What do you think?
Rate this book
Supreme Power: 7 Pivotal Supreme Court Decisions That Had a Major Impact on America
Bestselling author Ted Stewart explains how the Supreme Court and its nine appointed members now stand at a crucial point in their power to hand down momentous and far-ranging decisions. Today's Court affects every major area of American life, from health care to civil rights, from abortion to marriage. This fascinating book reveals the complex history of the Court as told through seven pivotal decisions. These cases originally seemed narrow in scope, but they vastly expanded the interpretation of law. Such is the power of judicial review to make sweeping, often unforeseen, changes in American society by revising the meaning of our Constitution. Each chapter presents an easy-to-read brief on the case and explains what the decisions mean and how the Court ruling, often a 5-4 split, had long-term impact. For example, in Lochner v. New York , a widely accepted turn-of-the-twentieth--century New York State law limited excessive overtime for bakery workers. That law was overturned by the Court based on the due process clause of the Constitution. The very same precedents, Stewart points out, were used by the Court seventy years later and expanded to a new right to privacy in Roe v. Wade , making abortion legal in the nation. Filled with insight, commentary, and compelling stories of ordinary citizens coming to the judiciary for remedy for the problems of their day, Supreme Power illustrates the magnitude of the Court s power to interpret the Constitution and decide the law of the land.
256 pages, Hardcover
First published September 26, 2017
14 people are currently reading
430 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews
January 19, 2018
When reading this book, the reader needs to take into consideration that Federal District Court Judge Ted Stewart is looking at the cases from his own conservative philosophy. His end point also represents his personal conservative viewpoint. The author apparently is not pleased with what he sees in the performance of the Third Branch of government.
Stewart has chosen seven cases to make his point. Judge Stewart bemoans the ascendency of Federal power over State Rights. This is an old debate going back to the founding of this country. He begins with some attempts at neutral analysis. But quickly his viewpoints on gender and race equality, sexual orientation, individual rights and separation of church and state reveal his true views and discard any pretension of neutral viewpoints.
As I am always attempting to understand various people’s viewpoints. I found the book interesting. But, I would have preferred this discussion from an analytical neutral viewpoint. I would have preferred an academic discussion. It is apparent that Judge Stewart believes that the Supreme Court (Judicial section of government) has overstepped its role in the balance of power. I tend to disagree with and believe that it is the legislative branch that is failing to do its job. I do agree with Judge Stewart that the Federal Commerce Laws have overstepped the intended role of that department. The Federal Commerce Department has duplicated state laws. Judge Stewart pointed out that a person can be tried and convicted in both the Federal and State courts for the same crime nullifying the double jeopardy law. I was not aware of this and I believe it should be corrected.
I read this as an audiobook downloaded from Audible. The book is just over seven hours. Art Allen does a good job narrating the book. This is the first time I have listened to Allen narrate a book.
Stewart has chosen seven cases to make his point. Judge Stewart bemoans the ascendency of Federal power over State Rights. This is an old debate going back to the founding of this country. He begins with some attempts at neutral analysis. But quickly his viewpoints on gender and race equality, sexual orientation, individual rights and separation of church and state reveal his true views and discard any pretension of neutral viewpoints.
As I am always attempting to understand various people’s viewpoints. I found the book interesting. But, I would have preferred this discussion from an analytical neutral viewpoint. I would have preferred an academic discussion. It is apparent that Judge Stewart believes that the Supreme Court (Judicial section of government) has overstepped its role in the balance of power. I tend to disagree with and believe that it is the legislative branch that is failing to do its job. I do agree with Judge Stewart that the Federal Commerce Laws have overstepped the intended role of that department. The Federal Commerce Department has duplicated state laws. Judge Stewart pointed out that a person can be tried and convicted in both the Federal and State courts for the same crime nullifying the double jeopardy law. I was not aware of this and I believe it should be corrected.
I read this as an audiobook downloaded from Audible. The book is just over seven hours. Art Allen does a good job narrating the book. This is the first time I have listened to Allen narrate a book.
December 21, 2022
I found Supreme Power while browsing in Barnes and Noble, and picked it up because the title seemed to suggest an nonpartisan review of influential court cases. Given the ongoing saga of partisan behavior surrounding the Supreme Court and appointing justices to it - McConnell deliberately holding open a SCOTUS appointment despite no precedent to do so, Gorsuch taking what effectively amounts to a stolen seat, and the entire circus surrounding Kavanaugh's shady history - it seemed like a good time to learning about the court and its importance. In that, Supreme Power was severely disappointing.
The book has a foreword written by the author's brother, an introduction, seven chapters on individual cases, and a conclusion. Problems began in the foreword when Congressman Stewart claims there is no way to circumvent them [the Supreme Court] or appeal their decisions to a higher authority. Ummm...Yes there is. It's called the constitutional amendment process. Constitutional amendments aren't easy to get passed, but they have been passed. Not counting the Bill of Rights, seventeen amendments have been passed. In text, this is outright wrong and - from the fact that the main author of the book is a JUDGE - seems deliberately misleading. I can't understand how this missed the editing process, as the main author says on the not two pages later that SCOTUS rulings cannot be reversed except by an amendment to the Constitution or a subsequent Supreme Court decision.
Even with the actual judge writing, it doesn't get better. The entire introduction is dedicated to explaining originalism, a legal philosophy in which judges try to look at what the language meant to the people who wrote the document and to those who ratified the original Constitution or the amendments to it. Except...there's a slight problem with that legal philosophy. (1) It still requires a legal authority to interpret through the lens of their own ideas and prejudices what a founder might have meant, so it is by no means "purer" than other legal philosophies and (2) it seems to have escaped Judge Stewart's notice that we no longer live in 1791. We live in a world that the founders would not have dreamed of in their wildest imaginings, let alone laid out explicit laws for. Because of this, I found his initial argument against living constitutionalism - a legal philosophy where subscribers believe the Constitution must be interpreted to reflect present-day values and adapt to present-day challenges and needs - to be unconvincing. This was not a viewpoint that his writing or arguments changed over the course of the individual cases presented.
Maybury v. Madison (1803)
In this case, Judge Stewart basically argues that SCOTUS took a power that was not meant to be theirs when they weighed in to overrule the executive branch on whether or not Maybury should get his appointment. This threw me for a loop. Isn't the point of a check and balance system of government for each branch to have a check and balance on both of the others? What would be the point of a judiciary that couldn't tell the executive or legislative branches 'no, you can't do that'? His whole issue with this case came across as contrived, and I found it extremely unconvincing.
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
In this case, Judge Stewart tries to make the case that race relations in the reconstruction era south were simultaneously harmonious and awful until some outliers imported the north's segregation strategy and then Plessy allowed it to be codified into all sorts of other laws. Reading this chapter was an exercise in the bizarre. I recently finished reading Ibram X. Kendi's Stamped from the Beginning, a National Book Award winning book on the history of racism/racist ideas in the US, so I know that a great deal of the supposed "harmony" leftover from the days of 'integrated living during the pre-Civil War' are - at best - greatly exaggerated. Additionally, the fact that Stewart seems to talk out of both sides of his mouth is another red flag with regards to accuracy. On one page, he says the end of slavery brought an end to this high degree of interaction and intimacy. The races were now at a distance distance from one another. Much of the white population was on the verge of hysteria, fearing that their former slaves might seek revenge. Civil authority had vanished. The army was in control, yet bands of marauders were common. In the immediate months after the war ended, the legislatures of many southern states passed laws depriving the freedmen of their most basic civil rights. These laws were referred to, infamously, as "Black Codes". Yet, just a couple of pages later, when recounting a visitor's experience in the reconstruction south, he says many from both races were shocked to observe and then experience blacks and whites eating together, working together, attending the same clubs and societies, and going to church together. They rode the same railroad cars and stagecoaches and steamboats. The integrated housing patterns of pre-war days continued...A study in Virginia between the years of 1870 and 1900 found no demand on the part of the white population for supremacy, nor that blacks be disenfranchised...A number of visitors to the south between 1870 and 1900 were surprised to find an absence of segregation and the existence of a reasonable degree of racial harmony. So, Judge Stewart, which is it? And what degree of this apparent 'racial harmony' is more due to a community's fear of speaking out, rather than two groups actually getting along? As a PSA, I would like to remind all readers of this review that most KKK violence took place during their early years - specifically, the late 1800s - and even a century later, during the Civil Rights Movement, the collective memory of that violence was enough to be a received as a credible threat to communities and people that they targeted. Does Judge Stewart honestly think I'm not knowledgeable enough to bring in information from sources other than his book, and to question the way that he's presenting things? While I agree with him that Plessy was a severely unethical SCOTUS decision, the background information that he presents in the chapter is seriously flawed and misleading in its presentation of racism in the pre-Civil War and post-Civil War eras, as well as the effects that it would have had on legal rulings. It overemphasizes pockets of amiable race relations, while simultaneously sanitizing or omitting violence, intimidation, and the longstanding effects thereof. It makes the chapter confusing and suspect, especially since there's a single citation upholding his presentation of widespread amiableness in the south.
Lochner v. The State of New York (1905)
In this case, Judge Stewart more or less returns to the same issue that he had with Maybury. By overturning a law about contacts and working hours on the basis that individuals and their decisions have a right not to be arbitrarily messed with by the government, SCOTUS (1) took a power that was not meant to be theirs both from the legislature by overturning a law and from the people by claiming the right to legally define liberty and (2) 'invented' the right to privacy. It was a bit odd to read about a judge complaining that the courts do their job, for what good is a coequal branch of government that cannot act with equal power? Also, as much issue as he seems to have with the phrasing of 'right to privacy,' I don't understand why he has such a problem with rephrasing and codifying an implied tenet of the Bill of Rights. The entire Bill of Rights implies that I - as a citizen - have a right to not be arbitrarily messed with by the government, and he even admits as much in the chapter on Obergefell v. Hodges. The whole chapter comes across as whining that the legal precedent set down by Lochner was later used to decide Griswold v. Connecticut (on whether or not people could access birth control and information about it) and Roe v. Wade (on the constitutionality of abortion).
Wickard v. Filburn (1942)
In this case, Judge Stewart claims that SCOTUS is (again) overstepping it boundaries by giving the federal government more and more leeway to claim things as 'affecting interstate commerce,' thus increasing the amount of stuff under federal jurisdiction, horning on power traditionally reserved for the states, and upsetting the balance of power between branches of federal government. There were some things in this chapter that I need to think more about (such federal and state criminal justice system often having the same laws and what that means for 'no double jeopardy'), but most of it came across as deliberately obtuse fearmongering. The USDA wanted to regulate wheat prices during the Great Depression, fined a farmer when he deliberately grew more wheat than he was supposed to and drove regional prices down, and therefore the federal government could someday try to regulate how many cookies you bake! Seriously? I don't find this line of argument persuasive.
Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township (1947)
In this case, Judge Stewart makes it clear that he has no interest in US history outside of his christian dominionist fantasy of American's founding. The entire premise of this chapter is inaccurate. He tries to argue that the US was founded on christian values (it wasn't; it was founded on Enlightenment philosophy), that religion is necessary for an ethical society (Why don't we ask the Scandinavian countries, with some of the highest rates of nonreligiosity in the world, about their crime rates, which are significantly lower than in the comparatively very religious US? And, while we're at it, why don't we consult the Pope, the supposed vicar of Christ on Earth? Oh, wait, he's in the middle of another priests raped thousands of children over decades and covered it up scandal, so maybe now's not the best time), and that christianity/christian religious displays should be exempted from the first amendment's establishment clause and allowed to be the nation's de facto religion (no...just no). There's so much wrong with all of this that I'd use up my remaining 9,000 characters explaining it, so suffice it to say that he takes a flying leap off the diving board of reality in this chapter. It's mostly whining about how 'SCOTUS has taken god out of people's lives when people didn't want him removed,' completely disregarding the facts that (1) this is no way prevents individuals from practicing religion, it merely prevents government or government-sanctioned displays of religiosity and (2) both of the cases he really complains about - Engel v. Vitale (bible reading in public schools) and Abington School District v. Schempp (school prayer) - are wildly mischaracterized. They were not brought by 'evil secularizing forces,' they were brought by religious minorities (jewish and catholic) as protest that their kids were being forced to do things the protestant way. Even Christianity Today - an evangelical magazine - supported the SCOTUS decision at the time because the editors felt that 'pro forma' prayer was secularizing a religious practice. This whole chapter was an exercise in reading historical fiction, and trying to pick out the few mostly-accurate bits.
Missouri v. Jenkins (1990)
In this case, Judge Stewart claims that SCOTUS has (again) overstepped their bounds by taking what should be the legislative branch's powers. In the aftermath of Brown v. Board of Education, when 'separate but equal' was declared unconstitutional and a failure besides, school districts all over the US apparently took 'segregation is unconstitutional' to mean 'integration is optional.' When a series of cases - one of the first of which being called Brown II - suing over the lack of desegregation starting making their way through the courts, the courts tried to make it clear that integration was the goal. This is where the policies of, most famously, court-ordered busing to alleviate racism-driven white flight came from. This was a backdrop of Missouri v. Jenkins, where a judge used an ongoing legal case regarding school integration to keep close eye on the school district and force the district to follow the integration recommendations suggested by the Jenkins counsel. One of the ways in which this was done was ordering a tax decrease not to take effect in the school district so that tax revenue could continue to fund the education system and the creation of an entirely new tax on those who worked within the borders of KCSD [Kansas City School District], whether they be residents or nonresidents of the district. That new tax was a surcharge on the Missouri state income tax, raising that income tax from 6 percent to 7.5 percent for those who were employed within the district. The judge justified this tax on nonresidents by stating that many of those who had fled the district still worked within it, and that it was only fair that they be forced to pay for the segregation that their flight had created. Stewart spends this chapter arguing that this is the same taxation without representation that caused the American Revolution to being with, that it is an extreme overstep of the judiciary's power, and that this takes power from the legislative branch. From my view, I have very little sympathy for those who had to pay a little extra to support the school system that they abandoned out of bigotry, and very little sympathy for the legislatures that putzed around passing legislation/policy to desegregate their districts, then wept crocodile tears when the courts stepped in to fill the void. While I think this is something to be wary of, I also think it's something that can be avoided if the legislature does their part of the job.
Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)
In this case, Judge Stewart clutches his pearls and his rose colored goggles. This chapter was half whitewashed reminisce of the 1950s, and half attack of recent-ish SCOTUS cases that have led to the decline of obscenity laws. In it, he waxes poetic about the Comstock Law of 1873, attacks the Griswold case (again), bemoans the overturning of Lawrence v. Texas (2003) (a Texas law that criminalized sodomy), presents inaccurate information about Roe v. Wade, and generally whines that the US should rewind about sixty to seventy years. I found it to be both unimpressive and unconvincing, especially the section on how 'religious liberty will be under attack' because 'American culture is hostile to people who hold traditional beliefs.' I have heard this over and over and over from literally everyone either on the right or who leans right, and I don't buy it. I'll believe that the supposed religious excuses for bigotry are actually about religion the day that fundamentalists and 'traditional believers' protest mixed fiber clothing (forbidden by Deuteronomy 22:11) or shellfish (forbidden by Deuteronomy 14:10) or tattoos (forbidden by Leviticus 19:28) with the same vigor that they use to try to deny the LGBT+ community the same civil rights as everyone else. Then - and only then - will I actually believe that it's about religion and religious beliefs. Also, I have extreme issues with how Stewart tries to present some court rulings as if they were islands, divorced from changing public opinions and SCOTUS forced them into our minds when we didn't really want or accept them. This is distinctly untrue. Despite Stewart claiming that Roe is controversial, about 7 in 10 Americans support the decision; it is a vocal minority - mainly made up religious conservatives and the conservative politicians who want to keep them showing up for every election - that keeps a manufactured 'debate' about abortion going. Also, at the time that Obergefell was decided, most Americans supported expanding the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. This was in no way, shape, or form, the judiciary foisting their opinions on an unwilling populace. These cases made it before the Supreme Court because they were issues important to the public, and the flexibility inherent in the Constitution allowed SCOTUS to reflect the mind of the public at large, allowing for more inclusive interpretations of what it means to be a citizen in a 21st century democracy.
Finally, in the book's conclusion, Judge Stewart complains that SCOTUS has the final say in matters of Constitutional interpretation (isn't that what SCOTUS is for?), that major policy disputes and political issues somehow become decisions for the judicial branch to make (that's because distressed and confused people keep bringing cases), that it has jettisoned effective checks on the power of the national government over the people of the United States (isn't that what constitutional amendments - the legislative branch's check on the judiciary - are for?), and that because the Constitution is a written instrument, its meaning does not change...It is not a living, evolving document (the fact that it's undergone no changes since the Bill of Rights - we'll pretend seventeen amendments don't exist, for the sake of argument - prove it!).
This is, at best, an unconvincing case for originalism on the bench, filled with deliberate omissions of relevant facts and presenting misleading information in what seems to be a deliberate attempt to misinform readers. (I used nearly an entire pen's worth of ink angrily annotating my copy of this book, pointing out in text where things were inaccurate and writing in important information had been left out.) I most certainly would not recommend it, though I do recommend two other books that I cross-referenced in my annotating: Ibram X. Kendi's Stamped from the Beginning and Robert Boston's Taking Liberties.
The book has a foreword written by the author's brother, an introduction, seven chapters on individual cases, and a conclusion. Problems began in the foreword when Congressman Stewart claims there is no way to circumvent them [the Supreme Court] or appeal their decisions to a higher authority. Ummm...Yes there is. It's called the constitutional amendment process. Constitutional amendments aren't easy to get passed, but they have been passed. Not counting the Bill of Rights, seventeen amendments have been passed. In text, this is outright wrong and - from the fact that the main author of the book is a JUDGE - seems deliberately misleading. I can't understand how this missed the editing process, as the main author says on the not two pages later that SCOTUS rulings cannot be reversed except by an amendment to the Constitution or a subsequent Supreme Court decision.
Even with the actual judge writing, it doesn't get better. The entire introduction is dedicated to explaining originalism, a legal philosophy in which judges try to look at what the language meant to the people who wrote the document and to those who ratified the original Constitution or the amendments to it. Except...there's a slight problem with that legal philosophy. (1) It still requires a legal authority to interpret through the lens of their own ideas and prejudices what a founder might have meant, so it is by no means "purer" than other legal philosophies and (2) it seems to have escaped Judge Stewart's notice that we no longer live in 1791. We live in a world that the founders would not have dreamed of in their wildest imaginings, let alone laid out explicit laws for. Because of this, I found his initial argument against living constitutionalism - a legal philosophy where subscribers believe the Constitution must be interpreted to reflect present-day values and adapt to present-day challenges and needs - to be unconvincing. This was not a viewpoint that his writing or arguments changed over the course of the individual cases presented.
Maybury v. Madison (1803)
In this case, Judge Stewart basically argues that SCOTUS took a power that was not meant to be theirs when they weighed in to overrule the executive branch on whether or not Maybury should get his appointment. This threw me for a loop. Isn't the point of a check and balance system of government for each branch to have a check and balance on both of the others? What would be the point of a judiciary that couldn't tell the executive or legislative branches 'no, you can't do that'? His whole issue with this case came across as contrived, and I found it extremely unconvincing.
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
In this case, Judge Stewart tries to make the case that race relations in the reconstruction era south were simultaneously harmonious and awful until some outliers imported the north's segregation strategy and then Plessy allowed it to be codified into all sorts of other laws. Reading this chapter was an exercise in the bizarre. I recently finished reading Ibram X. Kendi's Stamped from the Beginning, a National Book Award winning book on the history of racism/racist ideas in the US, so I know that a great deal of the supposed "harmony" leftover from the days of 'integrated living during the pre-Civil War' are - at best - greatly exaggerated. Additionally, the fact that Stewart seems to talk out of both sides of his mouth is another red flag with regards to accuracy. On one page, he says the end of slavery brought an end to this high degree of interaction and intimacy. The races were now at a distance distance from one another. Much of the white population was on the verge of hysteria, fearing that their former slaves might seek revenge. Civil authority had vanished. The army was in control, yet bands of marauders were common. In the immediate months after the war ended, the legislatures of many southern states passed laws depriving the freedmen of their most basic civil rights. These laws were referred to, infamously, as "Black Codes". Yet, just a couple of pages later, when recounting a visitor's experience in the reconstruction south, he says many from both races were shocked to observe and then experience blacks and whites eating together, working together, attending the same clubs and societies, and going to church together. They rode the same railroad cars and stagecoaches and steamboats. The integrated housing patterns of pre-war days continued...A study in Virginia between the years of 1870 and 1900 found no demand on the part of the white population for supremacy, nor that blacks be disenfranchised...A number of visitors to the south between 1870 and 1900 were surprised to find an absence of segregation and the existence of a reasonable degree of racial harmony. So, Judge Stewart, which is it? And what degree of this apparent 'racial harmony' is more due to a community's fear of speaking out, rather than two groups actually getting along? As a PSA, I would like to remind all readers of this review that most KKK violence took place during their early years - specifically, the late 1800s - and even a century later, during the Civil Rights Movement, the collective memory of that violence was enough to be a received as a credible threat to communities and people that they targeted. Does Judge Stewart honestly think I'm not knowledgeable enough to bring in information from sources other than his book, and to question the way that he's presenting things? While I agree with him that Plessy was a severely unethical SCOTUS decision, the background information that he presents in the chapter is seriously flawed and misleading in its presentation of racism in the pre-Civil War and post-Civil War eras, as well as the effects that it would have had on legal rulings. It overemphasizes pockets of amiable race relations, while simultaneously sanitizing or omitting violence, intimidation, and the longstanding effects thereof. It makes the chapter confusing and suspect, especially since there's a single citation upholding his presentation of widespread amiableness in the south.
Lochner v. The State of New York (1905)
In this case, Judge Stewart more or less returns to the same issue that he had with Maybury. By overturning a law about contacts and working hours on the basis that individuals and their decisions have a right not to be arbitrarily messed with by the government, SCOTUS (1) took a power that was not meant to be theirs both from the legislature by overturning a law and from the people by claiming the right to legally define liberty and (2) 'invented' the right to privacy. It was a bit odd to read about a judge complaining that the courts do their job, for what good is a coequal branch of government that cannot act with equal power? Also, as much issue as he seems to have with the phrasing of 'right to privacy,' I don't understand why he has such a problem with rephrasing and codifying an implied tenet of the Bill of Rights. The entire Bill of Rights implies that I - as a citizen - have a right to not be arbitrarily messed with by the government, and he even admits as much in the chapter on Obergefell v. Hodges. The whole chapter comes across as whining that the legal precedent set down by Lochner was later used to decide Griswold v. Connecticut (on whether or not people could access birth control and information about it) and Roe v. Wade (on the constitutionality of abortion).
Wickard v. Filburn (1942)
In this case, Judge Stewart claims that SCOTUS is (again) overstepping it boundaries by giving the federal government more and more leeway to claim things as 'affecting interstate commerce,' thus increasing the amount of stuff under federal jurisdiction, horning on power traditionally reserved for the states, and upsetting the balance of power between branches of federal government. There were some things in this chapter that I need to think more about (such federal and state criminal justice system often having the same laws and what that means for 'no double jeopardy'), but most of it came across as deliberately obtuse fearmongering. The USDA wanted to regulate wheat prices during the Great Depression, fined a farmer when he deliberately grew more wheat than he was supposed to and drove regional prices down, and therefore the federal government could someday try to regulate how many cookies you bake! Seriously? I don't find this line of argument persuasive.
Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township (1947)
In this case, Judge Stewart makes it clear that he has no interest in US history outside of his christian dominionist fantasy of American's founding. The entire premise of this chapter is inaccurate. He tries to argue that the US was founded on christian values (it wasn't; it was founded on Enlightenment philosophy), that religion is necessary for an ethical society (Why don't we ask the Scandinavian countries, with some of the highest rates of nonreligiosity in the world, about their crime rates, which are significantly lower than in the comparatively very religious US? And, while we're at it, why don't we consult the Pope, the supposed vicar of Christ on Earth? Oh, wait, he's in the middle of another priests raped thousands of children over decades and covered it up scandal, so maybe now's not the best time), and that christianity/christian religious displays should be exempted from the first amendment's establishment clause and allowed to be the nation's de facto religion (no...just no). There's so much wrong with all of this that I'd use up my remaining 9,000 characters explaining it, so suffice it to say that he takes a flying leap off the diving board of reality in this chapter. It's mostly whining about how 'SCOTUS has taken god out of people's lives when people didn't want him removed,' completely disregarding the facts that (1) this is no way prevents individuals from practicing religion, it merely prevents government or government-sanctioned displays of religiosity and (2) both of the cases he really complains about - Engel v. Vitale (bible reading in public schools) and Abington School District v. Schempp (school prayer) - are wildly mischaracterized. They were not brought by 'evil secularizing forces,' they were brought by religious minorities (jewish and catholic) as protest that their kids were being forced to do things the protestant way. Even Christianity Today - an evangelical magazine - supported the SCOTUS decision at the time because the editors felt that 'pro forma' prayer was secularizing a religious practice. This whole chapter was an exercise in reading historical fiction, and trying to pick out the few mostly-accurate bits.
Missouri v. Jenkins (1990)
In this case, Judge Stewart claims that SCOTUS has (again) overstepped their bounds by taking what should be the legislative branch's powers. In the aftermath of Brown v. Board of Education, when 'separate but equal' was declared unconstitutional and a failure besides, school districts all over the US apparently took 'segregation is unconstitutional' to mean 'integration is optional.' When a series of cases - one of the first of which being called Brown II - suing over the lack of desegregation starting making their way through the courts, the courts tried to make it clear that integration was the goal. This is where the policies of, most famously, court-ordered busing to alleviate racism-driven white flight came from. This was a backdrop of Missouri v. Jenkins, where a judge used an ongoing legal case regarding school integration to keep close eye on the school district and force the district to follow the integration recommendations suggested by the Jenkins counsel. One of the ways in which this was done was ordering a tax decrease not to take effect in the school district so that tax revenue could continue to fund the education system and the creation of an entirely new tax on those who worked within the borders of KCSD [Kansas City School District], whether they be residents or nonresidents of the district. That new tax was a surcharge on the Missouri state income tax, raising that income tax from 6 percent to 7.5 percent for those who were employed within the district. The judge justified this tax on nonresidents by stating that many of those who had fled the district still worked within it, and that it was only fair that they be forced to pay for the segregation that their flight had created. Stewart spends this chapter arguing that this is the same taxation without representation that caused the American Revolution to being with, that it is an extreme overstep of the judiciary's power, and that this takes power from the legislative branch. From my view, I have very little sympathy for those who had to pay a little extra to support the school system that they abandoned out of bigotry, and very little sympathy for the legislatures that putzed around passing legislation/policy to desegregate their districts, then wept crocodile tears when the courts stepped in to fill the void. While I think this is something to be wary of, I also think it's something that can be avoided if the legislature does their part of the job.
Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)
In this case, Judge Stewart clutches his pearls and his rose colored goggles. This chapter was half whitewashed reminisce of the 1950s, and half attack of recent-ish SCOTUS cases that have led to the decline of obscenity laws. In it, he waxes poetic about the Comstock Law of 1873, attacks the Griswold case (again), bemoans the overturning of Lawrence v. Texas (2003) (a Texas law that criminalized sodomy), presents inaccurate information about Roe v. Wade, and generally whines that the US should rewind about sixty to seventy years. I found it to be both unimpressive and unconvincing, especially the section on how 'religious liberty will be under attack' because 'American culture is hostile to people who hold traditional beliefs.' I have heard this over and over and over from literally everyone either on the right or who leans right, and I don't buy it. I'll believe that the supposed religious excuses for bigotry are actually about religion the day that fundamentalists and 'traditional believers' protest mixed fiber clothing (forbidden by Deuteronomy 22:11) or shellfish (forbidden by Deuteronomy 14:10) or tattoos (forbidden by Leviticus 19:28) with the same vigor that they use to try to deny the LGBT+ community the same civil rights as everyone else. Then - and only then - will I actually believe that it's about religion and religious beliefs. Also, I have extreme issues with how Stewart tries to present some court rulings as if they were islands, divorced from changing public opinions and SCOTUS forced them into our minds when we didn't really want or accept them. This is distinctly untrue. Despite Stewart claiming that Roe is controversial, about 7 in 10 Americans support the decision; it is a vocal minority - mainly made up religious conservatives and the conservative politicians who want to keep them showing up for every election - that keeps a manufactured 'debate' about abortion going. Also, at the time that Obergefell was decided, most Americans supported expanding the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. This was in no way, shape, or form, the judiciary foisting their opinions on an unwilling populace. These cases made it before the Supreme Court because they were issues important to the public, and the flexibility inherent in the Constitution allowed SCOTUS to reflect the mind of the public at large, allowing for more inclusive interpretations of what it means to be a citizen in a 21st century democracy.
Finally, in the book's conclusion, Judge Stewart complains that SCOTUS has the final say in matters of Constitutional interpretation (isn't that what SCOTUS is for?), that major policy disputes and political issues somehow become decisions for the judicial branch to make (that's because distressed and confused people keep bringing cases), that it has jettisoned effective checks on the power of the national government over the people of the United States (isn't that what constitutional amendments - the legislative branch's check on the judiciary - are for?), and that because the Constitution is a written instrument, its meaning does not change...It is not a living, evolving document (the fact that it's undergone no changes since the Bill of Rights - we'll pretend seventeen amendments don't exist, for the sake of argument - prove it!).
This is, at best, an unconvincing case for originalism on the bench, filled with deliberate omissions of relevant facts and presenting misleading information in what seems to be a deliberate attempt to misinform readers. (I used nearly an entire pen's worth of ink angrily annotating my copy of this book, pointing out in text where things were inaccurate and writing in important information had been left out.) I most certainly would not recommend it, though I do recommend two other books that I cross-referenced in my annotating: Ibram X. Kendi's Stamped from the Beginning and Robert Boston's Taking Liberties.
February 17, 2022
This was a valuable read. It provided a lot of history and analysis on 7 court cases that Justice Ted Stewart believes to be critical in the shaping of modern day America.
My criticism lies in the Justice's divergence from a historical analysis into an argument for his own "State's Rights" politics. This, of course, is an important debate, however I would have preferred that it remain absent in a book that claims to be taking a neutral analysis of what the Justice has deemed as pivotal cases. You can be "Right" or you can be forthright in your analysis, but you cannot be both and claim neutrality.
