What do you think?
Rate this book
The Supreme Court: An Essential History
For more than two centuries, the U.S. Supreme Court has provided a battleground for nearly every controversial issue in our nation's history. Now a veteran team of talented historians--including the editors of the acclaimed Landmark Law Cases and American Society series--have updated the most readable, astute single-volume history of this venerated institution with a new chapter on the Roberts Court.
The Supreme Court chronicles an institution that dramatically evolved from six men meeting in borrowed quarters to the most closely watched tribunal in the world. Underscoring the close connection between law and politics, the authors highlight essential issues, cases, and decisions within the context of the times in which the decisions were handed down. Deftly combining doctrine and judicial biography with case law, they demonstrate how the justices have shaped the law and how the law that the Court makes has shaped our nation, with an emphasis on how the Court responded--or failed to respond--to the plight of the underdog.
Each chapter covers the Court's years under a specific Chief Justice, focusing on cases that are the most reflective of the way the Court saw the law and the world and that had the most impact on the lives of ordinary Americans. Throughout the authors reveal how--in times of war, class strife, or moral revolution--the Court sometimes voiced the conscience of the nation and sometimes seemed to lose its moral compass. Their extensive quotes from the Court's opinions and dissents illuminate its inner workings, as well as the personalities and beliefs of the justices and the often-contentious relationships among them.
Fair-minded and sharply insightful, The Supreme Court portrays an institution defined by eloquent and pedestrian decisions and by justices ranging from brilliant and wise to slow-witted and expedient. An epic and essential story, it illuminates the Court's role in our lives and its place in our history in a manner as engaging for general readers as it is rigorous for scholars.
The Supreme Court chronicles an institution that dramatically evolved from six men meeting in borrowed quarters to the most closely watched tribunal in the world. Underscoring the close connection between law and politics, the authors highlight essential issues, cases, and decisions within the context of the times in which the decisions were handed down. Deftly combining doctrine and judicial biography with case law, they demonstrate how the justices have shaped the law and how the law that the Court makes has shaped our nation, with an emphasis on how the Court responded--or failed to respond--to the plight of the underdog.
Each chapter covers the Court's years under a specific Chief Justice, focusing on cases that are the most reflective of the way the Court saw the law and the world and that had the most impact on the lives of ordinary Americans. Throughout the authors reveal how--in times of war, class strife, or moral revolution--the Court sometimes voiced the conscience of the nation and sometimes seemed to lose its moral compass. Their extensive quotes from the Court's opinions and dissents illuminate its inner workings, as well as the personalities and beliefs of the justices and the often-contentious relationships among them.
Fair-minded and sharply insightful, The Supreme Court portrays an institution defined by eloquent and pedestrian decisions and by justices ranging from brilliant and wise to slow-witted and expedient. An epic and essential story, it illuminates the Court's role in our lives and its place in our history in a manner as engaging for general readers as it is rigorous for scholars.
512 pages, Paperback
First published September 6, 2007
5 people are currently reading
78 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 - 7 of 7 reviews
November 3, 2008
Whew! Finally finished this one.
This book took a while to read just because of the detail. There is sometimes a great deal of information to absorb in just two or three pages, so this is not a fast read.
The book is a great history of the Court, and it's divided by the Chief Justice that presided over each period. Every period has its own tenor and a pretty good bio of each Justice is presented as they come into the Court.
No major decision is left unanalyzed from the early establishment of the Court's jurisdiction in cases like Marbury v. Madison all the way to Roe v. Wade and Bush v. Gore. The book not only draws an excellent history of how each Justice applied his or her own jurisprudence (or politics) to the cases before the Court, it also gives the reader a concise timeline of American History and the changing tides of public opinion.
So, not an easy read but I absolutely loved it.
This book took a while to read just because of the detail. There is sometimes a great deal of information to absorb in just two or three pages, so this is not a fast read.
The book is a great history of the Court, and it's divided by the Chief Justice that presided over each period. Every period has its own tenor and a pretty good bio of each Justice is presented as they come into the Court.
