Republicans. Unfortunately, we are all now paying the price.
Come back to your Review on the pub date, Sep 15 2026, to post to retailers.

[Karen Wendle · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Roots of the Tree We're Living In

Wagner's book reveals important roots of the tree we are now living in. No matter which branch you're on, some of the nourishment came from the root system she thoroughly explained. Even though I knew about the John Birch Society and the politics of the Coors, and believed I was well aware of Reagan's latent racism, she showed me how the nutrients were developed and shaped the third branch.

[Lisa Davidson · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have a political science degree but I felt like I was schooled. I knew all these things were happening but didn't put them together. It's like that saying of how the frog doesn't realize until it's too late that the water is boiling because it built up.
The narration is clear but passionate. Thanks to NetGalley for letting me listen to this

[Georgette · Rating 5 out of 5]

As much as most of these bastards annoy me now that I am old enough (was a child when they were pulling their shit in the country) to know better, it is always good to go back and refresh my memories of the political landscape in the Reagan years.

[Valerie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Do you know how hard it is to have the word Bork occur so many times in a single chapter and not hysterically laugh the entire time? 

[Colleen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting. I knew the surface level history of the Heritage Foundation and how it gained a foothold in US politics. This in-depth look at how they grabbed so much power was fascinating.

[Kit Garton · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was very informative and gave me a perspective on the Reagan years I didn't know. It also had way too many metaphors. So many. And occasionally questionable. But I did learn a lot.

[Aimee · Rating 5 out of 5]

The steal was so well researched and kept me intrigued throughout the whole thing. It really opens your eyes to how we got to where we are today and what the right- wing did to influence the courts. It really opens your eyes to how deep partisan politics runs. I recommend everyone read!

[Kaitlin Barnes · Rating 3.5 out of 5]

3.5