This is a good read for a political reader, of any political leaning, to have on their shelf as it allows critical thought of a curated perspective.
I am glad I read it, but wish it had been more upfront with its agenda.
My criticism lies in the Justice's divergence from a historical analysis into an argument for his own "State's Rights" politics. This, of course, is an important debate, however I would have preferred that it remain absent in a book that claims to be taking a neutral analysis of what the Justice has deemed as pivotal cases. You can be "Right" or you can be forthright in your analysis, but you cannot be both and claim neutrality.
This is a good read for a political reader, of any political leaning, to have on their shelf as it allows critical thought of a curated perspective.
I am glad I read it, but wish it had been more upfront with its agenda.
September 4, 2017
I'm declaring my bias outright because I believe it heavily impacts my review. I am a left wing feminist, pro-LGBTQ rights kind of person. I am pro social changes through the courts if the legislative and executive branches of government consistently refuse to act (or indeed, act in opposition to) when rights abuses are laid bare.
Stewart is a US judge and therefore has a very strong knowledge of the cases that have emerged from the US Supreme Court since its inception. The book is well written and the outlines of the cases are clear and accessible. However, some of his suggestions about case law and the wider cultural identity of the United States are hard to swallow- particularly his suggestion that, had the courts not allowed 50 years of segregation, perhaps US society would be 'colorblind'. I would contest that the history of enslaving black people in the first place is probably what prevented 'colorblindness'.
Stewart's book, though he considers contraception and the cases of Griswold and Roe, doesn't address the significant impact of these cases on women in particular. The women's equality movement is not even an afterthought here, which is disappointing.
The author consistently refers to 'traditional marriage' and discusses 'altering the definition of marriage' in his discussions of same-sex marriage cases. These terms are frequently used by anti-equality campaigners on this topic and are quite emotionally charged- a legal scholar should be able to refer to same sex marriage rights without capitulating to using terms that inspire fear. Marriage equality has not resulted in the end of the world and ultimately, marriage as a construct hasn't changed at all, so use of terms like this are mere capitulations to dramatics.
The conclusion discusses how the liberal groupings of society have now won many rights through the court system. Stewart suggests that these liberal groups, though they are on the winning side of the cultural revolution, still present the 'moral and traditional' elements of society as an oppressive majority. He is seemingly unable to recognise that the predominantly white, male, religious groups that have founded, built, progressed and defended the Constitution and its tenets did so for the benefit of predominantly white, male, religious groups. The rest of us, many of whom now (finally) sit on the 'winning liberal' sides of Supreme Court arguments, have had to fight for every scrap of equality. Stewart's inability to recognise his own incredible privilege is a real negative for me here.
Perhaps for someone with no legal knowledge, this might be a good place to start and learn more about the cases in question and their cultural history- without being taken in by the basic personal opinions which pervade the narrative.
Stewart is a US judge and therefore has a very strong knowledge of the cases that have emerged from the US Supreme Court since its inception. The book is well written and the outlines of the cases are clear and accessible. However, some of his suggestions about case law and the wider cultural identity of the United States are hard to swallow- particularly his suggestion that, had the courts not allowed 50 years of segregation, perhaps US society would be 'colorblind'. I would contest that the history of enslaving black people in the first place is probably what prevented 'colorblindness'.
Stewart's book, though he considers contraception and the cases of Griswold and Roe, doesn't address the significant impact of these cases on women in particular. The women's equality movement is not even an afterthought here, which is disappointing.
The author consistently refers to 'traditional marriage' and discusses 'altering the definition of marriage' in his discussions of same-sex marriage cases. These terms are frequently used by anti-equality campaigners on this topic and are quite emotionally charged- a legal scholar should be able to refer to same sex marriage rights without capitulating to using terms that inspire fear. Marriage equality has not resulted in the end of the world and ultimately, marriage as a construct hasn't changed at all, so use of terms like this are mere capitulations to dramatics.
The conclusion discusses how the liberal groupings of society have now won many rights through the court system. Stewart suggests that these liberal groups, though they are on the winning side of the cultural revolution, still present the 'moral and traditional' elements of society as an oppressive majority. He is seemingly unable to recognise that the predominantly white, male, religious groups that have founded, built, progressed and defended the Constitution and its tenets did so for the benefit of predominantly white, male, religious groups. The rest of us, many of whom now (finally) sit on the 'winning liberal' sides of Supreme Court arguments, have had to fight for every scrap of equality. Stewart's inability to recognise his own incredible privilege is a real negative for me here.
Perhaps for someone with no legal knowledge, this might be a good place to start and learn more about the cases in question and their cultural history- without being taken in by the basic personal opinions which pervade the narrative.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 6, 2019
#MustRead
A must read for any who care for the well-being and survival of our Constitutional Republic .... Ted Stewart clearly and concisely presents a historical review of the third branch of government, The Supreme Court.
“The greatest institution of the American experience is the Constitution of the United States and the government created under it. It is arguable that the people of the United States no longer comprehend the Constitution. It is also arguable that they no longer expect—or demand—that they be governed by it”
- Ted Stewart, a Senior United States District Judge
“The characteristic danger of great nations like the Romans and the English, which have a long history of continuous creation, is that they may at last fail from not comprehending the great institutions which they have created.”
- British journalist and essayist Walter Bagehot
NOTE: I took my time with this read. There is much to consider. The Introduction and Conclusion are worthy on their own. The Seven Chapters cover court cases that illustrate the ever increasing power of but five unelected and unaccountable judges independent of the voice of the people and the rule of law.
“The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped.”
- Thomas Jefferson
A must read for any who care for the well-being and survival of our Constitutional Republic .... Ted Stewart clearly and concisely presents a historical review of the third branch of government, The Supreme Court.
“The greatest institution of the American experience is the Constitution of the United States and the government created under it. It is arguable that the people of the United States no longer comprehend the Constitution. It is also arguable that they no longer expect—or demand—that they be governed by it”
- Ted Stewart, a Senior United States District Judge
“The characteristic danger of great nations like the Romans and the English, which have a long history of continuous creation, is that they may at last fail from not comprehending the great institutions which they have created.”
- British journalist and essayist Walter Bagehot
NOTE: I took my time with this read. There is much to consider. The Introduction and Conclusion are worthy on their own. The Seven Chapters cover court cases that illustrate the ever increasing power of but five unelected and unaccountable judges independent of the voice of the people and the rule of law.
“The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped.”
- Thomas Jefferson
October 25, 2017
This is not the type of book that I normally read, but it really sounded interesting to me and I'm so glad I took the time to read it!
I really enjoyed this book! I like the way the 7 cases are presented. The way they are written is just interesting, it made me want to learn more. I liked that the author talks about the case, the events leading up to the case, the way the Supreme Court ruled, what changed because of the way they ruled and even how they used that ruling later in other cases.
Just how much I liked this one actually surprised me! I thought the author did a fantastic job with how he presented everything in this one! Grab your own copy!
I really enjoyed this book! I like the way the 7 cases are presented. The way they are written is just interesting, it made me want to learn more. I liked that the author talks about the case, the events leading up to the case, the way the Supreme Court ruled, what changed because of the way they ruled and even how they used that ruling later in other cases.
Just how much I liked this one actually surprised me! I thought the author did a fantastic job with how he presented everything in this one! Grab your own copy!
September 30, 2019
The book seemed to me biased and opinionated, and simply a personal argument against the ‘soft tyranny’ of the Supreme Court. Not at all what was expected, some cases were glossed over or summarized very briefly, to make room for extensive, nonobjective introductions. The author appears out of touch and somewhat paranoid, obviously a devout originalist. I found useful information scarce and was highly disappointed.
March 10, 2025
Well written and understandable book about 7 Supreme Court cases that show how the court has changed over the years. Stewart asserts that the Supreme Court has evolved into the final decider on matters of law, and that the other branches of government have less power. He makes valid points, and most of his discussion of the cases is understandable and readable. Given what is happening now (2025), it seems like there is an over-balance toward the executive branch, which is also a problem! That’s why we have 3 branches!
February 24, 2026
Considering what the Founding Fathers created for our nation and what it has since become, this book explains how some of that change happened. It's a little terrifying. It's not the easiest read, but it presents important things to consider.
November 19, 2018
Little dry, but incredibly interesting.
November 15, 2017
The physical book itself is not very long, but Supreme Power: 7 Pivotal Supreme Court Decisions that Had a Major Impact on America packs a wallop. Historians, poli-sci students, and lay people alike will find Ted Stewart’s discussion of significant Supreme Court decisions gripping and educational.
1. This book is for you if you want to know how the Supreme Court began and why a Justice once said, “We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.” The intro hooks you in right away. Stewart discusses the Founding Fathers, their vision for the new country, and even some personal vendettas against one another. I guess if you want to learn about how the highest court in the land got to be that way, you have to start at the beginning. I find it really interesting that the number of Justices has fluctuated throughout history. Also, it’s incredible how many appeals there are every year, and how many are actually heard and decided by the Court.
2. The divide between prescriptive and descriptive linguists today neatly mirror the two philosophical types of Justices that Stewart describes – the Originalist and the Constitutionalist. I found this part particularly interesting because I could see how similarly different many tenets of the two political parties are. As I read through the chapters, I found myself seeing each case from the view of both philosophies, and it’s no wonder they had to go to the Supreme Court for final decisions.
3. The section on Plessy v. Ferguson, which discusses the onset of the term “Jim Crow” and how the idea of “separate but equal accommodations” led to problems we continue to see today, was a good read. Stewart recounts the Court’s ruling that the Louisiana Separate Car Act was not in violation of either the Thirteenth or Fourteenth Amendments. As far as class discussions go, this chapter would make a great springboard for talking about what constitutes “established usages, customs, and traditions” and whether a few years is enough time for a custom to become established.
4. Another chapter that I liked was “How a Law on Bakers’ Working Hours Led to Abortion Rights”. I enjoyed learning about Lochner and the belief that part of our birthright is the right to work as long or as hard as we want. I also like that Stewart poses the question on who defines “liberty” and what “due process” actually (or should actually) means. I would have liked more of a discussion on the proceedings and consequences of Roe v. Wade. Stewart discusses Lochner a lot, but he leaves the Court’s decision on Roe v. Wade to a few paragraphs. I think the pivotal impact of McCorvey’s case shouldn’t have been considered outside the scope of this book.
5. I didn’t take any poli-sci or history classes in university – at least not ones that explored the Supreme Court and its decisions – so I was happy to learn about the cases Stewart presents. This book would be great for anyone who wants to know a little bit about them and American political origins. It would also make a good addition to senior high-school and university courses. I don’t know if I would assign the entire book, but I’d definitely pick a couple of cases (and the intro) for students to get into. A caveat, however: Stewart uses jargon that the average person might have heard of but don’t understand. If I were to give excerpts of this book to non-poli-sci students, I’d have to include a glossary so that they don’t get lost in legalese.
6. Aside from a glossary that would have helped even me, I would have liked to find an index at the end so that I could find pages related to specific mentions of Justices or cases more easily. A very extensive bibliography is included though.
1. This book is for you if you want to know how the Supreme Court began and why a Justice once said, “We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.” The intro hooks you in right away. Stewart discusses the Founding Fathers, their vision for the new country, and even some personal vendettas against one another. I guess if you want to learn about how the highest court in the land got to be that way, you have to start at the beginning. I find it really interesting that the number of Justices has fluctuated throughout history. Also, it’s incredible how many appeals there are every year, and how many are actually heard and decided by the Court.
2. The divide between prescriptive and descriptive linguists today neatly mirror the two philosophical types of Justices that Stewart describes – the Originalist and the Constitutionalist. I found this part particularly interesting because I could see how similarly different many tenets of the two political parties are. As I read through the chapters, I found myself seeing each case from the view of both philosophies, and it’s no wonder they had to go to the Supreme Court for final decisions.
3. The section on Plessy v. Ferguson, which discusses the onset of the term “Jim Crow” and how the idea of “separate but equal accommodations” led to problems we continue to see today, was a good read. Stewart recounts the Court’s ruling that the Louisiana Separate Car Act was not in violation of either the Thirteenth or Fourteenth Amendments. As far as class discussions go, this chapter would make a great springboard for talking about what constitutes “established usages, customs, and traditions” and whether a few years is enough time for a custom to become established.
4. Another chapter that I liked was “How a Law on Bakers’ Working Hours Led to Abortion Rights”. I enjoyed learning about Lochner and the belief that part of our birthright is the right to work as long or as hard as we want. I also like that Stewart poses the question on who defines “liberty” and what “due process” actually (or should actually) means. I would have liked more of a discussion on the proceedings and consequences of Roe v. Wade. Stewart discusses Lochner a lot, but he leaves the Court’s decision on Roe v. Wade to a few paragraphs. I think the pivotal impact of McCorvey’s case shouldn’t have been considered outside the scope of this book.
5. I didn’t take any poli-sci or history classes in university – at least not ones that explored the Supreme Court and its decisions – so I was happy to learn about the cases Stewart presents. This book would be great for anyone who wants to know a little bit about them and American political origins. It would also make a good addition to senior high-school and university courses. I don’t know if I would assign the entire book, but I’d definitely pick a couple of cases (and the intro) for students to get into. A caveat, however: Stewart uses jargon that the average person might have heard of but don’t understand. If I were to give excerpts of this book to non-poli-sci students, I’d have to include a glossary so that they don’t get lost in legalese.
6. Aside from a glossary that would have helped even me, I would have liked to find an index at the end so that I could find pages related to specific mentions of Justices or cases more easily. A very extensive bibliography is included though.
September 5, 2017
Ted Stewart is a sitting U.S. District Court Judge and the latest literary production of his fine legal mind is ‘Supreme Power. 7 Pivotal Supreme Court Decisions That Had a Major Impact on America’.
Some of these cases are very well known. The best known must be Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) which played an integral role in the story of African American civil rights, providing legal sanction for racial segregation until it was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. The least well known, at least by name, may be the most recent, namely, Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) which legalized same-sex marriage throughout the United States. All seven have been expertly chosen to illustrate the way in which the judicial review exercised by the Supreme Court can radically effect changes to American society, sometimes in ways not foreseen at the time and sometimes only after a very considerable lapse of time.
A case in point is Lochner v. New York (1905). Lochner was fined under the terms of the 1895 New York Bakeshop Act which, amongst things, prescribed a maximum working day of ten hours in bakeries. Lochner’s appeal, which went all the way up to the Supreme Court, was based upon his claim that the hours agreed between employer and employee should be unlimited as long as their contract was freely entered into – a view with which the Supreme Court Justices concurred by a majority of 5 to 4.
Lochner v. New York was thus a milestone in civil rights for Labour in the United States, albeit a milestone in the wrong direction, returning workers to a position in which they could be exploited by unscrupulous employers. However, Stewart’s real interest in this judgment arises from the fact that in the course of making their ruling the Justices took it upon themselves to define what was meant by ‘liberty’, in order to assess whether the liberty interest of the Fourteenth Amendment had been violated, and the Supreme Court thereby accrued the power to veto any legislation it deemed to be an unreasonable infringement of liberty, which had enormous consequences in the 1960s when it led to a majority of the Supreme Court not only overturning the last vestiges of the Comstock laws at state level in Griswold v Connecticut (1965) but legalising abortion in Roe vs. Wade (1973).
This may all, in my account, seem terribly complex but Stewart writes with limpid clarity, establishing precisely how the law operated and what was at stake. Historians will value his book, as will anyone, not least the general reader, who wants to understand the mechanics of the judicial branch of the U.S. constitution.
Some of these cases are very well known. The best known must be Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) which played an integral role in the story of African American civil rights, providing legal sanction for racial segregation until it was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. The least well known, at least by name, may be the most recent, namely, Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) which legalized same-sex marriage throughout the United States. All seven have been expertly chosen to illustrate the way in which the judicial review exercised by the Supreme Court can radically effect changes to American society, sometimes in ways not foreseen at the time and sometimes only after a very considerable lapse of time.
A case in point is Lochner v. New York (1905). Lochner was fined under the terms of the 1895 New York Bakeshop Act which, amongst things, prescribed a maximum working day of ten hours in bakeries. Lochner’s appeal, which went all the way up to the Supreme Court, was based upon his claim that the hours agreed between employer and employee should be unlimited as long as their contract was freely entered into – a view with which the Supreme Court Justices concurred by a majority of 5 to 4.
Lochner v. New York was thus a milestone in civil rights for Labour in the United States, albeit a milestone in the wrong direction, returning workers to a position in which they could be exploited by unscrupulous employers. However, Stewart’s real interest in this judgment arises from the fact that in the course of making their ruling the Justices took it upon themselves to define what was meant by ‘liberty’, in order to assess whether the liberty interest of the Fourteenth Amendment had been violated, and the Supreme Court thereby accrued the power to veto any legislation it deemed to be an unreasonable infringement of liberty, which had enormous consequences in the 1960s when it led to a majority of the Supreme Court not only overturning the last vestiges of the Comstock laws at state level in Griswold v Connecticut (1965) but legalising abortion in Roe vs. Wade (1973).
This may all, in my account, seem terribly complex but Stewart writes with limpid clarity, establishing precisely how the law operated and what was at stake. Historians will value his book, as will anyone, not least the general reader, who wants to understand the mechanics of the judicial branch of the U.S. constitution.
June 18, 2018
A thoughtful and at times startling view of the somewhat all-encompassing power of the modern Supreme Court and how it achieved that position. The book is quite nakedly written from the author's -- Ted Stewart is a federal district court judge -- originalist judicial perspective, but he lays out his position well for most of the cases the book focuses on. As a layman who is not overly sympathetic to originalism, I found his positions thought-provoking and not unconvincing. Of particular interest to me were the cases of Lochner, where substantive due process was established, and Wickard v. Filburn, where the Commerce Clause was given the broad interpretation it enjoys today.
I will say I was quite unconvinced by his chapter on the recent landmark Obergefell case. In that chapter, Stewart lays out how he sees the Supreme Court as having shaped our culture by tearing down the previous codifications of good taste (my term). He is adamant that in the examples he gives -- the chapter was not limited to the discussion of same-sex marriage, and in fact, that accounted for a small section of it -- the Supreme Court was running ahead of culture and defining what it ought to be, as opposed to catching up with it. I don't know whether this is the case, but it seems plausible to me that laws against nudity in film were struck down because culture had become more permissive of such, in contrast with Stewart's contention that culture became more permissive because those laws were struck down. Though to be fair, I would wager the effect ran both ways. Regardless, Stewart does not entertain that possibility.
All in all, an easily digestible, informative and thought-provoking read. I would recommend it to anyone with an interest in government, not just its judicial branch.
I will say I was quite unconvinced by his chapter on the recent landmark Obergefell case. In that chapter, Stewart lays out how he sees the Supreme Court as having shaped our culture by tearing down the previous codifications of good taste (my term). He is adamant that in the examples he gives -- the chapter was not limited to the discussion of same-sex marriage, and in fact, that accounted for a small section of it -- the Supreme Court was running ahead of culture and defining what it ought to be, as opposed to catching up with it. I don't know whether this is the case, but it seems plausible to me that laws against nudity in film were struck down because culture had become more permissive of such, in contrast with Stewart's contention that culture became more permissive because those laws were struck down. Though to be fair, I would wager the effect ran both ways. Regardless, Stewart does not entertain that possibility.
All in all, an easily digestible, informative and thought-provoking read. I would recommend it to anyone with an interest in government, not just its judicial branch.
January 16, 2020
This book is enjoyable and educational on its merits as a judicial review primer and brief history of important Supreme Court cases. It covers interesting topics from the "commerce clause" of the Constitution (the source of much of the Supreme Court's power), the "establishment" and "free exercise" clauses of the First Amendment, and why they are often at odds with each other, and how phrases such as the "right to privacy" and "right to dignity" come from, since they are not found anywhere in the Constitution.
The book begins with a preface from Congressman Chris Stewart, the author's brother, which lays the foundation for what would appear to be a very biased book. It is clear from the outset that the author is not in favor of the power the Supreme Court holds, nor the social outcomes of their decisions over the last half century. In actuality, the majority of the book is pretty even-handed.
Until the last chapter.
I am by no means a constitutional scholar, but I had a hard time rationalizing the arguments in this book which seemed to contradict each other. For example: the Supreme Court upholds state laws allowing segregation = bad, they should have overturned them. But Supreme Court upholds state laws allowing same sex marriage = also bad, they should have overturned those. What I got from the final chapter of this book is that you can use whatever rationale you want (states rights, activist courts) to either cheer or complain about any issue the Supreme Court decides. Be prepared for an obvious conservative slant at the end of the book.
The book begins with a preface from Congressman Chris Stewart, the author's brother, which lays the foundation for what would appear to be a very biased book. It is clear from the outset that the author is not in favor of the power the Supreme Court holds, nor the social outcomes of their decisions over the last half century. In actuality, the majority of the book is pretty even-handed.
Until the last chapter.
I am by no means a constitutional scholar, but I had a hard time rationalizing the arguments in this book which seemed to contradict each other. For example: the Supreme Court upholds state laws allowing segregation = bad, they should have overturned them. But Supreme Court upholds state laws allowing same sex marriage = also bad, they should have overturned those. What I got from the final chapter of this book is that you can use whatever rationale you want (states rights, activist courts) to either cheer or complain about any issue the Supreme Court decides. Be prepared for an obvious conservative slant at the end of the book.
October 14, 2020
I feel like I learned so much from this book! Ted Stewart is a sitting (conservative) Federal Circuit Court Judge. He focuses here on 7 Supreme Court cases whose outcomes had massive influence on our country. I don’t know much about laws or government and I consider myself a bit of a political atheist in that I trust almost no one in politics and never know who to believe. But he helps explain the process and connects dots from these decisions to events throughout history in a very interesting way. I totally agree that so often an idea starts small (or a ruling seems narrow) but once it is “released” it seems to take on a life of its own that is manipulated, used, influenced and interpreted by people with varying beliefs, morals and intentions. Thus causing ripple effects for years to come! He cautions against the amount of power held by the Supreme Court considering they only need a majority to agree (5 people currently)and none of them are elected but all appointed. He is biased in his conservative opinions, but I believe we all are and sometimes the best we can do is be aware of this and allow ourselves to consider information from both sides. It is a complicated issue that I feel he covered pretty well. I found it particularly interesting to read as a new Supreme Court Justice has recently been nominated and it is an election year😬!
July 28, 2021
Lots of interesting history and analysis in here. I appreciate all the background context as well as the aftermath the author includes with each case study. He sounds biased on the whole "morality without religion is impossible" idea. I think that there are many many good people who are good because they choose to be, and not necessarily because they feel they have to be good.