No major decision is left unanalyzed from the early establishment of the Court's jurisdiction in cases like Marbury v. Madison all the way to Roe v. Wade and Bush v. Gore. The book not only draws an excellent history of how each Justice applied his or her own jurisprudence (or politics) to the cases before the Court, it also gives the reader a concise timeline of American History and the changing tides of public opinion.
So, not an easy read but I absolutely loved it.
Want to read
July 1, 2024Shelved for later reading.
January 7, 2010
Hoffer, Hoffer, and Hull—an estimable team of historians who collaborated on Abortion Rights Controversy in American History: A Legal Reader—now offer The Supreme Court: An Essential History. There are many fine books already available on this subject, ranging from Lucas Powe’s recent, idiosyncratic The Supreme Court and the American Elite to the comprehensive, Kermit Hall-edited Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States and Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions. The Supreme Court: An Essential History amounts to something more than Powe’s narrative history and something less than Hall’s desk references, with its shortcomings offset by a coherent interpretation of the subject rooted in the authors’ belief that “legal history lies at the intersection of intellectual, social, cultural, economic, and political events.” A work with a scope this broad cannot address all concerns, and yet in the course of reviewing it one must advert, however briefly and reluctantly, to the things it does not do.
Hoffer, Hoffer, and Hull have organized their book into three parts, which correspond with the authors’ periodization of Court history into three eras, and fifteen chapters, which cover all fifteen chief justiceships. The chapters all follow the same format: biographical information for each justice who served on that Court, a summary of that Court’s “personality” under its chief justice, and subheadings that examine significant issues that Court addressed. This method of organization ensures that no Court receives short shrift—one of the authors’ aims--but it also strikes me as formulaic and somewhat limiting.
In their chapter on the Rehnquist Court, this proves problematic because so many cases are referenced in less than forty pages. The authors do not have enough space to tell compelling personal stories—occasionally the names of individuals involved in the cases are mentioned—in the way that Peter Irons does in A People’s History of the Supreme Court. The authors also do not have enough space to analyze these recent cases with the sort of thoroughness found in Erwin Chemerinsky’s Constitutional Law hornbook. They do, however, have enough space to discuss the politicization of that Court while drawing a defensible but somewhat dubious comparison with the politicization of the Chase Court.
By contrast, their treatment of the Jay and Ellsworth Courts is quite compelling. Because those early Courts did far less than later ones, the authors’ discussion of their significant decisions on tax, pensions, and admiralty law lends itself to thorough and relatively neutral analysis. Even their chapters on the Waite and Fuller Courts—Courts that made controversial, wrongheaded decisions that can, thanks to 150 years of hindsight, be made the cynosures of any analysis of those Courts’ activities—are fairer and less judgmental than expected (although certain subheadings, such as “Uncivil Rites” in the Waite chapter, do betray a sense—perhaps unavoidable—of presentist condemnation).
As I read this book, its hybrid status—less than a reference, more than a narrative history—manifested itself in the form of slower progress on my part. I cannot imagine that many people will read it for hours at a time. Instead, I foresee it being pulled from shelves by individuals interested in lucid, accessible, and sufficiently detailed chapter summaries of the Court’s work under its various chief justices. In that sense, The Supreme Court: An Essential History will have a certain kind of staying power and a certain kind of utility, which should satisfy the intentions of its authors. There are too many references to decisions about race and individual rights and not enough about procedure and federalism for my taste, but I suppose the former stories are the ones that comprise the history of the Supreme Court that most excites the passions of laypeople. The book itself is not essential reading, but the story that dedicated readers will find contained within its pages assuredly is.
Hoffer, Hoffer, and Hull have organized their book into three parts, which correspond with the authors’ periodization of Court history into three eras, and fifteen chapters, which cover all fifteen chief justiceships. The chapters all follow the same format: biographical information for each justice who served on that Court, a summary of that Court’s “personality” under its chief justice, and subheadings that examine significant issues that Court addressed. This method of organization ensures that no Court receives short shrift—one of the authors’ aims--but it also strikes me as formulaic and somewhat limiting.
In their chapter on the Rehnquist Court, this proves problematic because so many cases are referenced in less than forty pages. The authors do not have enough space to tell compelling personal stories—occasionally the names of individuals involved in the cases are mentioned—in the way that Peter Irons does in A People’s History of the Supreme Court. The authors also do not have enough space to analyze these recent cases with the sort of thoroughness found in Erwin Chemerinsky’s Constitutional Law hornbook. They do, however, have enough space to discuss the politicization of that Court while drawing a defensible but somewhat dubious comparison with the politicization of the Chase Court.
By contrast, their treatment of the Jay and Ellsworth Courts is quite compelling. Because those early Courts did far less than later ones, the authors’ discussion of their significant decisions on tax, pensions, and admiralty law lends itself to thorough and relatively neutral analysis. Even their chapters on the Waite and Fuller Courts—Courts that made controversial, wrongheaded decisions that can, thanks to 150 years of hindsight, be made the cynosures of any analysis of those Courts’ activities—are fairer and less judgmental than expected (although certain subheadings, such as “Uncivil Rites” in the Waite chapter, do betray a sense—perhaps unavoidable—of presentist condemnation).
As I read this book, its hybrid status—less than a reference, more than a narrative history—manifested itself in the form of slower progress on my part. I cannot imagine that many people will read it for hours at a time. Instead, I foresee it being pulled from shelves by individuals interested in lucid, accessible, and sufficiently detailed chapter summaries of the Court’s work under its various chief justices. In that sense, The Supreme Court: An Essential History will have a certain kind of staying power and a certain kind of utility, which should satisfy the intentions of its authors. There are too many references to decisions about race and individual rights and not enough about procedure and federalism for my taste, but I suppose the former stories are the ones that comprise the history of the Supreme Court that most excites the passions of laypeople. The book itself is not essential reading, but the story that dedicated readers will find contained within its pages assuredly is.
June 30, 2009
It took me a while to get into the rhythm of this one, but I persevered, eventually taking this hardcover tome to the gym and my sickbed in order to finish it.
The authors admit that there are issues about a work with the ambitions of this one: a lot of historical context is lost, present-day context applied, and it's organized by chief justice, which means they sometimes reach for a trend that doesn't exist while other justices come and go.
No doubt many of these cases are deserving of their own books, but it was fascinating to be able to see things from a higher level. Some cases were decided in seemingly contradictory directions, or were deliberately reversed later on. The tide of public opinion swept the justices' attitudes along with it, or followed, or preceded. A history of the Supreme Court is really a history of the United States, often the making of it.
I actually developed favorite justices, based on their opinions and which cases they dissented against. And there are glimpses of humor here and there; I chuckled aloud at a couple of points.
I'm much more appreciative now of the school lessons I was given about the divisions of the government. I actually wouldn't have minded more detail, but I think the authors managed to touch upon an evenhanded tone and level of summary.
The authors admit that there are issues about a work with the ambitions of this one: a lot of historical context is lost, present-day context applied, and it's organized by chief justice, which means they sometimes reach for a trend that doesn't exist while other justices come and go.
No doubt many of these cases are deserving of their own books, but it was fascinating to be able to see things from a higher level. Some cases were decided in seemingly contradictory directions, or were deliberately reversed later on. The tide of public opinion swept the justices' attitudes along with it, or followed, or preceded. A history of the Supreme Court is really a history of the United States, often the making of it.
I actually developed favorite justices, based on their opinions and which cases they dissented against. And there are glimpses of humor here and there; I chuckled aloud at a couple of points.
I'm much more appreciative now of the school lessons I was given about the divisions of the government. I actually wouldn't have minded more detail, but I think the authors managed to touch upon an evenhanded tone and level of summary.
June 27, 2009
This book is either poorly written or the cases it discusses are incredibly dense- though I think it's the former. The authors also provide very little historical context to both the biographies of the justices and the cases themselves.
January 22, 2024
It's not an easy read yet well detailed.
From the inception of the court, all major changes and decisions are well articulated.
The influence and footprint each Chief Justice has had on the court is well documented.
It's definitely worth reading.
From the inception of the court, all major changes and decisions are well articulated.
The influence and footprint each Chief Justice has had on the court is well documented.
It's definitely worth reading.
July 12, 2008
A very good introductory survey of the history of the supreme court. Fair-minded, not distorted by polemics and highly readable.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews