What do you think?
Rate this book
One Vote Away: How a Single Supreme Court Seat Can Change History
** WALL STREET JOURNAL BESTSELLER ** USA TODAY BESTSELLER ** PUBLISHER'S WEEKLY BESTSELLER ** NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER ** With a simple majority on the Supreme Court, the left would have the power to curtail or even abolish the freedoms that have made America a beacon to the world. We are one vote away from losing our most precious constitutional rights. As a Supreme Court clerk, solicitor general of Texas, and private litigator, Ted Cruz played a key role in some of the most important legal cases of the past two decades. In One Vote Away, you will discover how often the high court decisions that affect your life have been decided by the narrowest of margins. One vote preserves your right to speak freely, to bear arms, and to exercise your faith. One vote will determine whether your children enjoy their full inheritance as American citizens. God may endow us with "certain unalienable rights," but whether we enjoy them depends on nine judges—the "high priests" who have the last say in our system of government. Drawing back the curtain of their temple, Senator Cruz reveals the struggles, arguments, and strife that have shaped the fate of those rights. No one who reads One Vote Away can ever again take a single seat on the Supreme Court for granted.
271 pages, Kindle Edition
First published September 29, 2020
1395 people are currently reading
1580 people want to read
About the author
Ted Cruz
14 books127 followersThroughout his life, Ted Cruz has proven to be a passionate and effective fighter for limited government, economic growth, and the Constitution.
Ted’s calling to public service has been inspired by his firsthand observation of the pursuit of freedom and opportunity in America. Ted’s mother, Eleanor, was born in Delaware to an Irish and Italian working-class family. She became the first in her family to go to college, graduated from Rice University with a degree in mathematics, and became a pioneering computer programmer in the 1950s.
After being tortured and imprisoned in Cuba, Ted’s father, Rafael, fled to the United States to attend the University of Texas at Austin in 1957. He then started a small business in the oil and gas industry. Today, Ted’s father is a pastor in Dallas.
Growing up, his father would often say to him:
“When we faced oppression in Cuba, I had a place to flee to. If we lose our freedom here, where do we go?”
Ted has been a tireless fighter for liberty because his family knows what it is like to lose it.
As Solicitor General for the State of Texas and in private practice, Ted authored more than 80 U.S. Supreme Court briefs and argued 43 oral arguments, including nine before the U.S. Supreme Court. He also won an unprecedented series of landmark national victories that include his defense of U.S. sovereignty against the UN and the World Court in Medellin v. Texas, our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, the constitutionality of the Ten Commandments monument at the Texas State Capitol, and the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.
In the U.S. Senate, Ted has led the fight to repeal Obamacare, to secure the border, and to confirm Justice Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. He has also led the fight to defend life, marriage, the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, and our entire Bill of Rights. And most importantly, he’s kept his promise to speak the truth and do what he said he’d do.
Ted has proven to be the exact type of courageous conservative we need in the U.S. Senate to restore economic growth, defend our Constitution, and protect the values we all hold dear.
Ted, his wife Heidi, their two daughters Caroline and Catherine, and his entire family have been blessed to live the American Dream — the idea that anyone, through hard work and determination, can achieve anything. And he is committed to ensuring every family has that same opportunity.
Ted’s calling to public service has been inspired by his firsthand observation of the pursuit of freedom and opportunity in America. Ted’s mother, Eleanor, was born in Delaware to an Irish and Italian working-class family. She became the first in her family to go to college, graduated from Rice University with a degree in mathematics, and became a pioneering computer programmer in the 1950s.
After being tortured and imprisoned in Cuba, Ted’s father, Rafael, fled to the United States to attend the University of Texas at Austin in 1957. He then started a small business in the oil and gas industry. Today, Ted’s father is a pastor in Dallas.
Growing up, his father would often say to him:
“When we faced oppression in Cuba, I had a place to flee to. If we lose our freedom here, where do we go?”
Ted has been a tireless fighter for liberty because his family knows what it is like to lose it.
As Solicitor General for the State of Texas and in private practice, Ted authored more than 80 U.S. Supreme Court briefs and argued 43 oral arguments, including nine before the U.S. Supreme Court. He also won an unprecedented series of landmark national victories that include his defense of U.S. sovereignty against the UN and the World Court in Medellin v. Texas, our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, the constitutionality of the Ten Commandments monument at the Texas State Capitol, and the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.
In the U.S. Senate, Ted has led the fight to repeal Obamacare, to secure the border, and to confirm Justice Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. He has also led the fight to defend life, marriage, the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, and our entire Bill of Rights. And most importantly, he’s kept his promise to speak the truth and do what he said he’d do.
Ted has proven to be the exact type of courageous conservative we need in the U.S. Senate to restore economic growth, defend our Constitution, and protect the values we all hold dear.
Ted, his wife Heidi, their two daughters Caroline and Catherine, and his entire family have been blessed to live the American Dream — the idea that anyone, through hard work and determination, can achieve anything. And he is committed to ensuring every family has that same opportunity.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 164 reviews
November 19, 2020
Senator Ted Cruz, himself a brilliant constitutional scholar who has argued nine cases before the High Court and briefed eighty, presents an explanation of why each Supreme Court nomination is so important and why. He illustrates this by discussing in each chapter close Supreme Court decisions that he was involved with.
He begins with Van Orden v. Perry, a religious liberty case, and then discusses Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, a school choice case. Then, he discusses Medellin v. Texas, a sovereignty case where the World Court tried to intrude into a brutal death penalty case. Gonzales v. Carhart is the next chapter and addresses partial-birth abortion. From there, Senator Cruz discusses Citizens United v. F.E.C., a First Amendment Case. He follows that with Kennedy v. Louisiana, a case limiting the reach of capital punishment even for child rape. He then discusses Bush v. Gore, an election case.
Each of these discussions is well-written and written in such a manner as to appeal to the casual reader as much as an attorney. In addition to the legal background of each issue, Senator Cruz offers personal anecdotes about case strategy and preparation and the political background in which these cases arose. Finally, he offers a chapter about the nomination process.
Personally, I found the book impossible to put down, informative, and superbly written.
He begins with Van Orden v. Perry, a religious liberty case, and then discusses Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, a school choice case. Then, he discusses Medellin v. Texas, a sovereignty case where the World Court tried to intrude into a brutal death penalty case. Gonzales v. Carhart is the next chapter and addresses partial-birth abortion. From there, Senator Cruz discusses Citizens United v. F.E.C., a First Amendment Case. He follows that with Kennedy v. Louisiana, a case limiting the reach of capital punishment even for child rape. He then discusses Bush v. Gore, an election case.
Each of these discussions is well-written and written in such a manner as to appeal to the casual reader as much as an attorney. In addition to the legal background of each issue, Senator Cruz offers personal anecdotes about case strategy and preparation and the political background in which these cases arose. Finally, he offers a chapter about the nomination process.
Personally, I found the book impossible to put down, informative, and superbly written.
October 7, 2020
A friend gave me an advanced copy to read so to be fair I waited till the release...
There are a million things to dislike about Ted so let me count the ways (before my review)
His nonstop grandstanding on the floor of the Senate using the filibuster while reading Green Eggs and Ham only to have him complain about people using a filibuster not much long after.
His never ending pandering to a specific religious minority in the country who despite screaming “religious liberty” want to force their views upon everyone else.
The insistence that there can’t be a Supreme Court nominee during an election year only to have him now advocate for ramming a pick he likes through the Senate with less than 30 days till Election Day.
Pulling “facts” out of thin air to bolster his arguments for almost anything. Specifically side stepping a direct question regarding a shooting at Planned Parenthood or that a SCOTUS has never been appointed in an election year only to be told on live television it happened during the Regan years. He said nothing...
Ted also has a “love” for the US Constitution and especially free speech. He loved that so much that he co-sponsored a proposal in the Senate to make it illegal to boycott or encourage protesting against Israel.
Alas we aren’t here to reminisce about the never ending list of hypocrisy that drips from his mouth. His new book claims to advocate for the importance of more conservative justice on the Supreme Court. One of those reasons is to “protect free speech” which ironically is something he wanted to have people charged with a FEDERAL crime for (see above). He displays some incredible math skills (not) when he declares that a 4 person minority is a radical left majority on the court. (Correct me if I’m wrong but if there are 9 justices and 5 vote this way and 4 vote that way, isn’t 4 less than 5?) Seriously, I could go on and on but you get the picture.
In closing I can sum up Ted with the following: a man insulted his wife and father to the point that Ted said “Donald, real men don’t attack women.” He later added “you mess with my wife and my kids...” closing out with “Donald you are a sniveling coward.” Ted now kisses the ring of the man who “ticked him off” and that to me, makes him a sad human being.
P.S. the book stinks
There are a million things to dislike about Ted so let me count the ways (before my review)
His nonstop grandstanding on the floor of the Senate using the filibuster while reading Green Eggs and Ham only to have him complain about people using a filibuster not much long after.
His never ending pandering to a specific religious minority in the country who despite screaming “religious liberty” want to force their views upon everyone else.
The insistence that there can’t be a Supreme Court nominee during an election year only to have him now advocate for ramming a pick he likes through the Senate with less than 30 days till Election Day.
Pulling “facts” out of thin air to bolster his arguments for almost anything. Specifically side stepping a direct question regarding a shooting at Planned Parenthood or that a SCOTUS has never been appointed in an election year only to be told on live television it happened during the Regan years. He said nothing...
Ted also has a “love” for the US Constitution and especially free speech. He loved that so much that he co-sponsored a proposal in the Senate to make it illegal to boycott or encourage protesting against Israel.
Alas we aren’t here to reminisce about the never ending list of hypocrisy that drips from his mouth. His new book claims to advocate for the importance of more conservative justice on the Supreme Court. One of those reasons is to “protect free speech” which ironically is something he wanted to have people charged with a FEDERAL crime for (see above). He displays some incredible math skills (not) when he declares that a 4 person minority is a radical left majority on the court. (Correct me if I’m wrong but if there are 9 justices and 5 vote this way and 4 vote that way, isn’t 4 less than 5?) Seriously, I could go on and on but you get the picture.
In closing I can sum up Ted with the following: a man insulted his wife and father to the point that Ted said “Donald, real men don’t attack women.” He later added “you mess with my wife and my kids...” closing out with “Donald you are a sniveling coward.” Ted now kisses the ring of the man who “ticked him off” and that to me, makes him a sad human being.
P.S. the book stinks
September 29, 2020
Timely and fascinating book
Love or hate him, Ted Cruz is exceptionally brilliant and an excellent write and debator. This book release is incredibly timely considering the most recent passing of Justice Ginsberg. If you’re interested in the judicial branch of our government, and how one person can truly change the world, you’ll enjoy this book. Cruz makes excellent points and paints a descriptive picture for the reader on the importance of a SCOTUS nomination.
Love or hate him, Ted Cruz is exceptionally brilliant and an excellent write and debator. This book release is incredibly timely considering the most recent passing of Justice Ginsberg. If you’re interested in the judicial branch of our government, and how one person can truly change the world, you’ll enjoy this book. Cruz makes excellent points and paints a descriptive picture for the reader on the importance of a SCOTUS nomination.
May 13, 2023
While there is no shortage of books on US politics, constitutional issues, or the Supreme Court, I took an interest in this piece by Ted Cruz. Currently a senator from Texas, Cruz has long had a history within the Republican Party of being one to turn issues into grandiose situations, much like the man he opposed in the 2016 Republican primaries for president. Cruz delivers an interesting book with arguments about the fundamental importance of keeping conservative views on the country’s highest court—Supreme Court of the United States—in order to keep the liberals from ruining things. While I applaud his ability to cobble together cogent arguments, his fundamental thesis falls apart in the introduction when he offers a keen example of how he would do this. From there, the book stares into an abyss, trying to fuel right-wing sentiment with half-truths, disguised in strong legal arguments. Entertaining more than willing to show both sides or the issues, Senator Cruz kept me listening to see what kernel of possible truth might be found herein.
In the opening pages of the introduction, Cruz argues that there was no right to allow President Obama to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court left by the death of Justice Antonio Scalia in 2016. He makes the point that it ought to have been left to the people to choose their next president, who would then choose the next justice. While I do not agree with the sentiment, feeling that the constitution makes clear how this should be handled, I could see the argument. However, in 2020, when Justice Ruth Badger Ginsberg died, Cruz and his GOP cronies were the first to push for an immediate replacement in September 2020 (under two months before the election, compared to Obama’s nine), and made it seemed as though the argument had never happened four years before. Ignorance and stupidity were the shades of wool Cruz sought to yank up and somehow they did it effectively. His core argument was lost then and remains lost today, but Cruz wishes us not to see that sleight of hand, as it does not work well with his set of arguments. Politics, the law, and an apathetic conservative base played into the hands of Crux and the GOP, something he keeps peddling in this book.
Cruz explores how he was an up and coming lawyer in Texas before accepting a post as clerk to a Supreme Court justice—Chief Justice Rehnquist, truth be told—where he found his passion for the constitution and conservative politics. This proved to be the foundation of the views explored in this book, though it is not only that Cruz was one who sought to protect the rights enshrined in the document, but also that he wanted. to make clear how liberals were destroying things. Throughout the book, Cruz examines a number of key topics to show how he helped (or supported) key provisions to protect constitutional rights of Americans, all of which were cases that made their mark and won by a single vote, which would have been diminished had the liberals filled just none more chair in the group of nine. While I applaud Cruz for showing his perspective on topics such as recognition of international law, gun control, free speech, abortion, and school choice, he openly dismisses the views I see as being keenly represented in the words of the US Constitution, spitting in the eye of the language and massaging it to appease his conservative base. Well attempted but poorly achieved by those who can take a step back.
Politics is all about perspective and how one feels at any given time. The law is a close cousin to this, which is why they work so hand in hand. I do not hide my political leanings, nor do I try to pretend that I am a eunuch in this regard. It is my desire to explore those views that seek to offer up a wool tugging over the eyes of the reader and dismiss them, which I try to do as effectively as possible. That is not to say that I am always right and others wrong, but there needs to be another side to the coin. Cruz seeks to to shed light on the other side, solely his own. In doing so, he can garner support for many of his sentiments, which he effectively presents in this book. However, when he leaves such a gaping hole in his argument, it is not for me to sit idly by and let it pass.
I applaud books that are foundamentally and foundationally sound, no matter their perspective. Ted Cruz does offer some interesting perspectives in this piece, many of which I can see working for him. While I do not agree with his minuscule interpretation of the law and Constitution to make his arguments, he seems adamant to do so and trick the reader into only seeing one side. His arguments are sound and work for him, though they dismiss monumental views and leave large holes in the presentation of legal arguments. Cruz writes in an effective and open manner, never denying his perspective. His chapters are well organised and keep the reader wanting to push a little further. That they are meant to cater to a small population is clear, perhaps in an intent to fuel another run at president (which may help dilute the inane Trumpian silliness that is building). The book was a fun read and kept me entertained, though Cruz’s attempted inculcation missed the mark. I hate wool anywhere near my eyes, anyhow, and have never been a lamb ready for the slaughter!
Kudos, Mr. Cruz for an attempt to fan the flames. The only fire you are stoking is one trying to burn down constitutional truths you try to convince readers you hold dear.
Love/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/
In the opening pages of the introduction, Cruz argues that there was no right to allow President Obama to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court left by the death of Justice Antonio Scalia in 2016. He makes the point that it ought to have been left to the people to choose their next president, who would then choose the next justice. While I do not agree with the sentiment, feeling that the constitution makes clear how this should be handled, I could see the argument. However, in 2020, when Justice Ruth Badger Ginsberg died, Cruz and his GOP cronies were the first to push for an immediate replacement in September 2020 (under two months before the election, compared to Obama’s nine), and made it seemed as though the argument had never happened four years before. Ignorance and stupidity were the shades of wool Cruz sought to yank up and somehow they did it effectively. His core argument was lost then and remains lost today, but Cruz wishes us not to see that sleight of hand, as it does not work well with his set of arguments. Politics, the law, and an apathetic conservative base played into the hands of Crux and the GOP, something he keeps peddling in this book.
Cruz explores how he was an up and coming lawyer in Texas before accepting a post as clerk to a Supreme Court justice—Chief Justice Rehnquist, truth be told—where he found his passion for the constitution and conservative politics. This proved to be the foundation of the views explored in this book, though it is not only that Cruz was one who sought to protect the rights enshrined in the document, but also that he wanted. to make clear how liberals were destroying things. Throughout the book, Cruz examines a number of key topics to show how he helped (or supported) key provisions to protect constitutional rights of Americans, all of which were cases that made their mark and won by a single vote, which would have been diminished had the liberals filled just none more chair in the group of nine. While I applaud Cruz for showing his perspective on topics such as recognition of international law, gun control, free speech, abortion, and school choice, he openly dismisses the views I see as being keenly represented in the words of the US Constitution, spitting in the eye of the language and massaging it to appease his conservative base. Well attempted but poorly achieved by those who can take a step back.
Politics is all about perspective and how one feels at any given time. The law is a close cousin to this, which is why they work so hand in hand. I do not hide my political leanings, nor do I try to pretend that I am a eunuch in this regard. It is my desire to explore those views that seek to offer up a wool tugging over the eyes of the reader and dismiss them, which I try to do as effectively as possible. That is not to say that I am always right and others wrong, but there needs to be another side to the coin. Cruz seeks to to shed light on the other side, solely his own. In doing so, he can garner support for many of his sentiments, which he effectively presents in this book. However, when he leaves such a gaping hole in his argument, it is not for me to sit idly by and let it pass.
I applaud books that are foundamentally and foundationally sound, no matter their perspective. Ted Cruz does offer some interesting perspectives in this piece, many of which I can see working for him. While I do not agree with his minuscule interpretation of the law and Constitution to make his arguments, he seems adamant to do so and trick the reader into only seeing one side. His arguments are sound and work for him, though they dismiss monumental views and leave large holes in the presentation of legal arguments. Cruz writes in an effective and open manner, never denying his perspective. His chapters are well organised and keep the reader wanting to push a little further. That they are meant to cater to a small population is clear, perhaps in an intent to fuel another run at president (which may help dilute the inane Trumpian silliness that is building). The book was a fun read and kept me entertained, though Cruz’s attempted inculcation missed the mark. I hate wool anywhere near my eyes, anyhow, and have never been a lamb ready for the slaughter!
Kudos, Mr. Cruz for an attempt to fan the flames. The only fire you are stoking is one trying to burn down constitutional truths you try to convince readers you hold dear.
Love/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/
April 2, 2021
Sen. Cruz makes a lot of good points in this book. Many important SCOTUS decisions have indeed been decided by one vote, that the court has done more than interpret the US constitution.
It's not badly written, just not really professionally. The book has been technically edited very well.
It's not badly written, just not really professionally. The book has been technically edited very well.
October 21, 2020
Ted Cruz, a sitting U.S. Senator from Texas and former leading appellate court practitioner, lays out a fascinating explanation of how the Supreme Court works. He zeros in on eight timely constitutional subjects such as Roe v Wade, free speech, law and order (Miranda, search and seizure, death penalty), the electoral process, and other areas.
You may disagree with Cruz over his stance on various political and substantive legal positions, but this book provides a substantial and interesting inside perspective on the Supreme Court.
Cruz sets forth in detail how appellate lawyers work tirelessly to frame appellate issues and employ strategies including framing facts all-a-long, keeping in mind Justice’s past rulings and mindsets.
Cruz includes numerous personal references to judges and other legal scholars he has worked with. He details his experience while working as a law clerk-- including his former boss, Chief Judge Rehnquist. There are several touching moments, such as how he met his wife and his prolonged plans to propose to her. Cruz can be a sentimental and funny guy.
You don’t have to be a lawyer to enjoy this book—it reads in a commonsense style. I recommend this book.
You may disagree with Cruz over his stance on various political and substantive legal positions, but this book provides a substantial and interesting inside perspective on the Supreme Court.
Cruz sets forth in detail how appellate lawyers work tirelessly to frame appellate issues and employ strategies including framing facts all-a-long, keeping in mind Justice’s past rulings and mindsets.
Cruz includes numerous personal references to judges and other legal scholars he has worked with. He details his experience while working as a law clerk-- including his former boss, Chief Judge Rehnquist. There are several touching moments, such as how he met his wife and his prolonged plans to propose to her. Cruz can be a sentimental and funny guy.
You don’t have to be a lawyer to enjoy this book—it reads in a commonsense style. I recommend this book.
October 5, 2020
Illuminating.
October 1, 2020
Senator Cruz brilliantly illustrates, through a myriad of personal fights he’s experienced, just how important nominating the right people for the Supreme Court is. With each topic he gives an example of a case from history as well as one that is recent. He also tells some behind the scenes stories from the 2016 campaign through to the writing of this book. Probably the best “tell all” of the Trump administration.
January 16, 2021
I am not a fan of Ted Cruz (especially after his recent behavior during the invasion of the Capitol), but I thought I would give this book a chance. Sorry, I think his points are often bogus and I did not like the book. For instance, he makes a big stink about Obama wanting to quickly nominate a justice to succeed Scalia, after he died in February. However, he obviously had no problem replacing Ginsberg when she died in late September. Cmon!
October 20, 2020
This was one of the most interesting, and maddening books I’ve ever read. Ted Cruz is a very thoughtful writer and I loved his perspective and personal experiences through the different rulings. He also gave great background knowledge so anyone would be able to pick up this book and understand what was happening in America at the time. 100% recommend.
October 20, 2020
Well written and a timely read while watching the hearings for Amy Coney Barrett. Let’s hope President Trump got this nomination right. The fact that she is not part of the East Coast Social Scene, is sincere in her faith and has a lovely family and was the most rational person in the hearing room without notes is a good start.
April 24, 2024
Excellent!
The book explores various landmark cases and decisions made by the Supreme Court that have shaped American society.
The strength of the book for its insightful analysis of the Supreme Court and its role in shaping the country, as well as for its engaging writing style.
If you are interested in the Supreme Court, legal issues, or Ted Cruz's perspectives on these matters, you may find "One Vote Away" to be an informative read.
The book explores various landmark cases and decisions made by the Supreme Court that have shaped American society.
The strength of the book for its insightful analysis of the Supreme Court and its role in shaping the country, as well as for its engaging writing style.
If you are interested in the Supreme Court, legal issues, or Ted Cruz's perspectives on these matters, you may find "One Vote Away" to be an informative read.
December 28, 2020
An unexpected Christmas gift that I started to glance at and then read to completion. I have heard for years that Cruz is brilliant, but it didn't come across as a presidential candidate. He spent that campaign playing defense. Earlier in the year someone recommended his podcast to me and it showed a side I hadn’t seen in the campaign. His co-host might knock someone like Dick Durbin, but Cruz stops and explains why Durbin is a very effective senator for his point of view. Durbin’s questions on the judiciary committee have a legal or political point to make so the other side squirms a bit. And it never hurts to see any politician squirm a bit.
The book is capsule of supreme court decisions that show how just one vote either way would have changed American history and thus who is on the court will continue to shift American history for the foreseeable future. It had been a long time since I read about this many court rulings, and although some are well known, I didn’t always remember the issue associated with each at the beginning of the chapter. Cruz does a good job of making the cases understandable without being a scholar.
Cruz spent 8 years or so as Texas Solicitor General and he argued 9 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and wrote 10 times as many briefs about cases he did not argue. He was also a clerk for Chief Reinquist and appeals justice, Michael Luttig. A lot of the cases he mentions are ones in which he had direct influence. There also some biographical elements to the story like his campaign for president in 2016.
I’m trying to figure out how a guy who doesn’t want to be on the court can write such a book and not want to be on the court. He says he wants to openly fight the partisan fights and not get caught up in the legal ones, but he has the kind of mind that gets drawn right back into the legal questions.
Cruz says Democrats find judicial nominees that are consistently liberal on the supreme court. Republicans are successful about half the time of finding consistent conservatives and thus Republican nominees like John Paul Stevens or David Souter become indistinguishable from Democrat nominees. Cruz says this is because Republican presidents choose nominees that are easier to confirm rather than nominees that have a record of not caring about bad press. Cruz says Michael Luttig was preferable to John Roberts and Senator Mike Lee superior to Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. But those two guys were thought to be harder to confirm. But it turned out Kavanaugh was no picnic either.
I came away wanting to read Bob Woodward’s The Brethren, a book about the court in the 1970s. That book made Byron White so upset with the leaky law clerk sources that stopped trusting any of the ones that came later.
The book is capsule of supreme court decisions that show how just one vote either way would have changed American history and thus who is on the court will continue to shift American history for the foreseeable future. It had been a long time since I read about this many court rulings, and although some are well known, I didn’t always remember the issue associated with each at the beginning of the chapter. Cruz does a good job of making the cases understandable without being a scholar.
Cruz spent 8 years or so as Texas Solicitor General and he argued 9 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and wrote 10 times as many briefs about cases he did not argue. He was also a clerk for Chief Reinquist and appeals justice, Michael Luttig. A lot of the cases he mentions are ones in which he had direct influence. There also some biographical elements to the story like his campaign for president in 2016.
I’m trying to figure out how a guy who doesn’t want to be on the court can write such a book and not want to be on the court. He says he wants to openly fight the partisan fights and not get caught up in the legal ones, but he has the kind of mind that gets drawn right back into the legal questions.
Cruz says Democrats find judicial nominees that are consistently liberal on the supreme court. Republicans are successful about half the time of finding consistent conservatives and thus Republican nominees like John Paul Stevens or David Souter become indistinguishable from Democrat nominees. Cruz says this is because Republican presidents choose nominees that are easier to confirm rather than nominees that have a record of not caring about bad press. Cruz says Michael Luttig was preferable to John Roberts and Senator Mike Lee superior to Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. But those two guys were thought to be harder to confirm. But it turned out Kavanaugh was no picnic either.
I came away wanting to read Bob Woodward’s The Brethren, a book about the court in the 1970s. That book made Byron White so upset with the leaky law clerk sources that stopped trusting any of the ones that came later.
October 12, 2020
Senator Cruz eloquently walks the reader through his history with the Court and the decisions that have had lasting effect on our Nation. A true case is made for choosing court nominees on their experience and integrity to stay true to the Constitution. Not only is this book a terrific review of our history, Senator Cruz entertains the reader with humorous behind the scenes experiences that add to the pleasure of reading "One Vote Away". Hopefully in the near future we will be addressing Senator Cruz as President Cruz, he certainly has the chops for it!
October 11, 2020
I didn’t know that Senator Ted Cruz was such a talented and intellectual individual. His writing is uniquely lucid and logical. It’s a great insight into what goes on behind the scenes both legally and politically.
I recommend this book to anyone who is curious about the inner workings of our political system. I’m pleasantly surprised!
I recommend this book to anyone who is curious about the inner workings of our political system. I’m pleasantly surprised!
December 3, 2020
Normally, I don't write reviews and I do not care for politicians, but I was so surprised by the clarity with which Cruz wrote this I felt compelled. Many of us do not know much about the Supreme Court, as to the process of the court. Cruz obviously knows much. I found this book interesting, informative, and a review of US history. I heartily recommend reading this.
October 28, 2020
Ted Cruz book: One Vote Away.
1. Factual error: Twice he wrote that Sun Tzu said winning a war without fighting is by picking a good terrain. That’s wrong. Tzu said winning without fighting is through psychological means and not through terrain.
2. Things I liked in the book: His immigrant father crying when Ted was recruited as the law clerk for Chief justice Rehnquist right after his HLS graduation. Despite registering 2 to 3 % in polls he entered the senate race and won against a powerful opponent with 200 million net worth and state level name recognition. He also spent $1.5 million of his own money!
3. Things I learned: The clerks are up until 3 am working in the SCOTUS. Last minute death penalty appeals come to the court at 12 midnight through fax from CA and that is 3 am in DC. Clerks write the two-sided opinions and wake up the justice by phone and then reject the appeal.
4. What surprised me!: He told Trump that he don’t want to be appointed as the justice of the SCOTUS. He recommended instead senator Mike LEE.
5. What made me hopeful: He wrote that in the last 60 years many conservative justice appointments have switched to liberal side, whereas liberal appointments seldom move to right. The reason he gave was the DC cocktail communities love conservatives moving to liberal side! hahahah
6. Establishment Clause: He argues that separation of church and state is not mentioned in the constitution and declaration of Independence. It’s just mentioned by only Jefferson in a letter to a preacher. Even there it was one-way wall and that is government to not intervene in religion.
7. Rebuttal: I guess Ted Cruz didn’t know the preceding story about Roger Williams and his reason to be kicked out of Massachusetts colony and forming Rhode Island. Ted probably didn’t care to see that constitutions of MA and VA had the separation even before US constitution was formed. He also didn’t care to see that all founding fathers were “deists” who didn’t think deity intervenes in our daily life, but gives us the control of our lives here. More importantly he dismissed all the SCOTUS establishment clause conditions in “Lemon Test.”
8. 2nd Amendment: Ted argues that the SCOTUS didn’t discuss the issue because it was obvious with the text meaning for 200 years. He says that 2nd amendment text means clearly individual rights like 4th amendment.
9. Rebuttal: SCOTUS didn’t because there was no NRA for 200 years bringing the issue of gun rights as individual rights. The NRA recommended gun control when black panthers had guns. Also the text was written for state militia (group rights). NO founders who voted on the 2nd amendment wrote opinion that it is an individual right. NO ONE. Everyone wrote it as a group right. If Ted Cruz is a conservative who follows the “Originalism” then he should see what the founders meant about 2nd amendment ;-)!
10. Ted portrayed Dems wanting to overturn Citizens United because they are against first amendment. He even says Dems might burn books through government. He even wants a change in Super Pac money to be given directly to the candidate because it’s hard for a newcomer to raise large money against powerful incumbents. Rebuttal: Dems want to overturn that because of “Black money” in politics and not because they don’t want to be criticized by news corporations. NYC public funds idea for federal elections as well is a better option.
11. What made me laugh: Ted said SNL portray people falsely. POTUS Ford as Klutz was not true because he was a football athlete in college. Tina Fey said I can see Russia from my home and Palin was mocked by SNL. Rebuttal: Ford was an athlete but also fell down many times and came across in real life as klutz even falling down the steps of an aircraft. I even re watched Palin interview and what fey said was what Palin meant and worse things like Putin head coming over Russian air space! Haha
1. Factual error: Twice he wrote that Sun Tzu said winning a war without fighting is by picking a good terrain. That’s wrong. Tzu said winning without fighting is through psychological means and not through terrain.
2. Things I liked in the book: His immigrant father crying when Ted was recruited as the law clerk for Chief justice Rehnquist right after his HLS graduation. Despite registering 2 to 3 % in polls he entered the senate race and won against a powerful opponent with 200 million net worth and state level name recognition. He also spent $1.5 million of his own money!
3. Things I learned: The clerks are up until 3 am working in the SCOTUS. Last minute death penalty appeals come to the court at 12 midnight through fax from CA and that is 3 am in DC. Clerks write the two-sided opinions and wake up the justice by phone and then reject the appeal.
4. What surprised me!: He told Trump that he don’t want to be appointed as the justice of the SCOTUS. He recommended instead senator Mike LEE.
5. What made me hopeful: He wrote that in the last 60 years many conservative justice appointments have switched to liberal side, whereas liberal appointments seldom move to right. The reason he gave was the DC cocktail communities love conservatives moving to liberal side! hahahah
6. Establishment Clause: He argues that separation of church and state is not mentioned in the constitution and declaration of Independence. It’s just mentioned by only Jefferson in a letter to a preacher. Even there it was one-way wall and that is government to not intervene in religion.
7. Rebuttal: I guess Ted Cruz didn’t know the preceding story about Roger Williams and his reason to be kicked out of Massachusetts colony and forming Rhode Island. Ted probably didn’t care to see that constitutions of MA and VA had the separation even before US constitution was formed. He also didn’t care to see that all founding fathers were “deists” who didn’t think deity intervenes in our daily life, but gives us the control of our lives here. More importantly he dismissed all the SCOTUS establishment clause conditions in “Lemon Test.”
8. 2nd Amendment: Ted argues that the SCOTUS didn’t discuss the issue because it was obvious with the text meaning for 200 years. He says that 2nd amendment text means clearly individual rights like 4th amendment.
9. Rebuttal: SCOTUS didn’t because there was no NRA for 200 years bringing the issue of gun rights as individual rights. The NRA recommended gun control when black panthers had guns. Also the text was written for state militia (group rights). NO founders who voted on the 2nd amendment wrote opinion that it is an individual right. NO ONE. Everyone wrote it as a group right. If Ted Cruz is a conservative who follows the “Originalism” then he should see what the founders meant about 2nd amendment ;-)!
10. Ted portrayed Dems wanting to overturn Citizens United because they are against first amendment. He even says Dems might burn books through government. He even wants a change in Super Pac money to be given directly to the candidate because it’s hard for a newcomer to raise large money against powerful incumbents. Rebuttal: Dems want to overturn that because of “Black money” in politics and not because they don’t want to be criticized by news corporations. NYC public funds idea for federal elections as well is a better option.
11. What made me laugh: Ted said SNL portray people falsely. POTUS Ford as Klutz was not true because he was a football athlete in college. Tina Fey said I can see Russia from my home and Palin was mocked by SNL. Rebuttal: Ford was an athlete but also fell down many times and came across in real life as klutz even falling down the steps of an aircraft. I even re watched Palin interview and what fey said was what Palin meant and worse things like Putin head coming over Russian air space! Haha
October 25, 2020
Outstanding and very informative.
November 11, 2020
I have not been one big on politics. However, the last decade has been rather interesting and I have been slowly learning more about who is running our country at a state and federal level. This book written by Texas state senator Ted Cruz, is a deep dive into the inner workings of the Supreme Court.
Mr. Cruz goes great lengths to describe a number of court rulings and how they effect our constitutional rights as Americans. I found myself understanding the context to these cases and just how intense the justice system is. Many times major court cases are decided by one vote. He emphasizes the importance of court appointments and the democratic process.
This book is an interesting read. I am someone that likes to know how things work and this was just that. May be too dry for some but if you are curious then I believe it will quench your curiosity!
Mr. Cruz goes great lengths to describe a number of court rulings and how they effect our constitutional rights as Americans. I found myself understanding the context to these cases and just how intense the justice system is. Many times major court cases are decided by one vote. He emphasizes the importance of court appointments and the democratic process.
This book is an interesting read. I am someone that likes to know how things work and this was just that. May be too dry for some but if you are curious then I believe it will quench your curiosity!
November 30, 2020
Ted Cruz is a brilliant constitutional scholar in addition to being a US Senator. In this book he does an excellent job hitting the highlights of several of the hot button issues such as free speech, religious liberty, Second Amendment and how the Supreme Court has dealt with them. The book is full of personal anecdotes since Cruz, either in private practice or as Solicitor General for Texas, or as a Senator, was involved in most of the cases. I highly recommend it if you are interested in Constitutional law even a little.
December 20, 2020
A very interesting read about a number of cases, although I omitted reading the 8th chapter out of a bad taste related to Ted Cruz's response to the 2020 election. However, the rest of the book was excellent and Ted Cruz is still a very smart lawyer, having won some of the cases he argued for.
May 8, 2022
Given everything going on regarding the Supreme Court at the time I read this, this was a very interesting and informative read. Yes it is laced with Cruz’s own opinions on cases and justices, but he also gives the hard facts of cases brought before the court and how both sides approached questioning which I found fascinating. It’s a very easy read for anyone interested in learning about law and the Court without having much background knowledge. My only complaint is that sometimes it felt like Cruz went on personal tangents that didn’t always seem relevant to the topic of the chapter.
October 4, 2020
I liked the book. It was very fact based and well researched. Since the Senator was an attorney in all discussed matters you gave 1st person accounts. Obviously written by a Republican, but the sentiment of 'one vote away' could be said by either a Democrat or a Republican so I think this book is a good ready for people of all political parties. I will note the obvious. This book is not read by the Senator. I'm a fan of the Senator's podcast, so it was a bit off-putting at first to hear another voice using the first person.
December 30, 2025
Well, the subtitle about tells it all.
After an introduction about the republican primary election of 2016, which didn't exactly jibe with my memory of how that particular election went down, we get a collectionof cases that were decided by one vote.
It's pretty interesting. I can remember just a few years ago, democrats loved the supreme court, and acted like Ruth Bader Ginsberg was some sort of demigod. Now they act completely differently that conservatives have a 6-3 majority. They're threatening to pack the court and all sorts of shenanigans.
Really shows how important the Supreme Court can be, especially when they decide to legislate from the bench.
After an introduction about the republican primary election of 2016, which didn't exactly jibe with my memory of how that particular election went down, we get a collectionof cases that were decided by one vote.
It's pretty interesting. I can remember just a few years ago, democrats loved the supreme court, and acted like Ruth Bader Ginsberg was some sort of demigod. Now they act completely differently that conservatives have a 6-3 majority. They're threatening to pack the court and all sorts of shenanigans.
Really shows how important the Supreme Court can be, especially when they decide to legislate from the bench.
December 6, 2020
I really appreciated that this book was acessible for laypeople. I definitely don't agree with Cruz on everything but he is a brilliant legal mind and I really enjoyed this walk through the annals of the Supreme Court with one of today's leading experts on the the matter.
December 1, 2020
Listened on audible, as I do with most nonfiction these days. It shows some signs of being rushed to press, and the reader mispronounces some words, but these weren't enough to knock off a star. This is an important book. We shouldn't need to be this grateful for judges who believe they should do their jobs and nothing else, but here we are.
November 29, 2020
This was a very well written book with lots of information about the constitution about how the supreme court protects it. He illustrates cases that he has been involved in and just does an excellent job of explaining how the courts work. This was great!
November 22, 2020
The title to Ted Cruz’s new book could not be more appropriate. Cruz describes in easy to understand terms how several important cases over the years – cases concerning religious liberty, school choice, gun rights, abortion, free speech, capital punishment – have all been narrowly decided by just one vote (5-4 vote decisions) by the Supreme Court. Want to understand how Roe v. Wade was decided, what Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is all about, how District of Columbia v. Heller affects your right to buy a firearm? These and other important issues are all spelled out in a fashion that allows the reader to follow the history of these cases, how they reached the Supreme Court, understand the arguments both pro and con, and how they were ultimately decided by the various justices. Clear, concise, a good read for both lawyers and non-lawyers alike.
April 12, 2021
After you get past the first hour (audio book) of self-aggrandizement, its a good book.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 164 reviews