It also raises the question of the relevance of the Constitution, 234 years later. How applicable is this document with 27 amendments and a massive amount of room for interpretation? It still remains a fantastic document which has helped our country become what it is today. Minorities and women have more rights, other sub groups are on the rise. We have massive disparity between the haves and the have-nots which isn't necessarily a class system anymore, but the impact remains. With politics, everyone has their own opinions and a "correct" or "best" option seldom exists. I don't have any solutions, but it's interesting to ponder.
It also raises the question of the relevance of the Constitution, 234 years later. How applicable is this document with 27 amendments and a massive amount of room for interpretation? It still remains a fantastic document which has helped our country become what it is today. Minorities and women have more rights, other sub groups are on the rise. We have massive disparity between the haves and the have-nots which isn't necessarily a class system anymore, but the impact remains. With politics, everyone has their own opinions and a "correct" or "best" option seldom exists. I don't have any solutions, but it's interesting to ponder.
November 21, 2017
This book started out so good. Well-researched, well-written, and super interesting topic. Halfway through you start to get hints of where it's going when there's an entire chapter about how society needs religion to be moral, and by the end it's a full-on manifesto about how God is Good and gays are evil and pornography should be banned and women's "unlimited access" to abortion needs to be stopped. (I guess Ted Stewart didn't research how limited access to abortion actually is.) He actually makes the argument that the entire nation that wants to retain traditional marriage is beholden to five activist Supreme Court judges- apparently again a lack of research, because current polls show 67% of Americans support same sex marriage. The "Conclusion" is a big slippery slope argument about how because we've allowed women's rights and LGBT rights we're pretty much doomed and bigamy and bestiality will become the norm. He tries to sound intellectual about it but the message is clear.
December 17, 2020
A very clearly written discourse about the seven Supreme Court decisions that transformed America from a constitutional based republic to a more democratic socialistic government controlled oligarchy. It is sad to see how the judiciary has stepped beyond its constitutional bounds to assume a more powerful role in the legislative and even the executive branches of government. This book raises the concern of how America is ruled, more and more, by the opinions of five out of nine judges who are held accountable to no one. Their role in these seven decisions have fallen into the realm of tyranny, the very reason why the revolutionary war was fought. The sad ending to this book is there is no end in sight in the effort to stamp out discrimination by using the very act of discrimination to make it happen. America is in need of a great awakening, but will not happen until we are so far down the road of socialism that the chains may be too strong to break.
April 12, 2019
I found this book very enjoyable, and was truly educational in many ways. I learned a great deal about the history of the Supreme Court, and other courts, that I hadn't known. Stewart tries to be nuetral in his delivery, and he doesn't present the information in a non-scholarly way - he does let it be known where he stands on his opinion of what the role of the court is. I thought for the most part he did keep the writings without taking sides. Most of the negative review have been based solely on the political views of the reviewer (and I'm sure plenty of the positive ones as well), but I found most of the complaints about the book to be a little overstated as to the flaws of the book. I would recommend it to anyone who has an interest in U.S. history, political history, constitutional history and judicial history.
August 4, 2017
I received an ARC of this book via NetGalley in exchange for my honest review.
On the surface, reading a book about Supreme Court cases seems daunting, and certainly something that most casual readers would not aspire to do. Books about the Supreme Court tend to be reserved for those with a special admiration for history and the law. However, Ted Stewart is able to present seven cases in a laid-back manner creating a primer on the Supreme Court which is easy to understand and cultivate knowledge from.
Stewart opens the book with a quick exploration of the formation of the Supreme Court, the intentions of the Founding Fathers, and what powers the Constitution actually gives to the federal and state governments. This brief history lesson allows the reader to prepare their mind without prejudice for the legal battles which will follow.
The seven cases presented range from well-known cases such as Marbury v. Madison or Plessy v. Ferguson, that have been covered ad nauseam (and rightfully so) throughout an individual's scholastic endeavors to little known, yet vital cases like Lochner v. The State of New York. Stewart is able to convey why the case came to be, what the pertinent facts were, how the Supreme Court approached the case, and the lasting impact of each ruling. Each case is fascinating in its own right, and how the precedent established from each one has shaped our country, altered the power of the federal government, and even at times usurped the Constitution is incredible. For example, going from overtime rights of bakers to abortion rights seventy years later is a fascinating legal journey which most readers never would have made without Stewart's guidance.
This book does not condone or condemn the rulings of the Supreme Court, but rather presents the facts and impact for the reader, and then allows the audience to determine if and when the Court has gone too far.
On the surface, reading a book about Supreme Court cases seems daunting, and certainly something that most casual readers would not aspire to do. Books about the Supreme Court tend to be reserved for those with a special admiration for history and the law. However, Ted Stewart is able to present seven cases in a laid-back manner creating a primer on the Supreme Court which is easy to understand and cultivate knowledge from.
Stewart opens the book with a quick exploration of the formation of the Supreme Court, the intentions of the Founding Fathers, and what powers the Constitution actually gives to the federal and state governments. This brief history lesson allows the reader to prepare their mind without prejudice for the legal battles which will follow.
The seven cases presented range from well-known cases such as Marbury v. Madison or Plessy v. Ferguson, that have been covered ad nauseam (and rightfully so) throughout an individual's scholastic endeavors to little known, yet vital cases like Lochner v. The State of New York. Stewart is able to convey why the case came to be, what the pertinent facts were, how the Supreme Court approached the case, and the lasting impact of each ruling. Each case is fascinating in its own right, and how the precedent established from each one has shaped our country, altered the power of the federal government, and even at times usurped the Constitution is incredible. For example, going from overtime rights of bakers to abortion rights seventy years later is a fascinating legal journey which most readers never would have made without Stewart's guidance.
This book does not condone or condemn the rulings of the Supreme Court, but rather presents the facts and impact for the reader, and then allows the audience to determine if and when the Court has gone too far.
September 18, 2020
Excellent book of the power of the supreme court of how it has affected changes in America.
It is frightening to think how much power is in the hands of just 5 judges to change the course of America. It needs to be looked at to see if there is a better way to appeal some decisions.
These court cases I have found to be fascinating. It is also the most powerful influence that a president of the United States has in his hands in nominating supreme court judges, whether liberal of conservative!
It is frightening to think how much power is in the hands of just 5 judges to change the course of America. It needs to be looked at to see if there is a better way to appeal some decisions.
These court cases I have found to be fascinating. It is also the most powerful influence that a president of the United States has in his hands in nominating supreme court judges, whether liberal of conservative!
October 23, 2017
Excellent book that everyone should read. Presents a factual view of the way the supreme court has taken control to shape the country, disregarding the constitution, and encourages the reader to decide if this is what we want. Left me pondering and wanting to discuss it with someone -- just the way a good book should.
November 15, 2017
The cases in here were thankfully not all well known. This is obviously a subjective list, and thus a subjective book, but I felt like the author's views came through in a very sneaky way with jokes about how "immoral" and "nontraditional" our society is compared to his youth. It seemed out of place and slightly petty.
November 22, 2020
A friend posted on FB that she had read this book and highly recommended it. The topic intrigued me so I checked the book out from the library. It is an excellent book! I learned so much, and it gave me much food for thought. I, too, recommend it.
November 8, 2017
Very interesting. Would read again.
December 30, 2017
Incredibly appreciate the process Stewart goes through with this. I'm a rookie with government and I appreciated his laymen explantations and his ability to rewind and find the root cause of issues.
February 12, 2018
An interesting read, though I do not completely agree with the author assessments and find his beliefs rather right-wing partisan.
August 5, 2019
Fascinating topic. The book is well documented and each Supreme Court case presented is interesting on its own. I didn’t always agree with the author’s conclusions, but it was an enjoyable read.
July 18, 2020
Very well researched and while I disagreed with his main assertion I still enjoyed learning about the Supreme Court.
August 13, 2020
The Supreme Court as you've never heard it
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews