What do you think?
Rate this book
The Judge: 26 Machiavellian Lessons
There is no book of political strategy more canonical than Niccolo Machiavelli's but few ethicists would advise policymakers to treat it as a bible. The lofty ideals of the law, especially, seem distant from the values that the word "Machiavellian" connotes, and judges are supposed to work above the realm of politics. In The Judge, however, Ronald Collins and David Skover argue that Machiavelli can indeed speak to judges, and model their book after The Prince. As it turns out, the number of people who think that judges in the U.S. are apolitical has been shrinking for decades. Both liberals and conservatives routinely criticize their ideological opponents on the bench for acting politically. Some authorities even posit the impossibility of apolitical judges, and indeed, in many states, judicial elections are partisan. Others advocate appointing judges who are committed to being dispassionate referees adhering to the letter of the law. However, most legal experts, regardless of their leanings, seem to agree that despite widespread popular support for the ideal of the apolitical judge, this ideal is mere fantasy.
This debate about judges and politics has been a perennial in American history, but it intensified in the 1980s, when the Reagan administration sought to place originalists in the Supreme Court. It has not let up since. Ronald Collins and David Skover argue that the debate has become both stale and circular, and instead tackle the issue in a boldly imaginative way. In The Judge, they ask us to assume that judges are political, and that they need advice on how to be effective political actors. Their twenty-six chapters track the structure of The Prince, and each provides pointers to judges on how to cleverly and subtly advance their political goals. In this Machiavellian vision, law is inseparable from realpolitik. However, the authors' point isn't to advocate for this coldly realistic vision of judging. Their ultimate goal is identify both legal realists and originalists as what they are: explicitly political (though on opposite ends of the ideological spectrum). Taking its cues from Machiavelli, The Judge describes what judges actually do, not what they ought to do.
This debate about judges and politics has been a perennial in American history, but it intensified in the 1980s, when the Reagan administration sought to place originalists in the Supreme Court. It has not let up since. Ronald Collins and David Skover argue that the debate has become both stale and circular, and instead tackle the issue in a boldly imaginative way. In The Judge, they ask us to assume that judges are political, and that they need advice on how to be effective political actors. Their twenty-six chapters track the structure of The Prince, and each provides pointers to judges on how to cleverly and subtly advance their political goals. In this Machiavellian vision, law is inseparable from realpolitik. However, the authors' point isn't to advocate for this coldly realistic vision of judging. Their ultimate goal is identify both legal realists and originalists as what they are: explicitly political (though on opposite ends of the ideological spectrum). Taking its cues from Machiavelli, The Judge describes what judges actually do, not what they ought to do.
- GenresLaw
296 pages, Hardcover
Published October 3, 2017
5 people are currently reading
44 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 - 3 of 3 reviews
Want to read
December 2, 2017Can't review what I haven't yet read, but this seems like the best place to mention this Q&A with the authors about the book, which people might find useful until the book has reviews here. HTML tags don't seem to work in reviews any more, so here's the bare URL: http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/11/ask...
December 17, 2019
Posits to be a great judge one must be a hypocrite. Then gives 26 meaty pieces of advice to supreme court justices. I am not besotted of the hypothesis or the framing device but there were many charming stories hanging from the structure.
Starts with a bang: "Judge Bork was a fool." (1) Says that Judge Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court was properly rejected by the Senate not because of his fondness for economic substantive due process, his systematic re-writing of our antitrust legal regime or his involvement in the Saturday Night Massacre but because he wasn't a hypocrite. That he didn't put on a humble face for the senate. Not sure I'm loving that hypothesis.
Asserts that "Oliver Wendall Holmes owed his justiceship to a crazed anarchist." (28). In the same way someone might owe their existence to their parents' high school seating chart.
It's full of provocative assertions like that. Many of which made me snort, a few of which made me cringe. Woven through those regular fiery assertions is a really interesting book about the conversation our society has had about what it will be, reflect through court opinions.
Starts with a bang: "Judge Bork was a fool." (1) Says that Judge Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court was properly rejected by the Senate not because of his fondness for economic substantive due process, his systematic re-writing of our antitrust legal regime or his involvement in the Saturday Night Massacre but because he wasn't a hypocrite. That he didn't put on a humble face for the senate. Not sure I'm loving that hypothesis.
Asserts that "Oliver Wendall Holmes owed his justiceship to a crazed anarchist." (28). In the same way someone might owe their existence to their parents' high school seating chart.
It's full of provocative assertions like that. Many of which made me snort, a few of which made me cringe. Woven through those regular fiery assertions is a really interesting book about the conversation our society has had about what it will be, reflect through court opinions.
December 9, 2017
This certainly would be a highly enjoyable and intriguing read for anyone who went to law school/is an attorney, but without the experience of dedicated study of law I’m not sure how well it would read. It makes references—expecting comprehension—to decisions that are often commonplace knowledge in the field, but might be lost on people who were not, for instance, forced to articulate the legacy of /Lochner/. However, If you’re a non-JD who braved the likes of Finnegans Wake, I have full confidence that you’ll enjoy the read.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews