What do you think?
Rate this book
Supreme Inequality: The Supreme Court's Fifty-Year Battle for a More Unjust America
“With Supreme Inequality , Adam Cohen has built, brick by brick, an airtight case against the Supreme Court of the last half-century...Cohen’s book is a closing statement in the case against an institution tasked with protecting the vulnerable, which has emboldened the rich and powerful instead.” —Dahlia Lithwick, senior editor, Slate
A revelatory examination of the conservative direction of the Supreme Court over the last fifty years.
In Supreme Inequality , bestselling author Adam Cohen surveys the most significant Supreme Court rulings since the Nixon era and exposes how, contrary to what Americans like to believe, the Supreme Court does little to protect the rights of the poor and disadvantaged; in fact, it has not been on their side for fifty years. Cohen proves beyond doubt that the modern Court has been one of the leading forces behind the nation’s soaring level of economic inequality, and that an institution revered as a source of fairness has been systematically making America less fair.
A triumph of American legal, political, and social history, Supreme Inequality holds to account the highest court in the land and shows how much damage it has done to America’s ideals of equality, democracy, and justice for all.
A revelatory examination of the conservative direction of the Supreme Court over the last fifty years.
In Supreme Inequality , bestselling author Adam Cohen surveys the most significant Supreme Court rulings since the Nixon era and exposes how, contrary to what Americans like to believe, the Supreme Court does little to protect the rights of the poor and disadvantaged; in fact, it has not been on their side for fifty years. Cohen proves beyond doubt that the modern Court has been one of the leading forces behind the nation’s soaring level of economic inequality, and that an institution revered as a source of fairness has been systematically making America less fair.
A triumph of American legal, political, and social history, Supreme Inequality holds to account the highest court in the land and shows how much damage it has done to America’s ideals of equality, democracy, and justice for all.
464 pages, Paperback
First published February 25, 2020
402 people are currently reading
5678 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 233 reviews
August 6, 2020
I am finding that despite my best efforts p, that I have a need to be informed. More so now, in these days of Covid, with ineffectctusal leadership and social unrest. An election coming that has much at stake. our country so divided. How did we get here? We go so far forward and then yanked back. Reminds me of that game, baby steps. This book shows the Supreme Court rulings from the time when Warren was Chief Justice, until now. It's is easily understood and I found it heartbreaking. A court that once tried to equalize society has now dissolved into one that protects corporate entities and other rulings that has erased any succor given to the poor and middle class. Campaign finance ruling have allowed our biggest offices to be bought and the court itself has become little more than a political body.
This book made me sad, sad and angry. Maybe that is what we need in this country that is no longer for and by the people.
This book made me sad, sad and angry. Maybe that is what we need in this country that is no longer for and by the people.
February 12, 2023
My preparation for the 2024 US General election (particularly that for president) has taken me on some interesting turns to date. While exploring candidates who have served and seek to return to the office, I have come across some great memoirs and analyses that give things some perspective. But there is more at stake than the presidency here, including the ability to shape the third branch of the federal system, the Courts. Adam Cohen explores how rightist choices have certainly turned the Court in the last five decades, away from being people-centric and towards a stronger hands-off approach. He posits that there have been a number of reasons for this, not least of which being the choice of Justices that a sitting president can make. Cohen uses strong arguments, actual decisions from the US Supreme Court, and historical records to provide readers with an interesting look into how the Court has shaped American policy and left many out on the cold, all because a certain president had the reins when an opening became available. A brilliant analysis by Cohen and a wonderful read for those who enjoy these subjects.
Adam Cohen breaks his analysis down succinctly in the opening pages of his book; the Court’s direction is directly proportional to the presidents who fill its seats. That makes a great deal of sense, but does beg a little more explanation. Readers who understand the Court and how it is populated will know that sitting US presidents make their picks for US Supreme Court Justices, have them vetted by the Senate, and then place them on the bench. The politics that takes place to do this is baffling, but it is there. Choosing someone to sit on the Court can be tough, but once they are there, their removal is so difficult that it is almost sure to impact the country for many years. It is the timing of these appointments that can be really important, as well as the age of the nominee. Filling a vacancy is essential to ensuring a certain direction for the Court, though the Senate must also have their say, which can be a slightly tougher hurdle. As Cohen argues, with Republicans having had more time in the presidency over the last fifty years, they have had a longer time to fill vacancies that suit their needs and appease the base. However, it is not only that which shapes the Court, but when the coveted position of Chief Justice comes up for grabs, Republicans have been in a position to choose that person repeatedly in those same five decades. The Chief shapes not only the direction of the Court, but leads the momentum in a specific direction. Being able to choose the Chief Justice not only secures a vote (in theory) for the cause, but creates a movement in a specific direction, something that the Democrats have not been able to do at all and have suffered for it.
Cohen explores how these ‘right of centre’ Courts have shaped US policies and the direction of progress in the country. He turns to a number of themes in the tome, including support for the poor, education funding, voting rights, election funding, and employment rights. While it would be too general a statement to say the right does not care about these, he has made it clear through case analysis and decisions released (as well as dissents) that the Court has taken much more of a hands-off approach to ruling on these cases, or at least not looked to protecting groups from the larger institutions that have proven to be hurdles for them. While part of this could be a lack of concrete arguments presented to the Court, a great deal is also turning a blind eye to those loopholes that could and likely should be used to help others. While Chief Justice John Roberts has said, his only job is to call balls and strikes, choosing whether to play the game is also within the Court’s purview, which is not as often discussed in legal analysis. Cohen presses that the Court has little impetus to look at these issues, as the conservative voting bloc has the majority and can push their views by sticking together. This makes the choice of Justices all the more important.
Throughout the tome, Cohen repeatedly makes mention of how things might have differed had one or two elections gone in another direction. Of particular interest is discussion of Bush v. Gore, the seminal 2000 Supreme Court decision that handed the election to Bush. In a flagrantly successful attempt to tamper with the rights of the voter, the Court chose to impose their conservative majority to place a thumb on the scales and send George W. Bush to the White House. This, in turn, led to the selection of John Roberts as Chief Justice and began a domino effect that cemented further conservatism on the Court for decades to come. One cannot hold onto sour grapes and bemoan what ended up happing, but it is quite telling to look at alternate history possibilities and how they could have made a significant change.
Adam Cohen has proven to be a great writer on the topic of Supreme Court evolution thoughout the last number of years. He provides the reader with great arguments and strong supports as they relate to rulings and public opinions on a number of key topics, more even than I listed above. Cohen argues effectively that the Court has moved firmly to the right in the last five decades, with no likelihood of shifting for the foreseeable future, as rules utilized by the US Senate’s Republican members appears to change based on the sentiment of the day. From Court decisions that disenfranchised groups who were once protected by the esteemed body to the erasing of precedent that kept liberal views from flourishing, through to the gameplay of nominations whereby two sets of rules existed to appease the right, the story of the Supreme Court is riddled with concern. That being said, the past cannot be changed, but the future is rife with possibilities. Strong writing and powerful chapters keep the arguments moving along succinctly and ensures the reader will leave the book feeling even more educated than ever. Adam Cohen does a brilliant job and readers can eagerly particulate in this ever-evolving discussion.
Kudos, Mr. Cohen, for yet another stellar analysis of the US Supreme Court. I m eager to see what else you publish that will whet my appetite for SCOTUS examination.
Love/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/
Adam Cohen breaks his analysis down succinctly in the opening pages of his book; the Court’s direction is directly proportional to the presidents who fill its seats. That makes a great deal of sense, but does beg a little more explanation. Readers who understand the Court and how it is populated will know that sitting US presidents make their picks for US Supreme Court Justices, have them vetted by the Senate, and then place them on the bench. The politics that takes place to do this is baffling, but it is there. Choosing someone to sit on the Court can be tough, but once they are there, their removal is so difficult that it is almost sure to impact the country for many years. It is the timing of these appointments that can be really important, as well as the age of the nominee. Filling a vacancy is essential to ensuring a certain direction for the Court, though the Senate must also have their say, which can be a slightly tougher hurdle. As Cohen argues, with Republicans having had more time in the presidency over the last fifty years, they have had a longer time to fill vacancies that suit their needs and appease the base. However, it is not only that which shapes the Court, but when the coveted position of Chief Justice comes up for grabs, Republicans have been in a position to choose that person repeatedly in those same five decades. The Chief shapes not only the direction of the Court, but leads the momentum in a specific direction. Being able to choose the Chief Justice not only secures a vote (in theory) for the cause, but creates a movement in a specific direction, something that the Democrats have not been able to do at all and have suffered for it.
Cohen explores how these ‘right of centre’ Courts have shaped US policies and the direction of progress in the country. He turns to a number of themes in the tome, including support for the poor, education funding, voting rights, election funding, and employment rights. While it would be too general a statement to say the right does not care about these, he has made it clear through case analysis and decisions released (as well as dissents) that the Court has taken much more of a hands-off approach to ruling on these cases, or at least not looked to protecting groups from the larger institutions that have proven to be hurdles for them. While part of this could be a lack of concrete arguments presented to the Court, a great deal is also turning a blind eye to those loopholes that could and likely should be used to help others. While Chief Justice John Roberts has said, his only job is to call balls and strikes, choosing whether to play the game is also within the Court’s purview, which is not as often discussed in legal analysis. Cohen presses that the Court has little impetus to look at these issues, as the conservative voting bloc has the majority and can push their views by sticking together. This makes the choice of Justices all the more important.
Throughout the tome, Cohen repeatedly makes mention of how things might have differed had one or two elections gone in another direction. Of particular interest is discussion of Bush v. Gore, the seminal 2000 Supreme Court decision that handed the election to Bush. In a flagrantly successful attempt to tamper with the rights of the voter, the Court chose to impose their conservative majority to place a thumb on the scales and send George W. Bush to the White House. This, in turn, led to the selection of John Roberts as Chief Justice and began a domino effect that cemented further conservatism on the Court for decades to come. One cannot hold onto sour grapes and bemoan what ended up happing, but it is quite telling to look at alternate history possibilities and how they could have made a significant change.
Adam Cohen has proven to be a great writer on the topic of Supreme Court evolution thoughout the last number of years. He provides the reader with great arguments and strong supports as they relate to rulings and public opinions on a number of key topics, more even than I listed above. Cohen argues effectively that the Court has moved firmly to the right in the last five decades, with no likelihood of shifting for the foreseeable future, as rules utilized by the US Senate’s Republican members appears to change based on the sentiment of the day. From Court decisions that disenfranchised groups who were once protected by the esteemed body to the erasing of precedent that kept liberal views from flourishing, through to the gameplay of nominations whereby two sets of rules existed to appease the right, the story of the Supreme Court is riddled with concern. That being said, the past cannot be changed, but the future is rife with possibilities. Strong writing and powerful chapters keep the arguments moving along succinctly and ensures the reader will leave the book feeling even more educated than ever. Adam Cohen does a brilliant job and readers can eagerly particulate in this ever-evolving discussion.
Kudos, Mr. Cohen, for yet another stellar analysis of the US Supreme Court. I m eager to see what else you publish that will whet my appetite for SCOTUS examination.
Love/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/
April 1, 2020
Yes, it's all true--that the courts have increased inequality, but I think there is much more to the story than what is here--there was a whole conservative movement (Fed Soc, law and econ, etc) that created this ideological turn in the courts--it's not just about the individual justices and their background. I get the urge to make all sorts of profiles of the justices, but they all reflected a shift in American ideology about inequality. That trajectory has been covered elsewhere. I appreciate that this book focuses on the court, but I do not think it offers more than just a shallow history confirming a general trend.
March 13, 2020
An incredibly important book about American Law. It is superbly written in language easily understood by regular people. It is clear, concise, logical, sequential and very well organized. This book exposes many of the reasons we are where we are. How do we get this book read by those who need to read it and understand it. So many Americans are so uninformed and suffer because of it. This book should be a blueprint for some action Congress needs to take and maybe even for a constitutional convention. I will be reading other books by Mr. Adam Cohen.
February 26, 2020
Recent discussions on the left about ‘packing the court’ at first sound extreme and bound to fail (after all, what’s to stop a subsequent future conservative president to packing the court even more in the opposite ideological direction?) – yet after reading Supreme Inequality it gives one a sense of why such dire measures are being considered given the judgments of the SC over the past 50 years. Its rulings have largely been against the well-being of the poor and middle class and have been instead firmly entrenched in supporting the interests of big business and the elite. Cohen does a great job going through the key cases that have contributed to our present day situation showing how these rulings have been stacked in favor against workers, anyone caught up in the criminal justice system, and of course how they have famously corrupted campaign finance to allow the rich to buy the government they want. Throughout the book he convincingly makes the case that the court is on a trajectory to achieve the end goal of the most reactionary among us which is to bring the laws to what they were in the pre-New Deal era. This is frightening indeed and a very good overview and wake-up call as to what potentially lies ahead.
Read
February 24, 2020Here's my review for NPR Books. https://www.npr.org/2020/02/24/808134...
June 19, 2020
I will simply say that this book is for those who are willing to take off the rose colored glasses that we often use to look at ourselves and our beautiful country, and truly reflect on important decisions handed down by the highest court in the land in the last five decades and their lasting impact on the well-being of women, minorities and the poor in our land. The answers are pretty obvious if one is willing to see through the harsh reality of vanishing equal justice for all.
March 3, 2021
An important, timely story, presented with a minimum of fuss and just the right amount of context on legal precedents and case law.
COOL. With that out of the way, let's talk about why it wasn't 5 stars for me:
Where Are The Timelines?
Or a list of main cases discussed at the start of each chapter, or in an appendix?
Reading books that detail a large set of more-or-less discrete events (as opposed to obviously narratively linked ones) but insist on limiting themselves to mere sentences in their toolset for delivering information is... a little like trying to eat soup, from a plate, with a fork.
Throw us poor readers abone spoon/bowl here, would ya? We don't invest our time and attention into these kinds of things just to read, but to learn. Don't get me wrong, I love mechanically scanning my eyeballs over glyphs on a page while hallucinating vividly as much as the next person, but for most people(?), the difference between that and Learning is that the latter requires devices like visual modeling, condensed outlining, and the ability to easily confirm or correct our own fuzzy understandings of previously introduced content as needed. It costs the author and editor nothing but a couple pages in the final product and maybe their Writerly Purity to help us structure and reference the raw information, whereas it takes us as readers hours of extra note-taking.
I mean, #&*$, even Tolkien knew when the right call was to just throw in a map at the beginning. Not because he couldn't rhapsodize about the different geopolitical units and natural features until our eyes rolled into the back of our heads (obviously), but because he understood using the right medium for the information he needed to impart, and that readers would actually understand and enjoy the writing itself better if they had this orienting context available already.
Anyway, at this point, I could've probably put together a timeline of all the cases detailed in the book organized by chapter in the time it took to rant about the repressive Sentences-Only Orthodoxy, but ask yourself: how are the publisher and author supposed to learn from their mistake if I force myself to learn in spite of their mistake? How is it fair to anyone for me not to flush most of the load-bearing details from this book down the memory hole in another week or two, with no way to quickly bring them back to mind? Gotta stand for something, folks.
COOL. With that out of the way, let's talk about why it wasn't 5 stars for me:
Where Are The Timelines?
Or a list of main cases discussed at the start of each chapter, or in an appendix?
Reading books that detail a large set of more-or-less discrete events (as opposed to obviously narratively linked ones) but insist on limiting themselves to mere sentences in their toolset for delivering information is... a little like trying to eat soup, from a plate, with a fork.
Throw us poor readers a
I mean, #&*$, even Tolkien knew when the right call was to just throw in a map at the beginning. Not because he couldn't rhapsodize about the different geopolitical units and natural features until our eyes rolled into the back of our heads (obviously), but because he understood using the right medium for the information he needed to impart, and that readers would actually understand and enjoy the writing itself better if they had this orienting context available already.
Anyway, at this point, I could've probably put together a timeline of all the cases detailed in the book organized by chapter in the time it took to rant about the repressive Sentences-Only Orthodoxy, but ask yourself: how are the publisher and author supposed to learn from their mistake if I force myself to learn in spite of their mistake? How is it fair to anyone for me not to flush most of the load-bearing details from this book down the memory hole in another week or two, with no way to quickly bring them back to mind? Gotta stand for something, folks.
May 22, 2020
It's easy to see how the left runs scared when SCOTUS isn't being driven further left with "living constitution" justices in charge. Cohen often spouts polling information that seems to support his argument for how the court did thus and so for one of his pet subjects and that the court is flying in the face of that polling. What he doesn't come to grips with is why, if it's so popular, his issue can't be addressed by legislation - naturally Cohen goes to the courts. Yes, there are some interesting issues raised here, but nothing to convince me that SCOTUS is aimed at making for a more unjust society. Thankfully he did no totally re-live the Kavanaugh hearings, although they do make an appearance.
April 12, 2020
It's true that I'm taking Constitutional Law at the moment, so this book was especially relevant and interesting to me. However, the book is completely accessible to those not educated in law or currently in law school. The book examines the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court within the areas of Class, Education, Campaign Finance, Democracy, Workers, Corporations, and Criminal Justice. You don't need to have expertise in reading and understanding the Constitution to identify and describe the architectural role the Court plays in helping to form society.
You probably won't be shocked by what you read, which feels sad.
You probably won't be shocked by what you read, which feels sad.
March 22, 2020
A profoundly weighty and important book for the moment. Cohen gives a concise historical description of the advancements in social justice and equality made under the Warren Court; followed by a more detailed accounting of the gutting of equality measures in the wake of the dismantling of the Warren court, and the ushering of the Burger court (nicknamed the Nixon court due to the underhanded machinations and dumb luck of Nixon that granted him filling three spots on the court) and the subsequent iterations of a majority conservative Supreme Court.
The three levels of the US government are meant to act as checks and balances to one another. Cohen illustrates the key judgments handed down by the SC since the early 1970s that have entrenched the unequal tipping of the balance in favor of the wealthy and the white. In particular, the SC has ensured that New Deal initiatives to create a comprehensive safety net for the poor, as well as, ensure equality in education through equal distribution of funding and integration through busing have all been quashed through SC judgments. Equally, the SC has championed the rights of business over labor and has ensured that the wealthy have a greater say in democracy through the handing down of the particularly egregious decision in Citizens United.
There is much more here that is infuriating. The chapter on criminal law and the evidence of the downright racist decisions that have been upheld in recent years is rage-inducing.
All in all, it's a wake-up call to voters and a reminder of the import of the decisions we have before us.
The three levels of the US government are meant to act as checks and balances to one another. Cohen illustrates the key judgments handed down by the SC since the early 1970s that have entrenched the unequal tipping of the balance in favor of the wealthy and the white. In particular, the SC has ensured that New Deal initiatives to create a comprehensive safety net for the poor, as well as, ensure equality in education through equal distribution of funding and integration through busing have all been quashed through SC judgments. Equally, the SC has championed the rights of business over labor and has ensured that the wealthy have a greater say in democracy through the handing down of the particularly egregious decision in Citizens United.
There is much more here that is infuriating. The chapter on criminal law and the evidence of the downright racist decisions that have been upheld in recent years is rage-inducing.
All in all, it's a wake-up call to voters and a reminder of the import of the decisions we have before us.
May 12, 2024
I'll be honest-- I did not read every page of this book. I read a big chunk of it. Then I didn't really want to read any more, so I skipped to the Conclusion and read that. My "review" should be taken with a grain of salt. I think that it's unlikely that there was anything in a section that I missed that goes against what I'm saying here, but if so, okay, I stand corrected.
I didn't love this. Partly, I didn't love it because I started reading it right before the shutdowns, and the topic is heavy and depressing and when the shutdowns started and everyone started freaking out I really just didn't want to keep reading this. Just wasn't the right book at the right time.
But also.
Also I didn't love it because I didn't love it.
I think Adam Cohen and I have mostly the same values, the same sense of right and wrong. He's easy for me to agree with on principle.
He wrote a book here that makes it clear that as Americans we've got a long history of shitting on the poor. Of not giving people a fair break. Of all kinds of ugly, uncool, inexcusable stuff.
That's a good book to write. But he says it's a book about the biases of the Supreme Court.
I'm not sure that he makes the case.
He tells us again and again about the right wing takeover of the Court. He makes a convincing case that this was done in a nefarious manner by nefarious actors. I'll give him that. And he makes a decent case that a lot of the people on the Court aren't the nicest, most generous or empathetic people. I think Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas are pricks, so I'll buy it to some extent. Not wholesale.
But then he stretches, I believe, to make the case that all these Court decisions he disagrees with are about a bias against the poor, an anti-poor/pro-corporate agenda. He suggests that the problem with the Court is the values of the Justices.
That may be true, but I think Cohen leaves a lot out.
The thing that he mostly leaves out, which this book would seriously benefit from, is the notion that there are legitimate differences in opinion that influence Court decisions, different ways of viewing facts.
I'll go ahead and take a moral high ground view and kind of be on Cohen's side and say that there are NOT legitimate differences of opinion regarding the relative value of poor people or how poor people should be treated and so on. I'll say there's right and wrong there, and that people who want to marginalize the poor are bad guys.
But there are legit differences in understanding as to what role the Supreme Court should play in any of that. Again and again, Cohen comes down on the Court for not siding with the marginalized and victimized. But that doesn't always makes sense. It's like this-- I work as a Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor for the state. I help people with disabilities get training and get jobs and make better lives for themselves and their families. Sometimes, someone without a disability comes to me for help. They really, truly need help, and I don't give them the help they need. That sucks. But it's not because I'm a bad guy. It's because I work for an agency that helps people with disabilities. If you don't have a disability and you're knocking on my door, then you're just knocking on the WRONG door.
I feel like Cohen does a lot of knocking on the wrong door in this book. Yeah, this stuff sucks. Yeah, it's wrong. But also, it's not up to the Supreme Court to set policy. It really, truly isn't. Republicans say that all the time, and so I hate to say it, because we're not on the same team. But it's true. The Court is not a lawmaking body, is not a policy-setting body. And in a Democracy, we don't want a few unelected individuals with life terms to be that.
It's not that this stuff doesn't mater, or that we should stop knocking on doors. We should be making change. KICKING IN doors. But the right ones.
So, yeah, this book has a good heart, but from what I read (again, not all of it), it puts it's heart in the wrong place.
I didn't love this. Partly, I didn't love it because I started reading it right before the shutdowns, and the topic is heavy and depressing and when the shutdowns started and everyone started freaking out I really just didn't want to keep reading this. Just wasn't the right book at the right time.
But also.
Also I didn't love it because I didn't love it.
I think Adam Cohen and I have mostly the same values, the same sense of right and wrong. He's easy for me to agree with on principle.
He wrote a book here that makes it clear that as Americans we've got a long history of shitting on the poor. Of not giving people a fair break. Of all kinds of ugly, uncool, inexcusable stuff.
That's a good book to write. But he says it's a book about the biases of the Supreme Court.
I'm not sure that he makes the case.
He tells us again and again about the right wing takeover of the Court. He makes a convincing case that this was done in a nefarious manner by nefarious actors. I'll give him that. And he makes a decent case that a lot of the people on the Court aren't the nicest, most generous or empathetic people. I think Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas are pricks, so I'll buy it to some extent. Not wholesale.
But then he stretches, I believe, to make the case that all these Court decisions he disagrees with are about a bias against the poor, an anti-poor/pro-corporate agenda. He suggests that the problem with the Court is the values of the Justices.
That may be true, but I think Cohen leaves a lot out.
The thing that he mostly leaves out, which this book would seriously benefit from, is the notion that there are legitimate differences in opinion that influence Court decisions, different ways of viewing facts.
I'll go ahead and take a moral high ground view and kind of be on Cohen's side and say that there are NOT legitimate differences of opinion regarding the relative value of poor people or how poor people should be treated and so on. I'll say there's right and wrong there, and that people who want to marginalize the poor are bad guys.
But there are legit differences in understanding as to what role the Supreme Court should play in any of that. Again and again, Cohen comes down on the Court for not siding with the marginalized and victimized. But that doesn't always makes sense. It's like this-- I work as a Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor for the state. I help people with disabilities get training and get jobs and make better lives for themselves and their families. Sometimes, someone without a disability comes to me for help. They really, truly need help, and I don't give them the help they need. That sucks. But it's not because I'm a bad guy. It's because I work for an agency that helps people with disabilities. If you don't have a disability and you're knocking on my door, then you're just knocking on the WRONG door.
I feel like Cohen does a lot of knocking on the wrong door in this book. Yeah, this stuff sucks. Yeah, it's wrong. But also, it's not up to the Supreme Court to set policy. It really, truly isn't. Republicans say that all the time, and so I hate to say it, because we're not on the same team. But it's true. The Court is not a lawmaking body, is not a policy-setting body. And in a Democracy, we don't want a few unelected individuals with life terms to be that.
It's not that this stuff doesn't mater, or that we should stop knocking on doors. We should be making change. KICKING IN doors. But the right ones.
So, yeah, this book has a good heart, but from what I read (again, not all of it), it puts it's heart in the wrong place.
May 2, 2020
This one falls in my "this should be required reading" bucket. There isn't a paragraph in here that isn't thought provoking - Cohen does an excellent job making complicated concepts clearer and helping to explain the implications of court decisions and their opinions. At the Supreme Court, the legal reasoning for the outcome can often have more impact than just the actual ruling. Regardless of which side of the political bench you fall on, every single person out there should read the section on campaign finance before they decide how to vote. We should have a better understanding of what is happening in the run up to elections and the payoff that is happening in votes after the election based on what we allow in campaign finance.
May 14, 2022
The Supreme Court, LLC
We are our own worst enemy.
We're all living in Nixon's America (terrifying)
Adding to the unethical refusal to recuse from cases that are very much conflicts of interest
. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...
We are our own worst enemy.
We're all living in Nixon's America (terrifying)
Adding to the unethical refusal to recuse from cases that are very much conflicts of interest
. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...
August 21, 2022
Informative, fascinating, well researched, nuanced, and deeply, deeply upsetting.
February 14, 2023
In
The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court
van Jeffrey Toobin maakte ik kennis met de poppenkast van het Amerikaanse Hooggerechtshof. Net als Toobin schetst journalist en jurist Adam Cohen (1962) een levendig (of zo u wil: smeuïg) portret van de negen door de president voorgedragen rechters. Zijn invalshoek is echter inhoudelijker: Cohen concentreert zich op de status van mensen in zwakkere posities in de jurisprudentie van het hof. Supreme inequality bevat daarom niet alleen een analyse van de politieke benoemingen, maar ook van uitspraken van het hof van pakweg de afgelopen vijftig jaar op het gebied van publieke voorzieningen, onderwijs, partijfinanciering en democratische verkiezingen, arbeid en de positie van bedrijven, in het bijzonder strafrechtelijke aansprakelijkheid en arbitrageclausules. De titel van het boek verraadt dat de conclusie er niet om liegt:
Cohen laat enerzijds zien hoe conservatieve en liberale krachten om de macht van het hof strijden, waarbij hij zijn voorkeur voor het liberale Warren Court (1953-1969) niet onder stoelen of banken steekt en Richard Nixon aanwijst als de president die het hof met wat geluk en vals spel naar rechts wist te duwen. Anderzijds schrijft Cohen hoe gerechtelijk activisme aan weerszijden een immense rol speelt en de conservatieve krachten er via het hof in toenemende mate in geslaagd zijn om mensen in zwakkere posities – in het bijzonder arme en zwarte mensen – rechten te ontnemen.
De analyse van de uitspraken geeft een inkijk in de Amerikaanse samenleving. Hoewel een deel ervan juridisch-technisch is, verwijst Cohen hier en daar ook naar de literatuur. Zo laat hij in zijn verhandeling van Edwards v. California (1941) weten dat het Californische verbod om arme mensen de staat in te helpen bedoeld was als maatregel tegen de toestroom van ‘Okies’, bij het publiek bekend door The Grapes of Wrath van John Steinbeck. In de verhandeling van Milliken v. Bradley (1974) over het verschil tussen de-jure- en de-facto-segregatie in het onderwijs citeert hij James Baldwin: De facto segregation means Negroes are segregated, but nobody did it. In de verhandeling van Buckley v. Valeo (1976) ten slotte, de beroemde zaak waarin het hof stelt dat beperkingen aan campagnebijdragen in strijd zijn met de vrijheid van meningsuiting, vergelijkt Cohen de idee van money equals speech met het libertarisme van Ayn Rand.
Supreme inequality is ondanks de materie toegankelijk geschreven. Cohen overtuigt met zijn stelling dat het Amerikaanse Hooggerechtshof zich niet (meer) voor de taak gesteld ziet een gelijk speelveld te creëren voor alle burgers. Zijn Democratische agenda is voor Europese lezers herkenbaar, al is ook duidelijk dat de schrijver in eigen land controversiëler moet zijn. Mij heeft het geleerd dat de tegenstellingen in de Verenigde Staten niet alleen aanzienlijk zijn, wat bekend is, maar dat ze zich ook op verschillende manieren en op verschillende scheidslijnen manifesteren. De rol van het grote geld is daarin onmiskenbaar.
For five decades, the Court has, with striking regularity, sided with the rich and powerful against the poor and weak, in virtually every area of the law.
Cohen laat enerzijds zien hoe conservatieve en liberale krachten om de macht van het hof strijden, waarbij hij zijn voorkeur voor het liberale Warren Court (1953-1969) niet onder stoelen of banken steekt en Richard Nixon aanwijst als de president die het hof met wat geluk en vals spel naar rechts wist te duwen. Anderzijds schrijft Cohen hoe gerechtelijk activisme aan weerszijden een immense rol speelt en de conservatieve krachten er via het hof in toenemende mate in geslaagd zijn om mensen in zwakkere posities – in het bijzonder arme en zwarte mensen – rechten te ontnemen.
De analyse van de uitspraken geeft een inkijk in de Amerikaanse samenleving. Hoewel een deel ervan juridisch-technisch is, verwijst Cohen hier en daar ook naar de literatuur. Zo laat hij in zijn verhandeling van Edwards v. California (1941) weten dat het Californische verbod om arme mensen de staat in te helpen bedoeld was als maatregel tegen de toestroom van ‘Okies’, bij het publiek bekend door The Grapes of Wrath van John Steinbeck. In de verhandeling van Milliken v. Bradley (1974) over het verschil tussen de-jure- en de-facto-segregatie in het onderwijs citeert hij James Baldwin: De facto segregation means Negroes are segregated, but nobody did it. In de verhandeling van Buckley v. Valeo (1976) ten slotte, de beroemde zaak waarin het hof stelt dat beperkingen aan campagnebijdragen in strijd zijn met de vrijheid van meningsuiting, vergelijkt Cohen de idee van money equals speech met het libertarisme van Ayn Rand.
Supreme inequality is ondanks de materie toegankelijk geschreven. Cohen overtuigt met zijn stelling dat het Amerikaanse Hooggerechtshof zich niet (meer) voor de taak gesteld ziet een gelijk speelveld te creëren voor alle burgers. Zijn Democratische agenda is voor Europese lezers herkenbaar, al is ook duidelijk dat de schrijver in eigen land controversiëler moet zijn. Mij heeft het geleerd dat de tegenstellingen in de Verenigde Staten niet alleen aanzienlijk zijn, wat bekend is, maar dat ze zich ook op verschillende manieren en op verschillende scheidslijnen manifesteren. De rol van het grote geld is daarin onmiskenbaar.
November 20, 2020
This is an incredibly depressing book. It starts at that brief, shining moment when the court experimented with the idea that the law was there to defend the dignity and worth of those who are traditionally excluded. It then explores in detail the court’s rapid retreat from that experiment.
The book is an agony in eight acts. I flagged a lot of pages in those chapters, but they are too depressing to detail. Briefly, according to Cohen:
Chapter 1. Protection the Poor.
First, let us be clear: for most of its history, the court has vigorously protected property rights over other individual rights or legislative attempts to solve common problems. See, e.g., Dred Scott, Lochner, Plessy. There was this brief moment where, in response to the Great Depression and maybe shared horrors of World War II, the court reoriented towards individual dignity and common solutions to common problems. A strong thread starts in Carolene Products, a case that concerned federal regulation of the dairy industry. The dairy industry did not like being told what it could not add to milk and sued. Once upon a time, the dairy industry would have won, but there were a lot of FDR appointees on the court. While they did not give the dairy industry what it wanted, it gave civilization a footnote that said the court would soften or even abandon the presumption a statute was unconstitutional when that statute butted up against certain constitutional rights, and suggested it might when legislation worked to the disadvantage of minorities who had been cut out of the political process.
The court did not say that poor people are in this category. It came very close and Justice Jackson hinted strongly he would have gone there. But in many of its decisions for a brief time, it acted like that was a jurisprudential thread -- and was a consideration in evaluating whether congress had violated other rights. A countervailing argument, at the least, to those concerned regulation damaged a property right without sufficient cause.
Chapter 2. Turning Against the Poor
This thread was strongly woven into our jurisprudential fabric until 1968, according to Cohen, until the election of Richard Nixon and a very bad decision by Earl Warren to step down to give LBJ the opportunity to appoint a new chief justice and a new justice. In Cohen’s view, this disastrous decision lost us a very good justice (Fortas) and set us back down the Lochner path. Senate conservatives were so opposed to Justice Fortas becoming the new chief (some based on Fortas’s progressive jurisprudence; some for avowedly anti-Semitic reasons) that they ended up hounding him from the bench. Nixon, it seems, used the FBI to help that cause. And soon after, a whole lot of 5-4 decisions against poor people started being handed down.
Chapter 3. Education
Once upon a time, the court concluded that separate but unequal schools were inherently unequal. In Rodriquez it essentially decided that preexisting school district boundaries were more important that guaranteeing educational equality. In Parents Involved in Community Schools it found the constitution prohibited school districts from taking voluntary steps to provide an integrated educational experience. In Kadrmas, the court found students had no right to be transported to school -- a decision that shows either no insight into, or not care about, what it means to be poor.
Chapter 4. Campaign Finance
Nixon again. I feel dumb - the “Buckley” of Buckley v. Valeo was William F. Buckley’s brother. This case changed the world. Not in a good way. Very Lochneresque.
Chapter 5. Democracy
In Baker v. Carr, the USSC said that everyone’s congressional vote had to be roughly equal; that it’s not fair if two people get to pick one legislator and all of Los Angeles gets to pick another. It’s a textual exegesis, but it follows a vision that the constitution is there to protect individual dignity and worth, especially the dignity and worth of those largely cut out of the political process. The court has retreated hard from that principle. See, e.g., Shelby County. Rest in Peace, Representative John Lewis and major portions of the Voting Rights Act.
Chapter 6. Workers
Lilly Ledbetter was paid less than her colleagues for decades. The court read the statute of limitations in such a way to give her no remedy. The court also gave a strained and historically implausible interpretation to the Federal Arbitration Act in such a way as to essentially deprive workers of the ability to vindicate a vast panoply of rights.
Chapter 7. Corporations
While the court was ratcheting down on the constitutional protections given to individuals, it was quite protective of the constitutional rights of corporations. Protected them from regulation and punitive damages that might have made them better actors. By contrast, the court found no problem with life sentences for stealing less than $200.
Chapter 8. Criminal Justice.
The court found a right to an attorney and then refused to enforce it. It allowed hundreds of men to go to the gallows, and thousands to lengthy sentences, with essentially no defense. It has increased economic inequality by allowing state to essentially criminalize poverty and by removing anyone with a criminal record from the voting rolls -- even though we know far more people from discrete an insular minorities end up in the criminal justice system than would be predicted by actual commission of crimes.
So, this book is depressing. Now, it doesn’t talk about the moments of grace, like the court’s recognition that LGBTQ people are worthy of dignity and protection. Or the court’s recognition that it biffed it by allowing children to treated like adults in the criminal justice system. Or the modest constraints it imposed on the government’s power to hold people without process. But all in all, a harrowing book about the way the court has usually been the handmaiden of the powerful. May we be forgiven.
The book is an agony in eight acts. I flagged a lot of pages in those chapters, but they are too depressing to detail. Briefly, according to Cohen:
Chapter 1. Protection the Poor.
First, let us be clear: for most of its history, the court has vigorously protected property rights over other individual rights or legislative attempts to solve common problems. See, e.g., Dred Scott, Lochner, Plessy. There was this brief moment where, in response to the Great Depression and maybe shared horrors of World War II, the court reoriented towards individual dignity and common solutions to common problems. A strong thread starts in Carolene Products, a case that concerned federal regulation of the dairy industry. The dairy industry did not like being told what it could not add to milk and sued. Once upon a time, the dairy industry would have won, but there were a lot of FDR appointees on the court. While they did not give the dairy industry what it wanted, it gave civilization a footnote that said the court would soften or even abandon the presumption a statute was unconstitutional when that statute butted up against certain constitutional rights, and suggested it might when legislation worked to the disadvantage of minorities who had been cut out of the political process.
The court did not say that poor people are in this category. It came very close and Justice Jackson hinted strongly he would have gone there. But in many of its decisions for a brief time, it acted like that was a jurisprudential thread -- and was a consideration in evaluating whether congress had violated other rights. A countervailing argument, at the least, to those concerned regulation damaged a property right without sufficient cause.
Chapter 2. Turning Against the Poor
This thread was strongly woven into our jurisprudential fabric until 1968, according to Cohen, until the election of Richard Nixon and a very bad decision by Earl Warren to step down to give LBJ the opportunity to appoint a new chief justice and a new justice. In Cohen’s view, this disastrous decision lost us a very good justice (Fortas) and set us back down the Lochner path. Senate conservatives were so opposed to Justice Fortas becoming the new chief (some based on Fortas’s progressive jurisprudence; some for avowedly anti-Semitic reasons) that they ended up hounding him from the bench. Nixon, it seems, used the FBI to help that cause. And soon after, a whole lot of 5-4 decisions against poor people started being handed down.
Chapter 3. Education
Once upon a time, the court concluded that separate but unequal schools were inherently unequal. In Rodriquez it essentially decided that preexisting school district boundaries were more important that guaranteeing educational equality. In Parents Involved in Community Schools it found the constitution prohibited school districts from taking voluntary steps to provide an integrated educational experience. In Kadrmas, the court found students had no right to be transported to school -- a decision that shows either no insight into, or not care about, what it means to be poor.
Chapter 4. Campaign Finance
Nixon again. I feel dumb - the “Buckley” of Buckley v. Valeo was William F. Buckley’s brother. This case changed the world. Not in a good way. Very Lochneresque.
Chapter 5. Democracy
In Baker v. Carr, the USSC said that everyone’s congressional vote had to be roughly equal; that it’s not fair if two people get to pick one legislator and all of Los Angeles gets to pick another. It’s a textual exegesis, but it follows a vision that the constitution is there to protect individual dignity and worth, especially the dignity and worth of those largely cut out of the political process. The court has retreated hard from that principle. See, e.g., Shelby County. Rest in Peace, Representative John Lewis and major portions of the Voting Rights Act.
Chapter 6. Workers
Lilly Ledbetter was paid less than her colleagues for decades. The court read the statute of limitations in such a way to give her no remedy. The court also gave a strained and historically implausible interpretation to the Federal Arbitration Act in such a way as to essentially deprive workers of the ability to vindicate a vast panoply of rights.
Chapter 7. Corporations
While the court was ratcheting down on the constitutional protections given to individuals, it was quite protective of the constitutional rights of corporations. Protected them from regulation and punitive damages that might have made them better actors. By contrast, the court found no problem with life sentences for stealing less than $200.
Chapter 8. Criminal Justice.
The court found a right to an attorney and then refused to enforce it. It allowed hundreds of men to go to the gallows, and thousands to lengthy sentences, with essentially no defense. It has increased economic inequality by allowing state to essentially criminalize poverty and by removing anyone with a criminal record from the voting rolls -- even though we know far more people from discrete an insular minorities end up in the criminal justice system than would be predicted by actual commission of crimes.
So, this book is depressing. Now, it doesn’t talk about the moments of grace, like the court’s recognition that LGBTQ people are worthy of dignity and protection. Or the court’s recognition that it biffed it by allowing children to treated like adults in the criminal justice system. Or the modest constraints it imposed on the government’s power to hold people without process. But all in all, a harrowing book about the way the court has usually been the handmaiden of the powerful. May we be forgiven.
March 15, 2021
Glad I read this! Cohen weaves together seemingly disparate topics from my law school education (constitutional law, criminal law, criminal procedure, civil procedure, First Amendment) and tells a cohesive story through the lens of inequality, between rich and poor as well as corporations and individuals. It's sort of a love letter to the Warren Court, and a bit of hate letter to Nixon and the Nixon appointees. Cohen outlines a lot of what-ifs — what if this case had been decided differently, what if this nominee had in fact gotten confirmed, etc. I found Cohen's writing clear and easy to follow, but this book is fairly case-centric, and probably a lot easier to understand with some legal background.
November 23, 2020
Details the Supreme Court's drift from left to right over the last 50 years. Demonstrates with court cases and history, but frequently ends up overstating and speculating - could have done a much better job with the material.
The first chapter sums up the liberal Warren court, touching on cases emphasizing gender and racial equality. This chapter also shows the pipeline of cases about the poor, hoping to highlight their plight and minority mistreatment - but it was not to be. The book then veers into the dirty tricks that Nixon and his cabinet used to counteract the court - known during the time as the Nixon court.
From that point on, a majority of the book focuses on loss after loss for cases involving the poor. The book repeatedly spends time speculating on "what would have happened" had Warren not been replaced by Nixon, had Fortis not been forced off the court. These muddy the message. At a guess, these are here to provoke the reader to anger, hardly useful in context.
Towards the end, the book dives into more recent rulings, helping prop up corporations and white collar crime, while removing restrictions on campaign spending. The outcomes here are more straightforward, and the author reduces speculation. The direction is frightening, with legal scholars and even the justices noting that an end result is a prison state - at least for the vast majority of Americans.
This book does make the case that many votes are along idealogical lines, even going as far as invoking a "constitutional doctrine that it all but made up." Far from ruling on constitutionality, the court has often used its power to shape the country without passing laws - and those actions are becoming more frequent.
The conclusion is excellent, though it brings up a direction not noted in the book. "For many conservatives, the real battleground has always been the New Deal and the way in which it vastly expanded the federal governments role in the life of the nation." While it is true that the recent court is hostile to those programs, it is hardly the job of the court to provide alternatives. Unfortunately, no president or congress will be able to create the right laws to back up vital programs like Social Security, leaving a 6-3 Court to erode them completely.
The book has 76 pages of references of the various rulings discussed, leading it to seem shorter than its nearly 450 pages. A better history with less speculation would have made this a better and more impactful narrative. 3 stars out of 5.
The first chapter sums up the liberal Warren court, touching on cases emphasizing gender and racial equality. This chapter also shows the pipeline of cases about the poor, hoping to highlight their plight and minority mistreatment - but it was not to be. The book then veers into the dirty tricks that Nixon and his cabinet used to counteract the court - known during the time as the Nixon court.
From that point on, a majority of the book focuses on loss after loss for cases involving the poor. The book repeatedly spends time speculating on "what would have happened" had Warren not been replaced by Nixon, had Fortis not been forced off the court. These muddy the message. At a guess, these are here to provoke the reader to anger, hardly useful in context.
Towards the end, the book dives into more recent rulings, helping prop up corporations and white collar crime, while removing restrictions on campaign spending. The outcomes here are more straightforward, and the author reduces speculation. The direction is frightening, with legal scholars and even the justices noting that an end result is a prison state - at least for the vast majority of Americans.
This book does make the case that many votes are along idealogical lines, even going as far as invoking a "constitutional doctrine that it all but made up." Far from ruling on constitutionality, the court has often used its power to shape the country without passing laws - and those actions are becoming more frequent.
The conclusion is excellent, though it brings up a direction not noted in the book. "For many conservatives, the real battleground has always been the New Deal and the way in which it vastly expanded the federal governments role in the life of the nation." While it is true that the recent court is hostile to those programs, it is hardly the job of the court to provide alternatives. Unfortunately, no president or congress will be able to create the right laws to back up vital programs like Social Security, leaving a 6-3 Court to erode them completely.
The book has 76 pages of references of the various rulings discussed, leading it to seem shorter than its nearly 450 pages. A better history with less speculation would have made this a better and more impactful narrative. 3 stars out of 5.
March 10, 2020
The word that comes to mind is stodgy. I don't know if that is the best word, but I think is sums up how I feel about this book. Basically, Cohen seems a little upset about how the Supreme Court has ruled since the end of the Warren court. Earl Warren was a defender of poor and middle classes, and left the court in 1969. The new court, through nefarious actions on Nixon's part, became known as the Nixon court. Ever since, the Supreme Court has mostly been persuaded by conservative ideology, at the expense of the poor and middle classes, racial minorities, women, labor unions, etc. The whole book can be summarized as follows:
-Supreme Court Justices usually vote their ideology.
-Most rulings split along ideological lines.
-As long as the conservative ideology maintains a majority, things important to them will prevail, and things typically important to liberals will get trampled on.
-The fact that the POTUS nominates the justices has made all the difference in determining which ideology will prevail at the SCOTUS.
-Republicans have been more adept at playing the nomination game and securing the White House than democrats.
While I largely agree with Cohen that the last 50 years have been largely a setback to my ideology, we must recognize that it has likely been an era of rejoicing for the conservative ideology. That's life. That's why we vote. That's why the President matters. This book was really a summary of case after case, told in an uninteresting way, but always giving the feeling like the SCOTUS got it wrong. Well, yeah, so thought the minority in every ruling as always described in the dissenting opinions. I guess this book just didn't feel persuasive towards any goal. Just a lot of information. Still, I find the information to be very relevant to society today and important for people to understand. There just might be books that illustrate the debate in a more interesting and engaging way.
-Supreme Court Justices usually vote their ideology.
-Most rulings split along ideological lines.
-As long as the conservative ideology maintains a majority, things important to them will prevail, and things typically important to liberals will get trampled on.
-The fact that the POTUS nominates the justices has made all the difference in determining which ideology will prevail at the SCOTUS.
-Republicans have been more adept at playing the nomination game and securing the White House than democrats.
While I largely agree with Cohen that the last 50 years have been largely a setback to my ideology, we must recognize that it has likely been an era of rejoicing for the conservative ideology. That's life. That's why we vote. That's why the President matters. This book was really a summary of case after case, told in an uninteresting way, but always giving the feeling like the SCOTUS got it wrong. Well, yeah, so thought the minority in every ruling as always described in the dissenting opinions. I guess this book just didn't feel persuasive towards any goal. Just a lot of information. Still, I find the information to be very relevant to society today and important for people to understand. There just might be books that illustrate the debate in a more interesting and engaging way.
June 1, 2022
A big shoutout to F.O.I.R. Podcast for bringing this book to my attention. This book is SO important – in my opinion, it should be required reading for all U.S. citizens. Adam Cohen has written a captivating and extremely well-researched historical examination of the direction of the Supreme Court over the past 50 years. The Supreme Court is tasked with ensuring the promise of equal justice under law for all Americans; specifically, it is supposed to guard and interpret the constitution. In this book, Cohen chronicles the shift toward a conservative majority on the Supreme Court over the last 5 decades and the consequences of that shift for lower- and middle-class Americans. He describes signature Supreme Court rulings to support his thesis that, over the last half-century, Supreme Court decisions have been increasingly pro-business favoring wealthy individuals and large corporations at the expense of employees and consumers, resulting in the largest wealth and income inequality since before the Great Depression. Cohen also provides examples of notable cases in which the conservative majority Supreme Court has ‘misread the law’, ‘twisted the law’, and engaged in ‘unabashed judicial lawmaking’, which has resulted in unequal access to education, voting, social justice and criminal justice. This book is an important resource to better inform all of us about the broad spectrum and far-reaching effects of the votes we cast.
November 11, 2020
Whew. A lot of things make a lot more sense now. For shame. Wild to think about how the most modern understanding of our "just" society was only made possible through the short period we had a progressive supreme court (that's when we saw Brown v Board which desegregated schools, which Eisenhower, who appointed the key justice who decided, said it was his biggest regret) and ever since Nixon took over, his swift reconfiguration took us on a path to strip rights from average citizens while awarding rights to corporations and the most wealthy. It's truly disturbing to read about how much the justices are chosen along ideological lines and often vote reliably along those lines. Looking at the current make up of the court, it's terrifying thinking about what's to come.
March 23, 2022
This is a fantastic, must-read for anyone who is interested in SCOTUS, how politics and law have shaped our country, or the rise of economic inequality in the US. I am, admittedly, a little bit obsessed with the history of the Supreme Court and was pretty near guaranteed to love this, but I was surprised to find it extremely accessible and compulsively readable, to the extent that I think even those who do not share my inordinate interest will still find it very engaging.
Bonus, I listened to the audio version, and the narration was excellent, highly recommend.
Bonus, I listened to the audio version, and the narration was excellent, highly recommend.
July 12, 2020
A vast survey of significant cases before the Supreme Court and an assessment of the Warren Court and its “liberal” views to the right shift that began under Burger and continues under Roberts. I wish there had been better documentation of opinions. But, on the whole, very informative.
July 29, 2020
Interesting and informative book about how recent Supreme Court decisions are eroding rights for the poor, minorities, and marginalized in our country. Full review coming soon.
3.5 starts rounded up because <3 SC
3.5 starts rounded up because <3 SC
October 22, 2021
Well, that was depressing. Interesting but depressing. The critiques about this being a narrow analysis of a broader issue aren't wrong ...and it's still an informative read. It made me think about how different law school education (and maybe the profession as a whole) might be if this history was required reading.
October 14, 2020
"My liberal friends have over many decades gotten very used to the idea of having a liberal Court, but that's not written in the stars."
--Sen. Mitt Romney, Sept. 2020
Good ol' Mittens is wrong, of course. We have not had a "liberal Court" in this country for 50 years, and the fait accompli of Amy Coney Barrett's ascension onto the Court ensures that we will not have one for another 50.
It's undoubtedly true that conservatives have better understood the value of judges to cementing their agenda (and backstopping their opponents'), but it's just as true that conservative justices on the Court have better managed their legacies with well-timed departures than have their liberal counterparts. Ever since LBJ bungled the Earl Warren succession plan and Richard Nixon ratfucked Abe Fortas into resigning his seat, progressives have been playing catch-up -- and losing: Fifty years of Republican-appointed chief justices, each one more conservative than the last. The incalculable harm of the Merrick Garland affair. In addition, there have been three crucial ideological flips over the last 30 years that have also served as body blows:
--Thurgood Marshall couldn't hang on until 1993, retiring before Bill Clinton could replace him (he died four days after Clinton's inauguration). Clarence Thomas still sits in his seat.
--Sandra Day O'Connor, the moderate Republican swing vote, retired to take care of her ailing husband in 2006. Samuel Alito, decidedly not a moderate swing vote, now sits in her seat.
--And of course, perhaps the most fatal of all, the imminent Ruth Bader Ginsburg-to-Barrett flip, a piece of judicial whiplash we may be living with through -- brace yourself -- 2060. Bury the rag deep in your face...
Adam Cohen's book ably chronicles all of this in a somewhat laborious but compelling account of the Supreme Court's half-century-long rightward drift and its cost on everyday people. We know the biggies: Citizens United, Bush v. Gore, Buckley v. Valeo, but Cohen cites plenty of lesser-known cases that all support his central thesis that the Supreme Court has largely existed to serve the gilded class at the expense of the poor and middle class. (Even the supposed progressive monument Roe v. Wade, decided by the Burger Court with four Nixon nominees on it, has been bloodied by so many cuts over the years that it's a shell of its former self.)
From a prose perspective, Cohen's book is why the word workmanlike was invented. He is not a stylist, and he doesn't traffic in the dishy horse-trading that makes Jeffrey Toobin's books so entertaining. But the cumulative effect is powerful, and will leave you lamenting how much of American life rests on tenuous 5-4 decisions based on the fickle nature of Court vacancies and other chicanery.
Long story short: term limits, please.
--Sen. Mitt Romney, Sept. 2020
Good ol' Mittens is wrong, of course. We have not had a "liberal Court" in this country for 50 years, and the fait accompli of Amy Coney Barrett's ascension onto the Court ensures that we will not have one for another 50.
It's undoubtedly true that conservatives have better understood the value of judges to cementing their agenda (and backstopping their opponents'), but it's just as true that conservative justices on the Court have better managed their legacies with well-timed departures than have their liberal counterparts. Ever since LBJ bungled the Earl Warren succession plan and Richard Nixon ratfucked Abe Fortas into resigning his seat, progressives have been playing catch-up -- and losing: Fifty years of Republican-appointed chief justices, each one more conservative than the last. The incalculable harm of the Merrick Garland affair. In addition, there have been three crucial ideological flips over the last 30 years that have also served as body blows:
--Thurgood Marshall couldn't hang on until 1993, retiring before Bill Clinton could replace him (he died four days after Clinton's inauguration). Clarence Thomas still sits in his seat.
--Sandra Day O'Connor, the moderate Republican swing vote, retired to take care of her ailing husband in 2006. Samuel Alito, decidedly not a moderate swing vote, now sits in her seat.
--And of course, perhaps the most fatal of all, the imminent Ruth Bader Ginsburg-to-Barrett flip, a piece of judicial whiplash we may be living with through -- brace yourself -- 2060. Bury the rag deep in your face...
Adam Cohen's book ably chronicles all of this in a somewhat laborious but compelling account of the Supreme Court's half-century-long rightward drift and its cost on everyday people. We know the biggies: Citizens United, Bush v. Gore, Buckley v. Valeo, but Cohen cites plenty of lesser-known cases that all support his central thesis that the Supreme Court has largely existed to serve the gilded class at the expense of the poor and middle class. (Even the supposed progressive monument Roe v. Wade, decided by the Burger Court with four Nixon nominees on it, has been bloodied by so many cuts over the years that it's a shell of its former self.)
From a prose perspective, Cohen's book is why the word workmanlike was invented. He is not a stylist, and he doesn't traffic in the dishy horse-trading that makes Jeffrey Toobin's books so entertaining. But the cumulative effect is powerful, and will leave you lamenting how much of American life rests on tenuous 5-4 decisions based on the fickle nature of Court vacancies and other chicanery.
Long story short: term limits, please.
November 22, 2020
“The Court ruled that there was no unconstitutional disproportionality in sentencing a human being to spend 50 years to life in prison for a $153.54 theft. A month later, it declared that it violated the Constitution to impose more than $9 million in punitive damages on a corporation with $50 billion in annual revenue that had badly abused a physically disabled customer.”
I am so disappointed in my country, and its Supreme Court. Not because I have any legal training, special knowledge, or acumen. Rather, Adam Cohen has clearly outlined key rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States since 1969 and the ways this group of 9 robed humans has systemtically, unquestionably, increased inequality and concentrated power in the hands of those already in possession of it. It is a heart wrenching tale of injustice incarnate. The charge that this body has become politicized and aloof is undeniably true.
Cohen does a brilliant job lining up his thesis. He begins by outlining the progress made by the the liberal Warren court in striking down:
- “Man in the house” rules, whereby a woman’s welfare could be discontinued if someone reported seeing a male entering or leaving her home
- Anti-Okie laws making it illegal to transport a poor person into a particular state
- Durational residency requirements for welfare and other state benefits
- Right to counsel regardless of offence (Gideon v. Wainwright)
- Myriad others in all domains of law
But then, the court turns on the poor. Dandridge v. Williams (capping welfare benefits regardless of number of children). US v. Kras (you need to pay fees to file for bankruptcy). Myriad others. This was the result of a sudden change in SCOTUS composition, the brainchild of Richard Nixon. The Warren Court had become the “Nixon Court”
Nixon was using the Attorney General and the Justice Department to investigate Justice Abe Fortas’ wife, threaten their family (eventually Fortas would resign under this pressure). Nixon was getting constant updates on the health of liberal justices to pounce on any opportunities. He was using the IRS to threaten his political enemies. An astonishing situation.
Eventually, Adam Cohen weaves a tale of hypocrisy and inconsistency in our Supreme Court rulings. Of course, scholars of the court will argue that there are myriad rulings that countervail Cohen’s thesis. But, I am sorry to say, the juxtaposition of SCOTUS rulings when dealing with white collar vs. blue collar defendants is harrowing.
Corporations get unlimited political speech, not to be constrained. Small political activists who want to staple paper leaflets on telephone poles are NOT ALLOWED TO DO SO in California.
SCOTUS has ruled that if your court-appointed lawyer is sleeping during your capital offense case, that is still adequate representation.
Maetta Vance is being harassed by a co-worker who makes her schedule, is being called a “porch monkey” and other epithets. The court rules that Maetta doesn’t have standing to sue for discrimination, because the co-worker isn’t technically her supervisor.
And so on.
If you hate injustice, this book will break your heart. The quote above is in reference to:
The court rejected a multimillion-dollar lawsuit against State Farm Insurance, which had broken the law in taking advantage of its clients. SCOTUS deemed the monetary punishment excessive (it was <0.3% of State Farm’s annual revenue). A 37-year old father and military veteran stole $150 in children’s VHS tapes. Under California’s three-strikes policy, Leandro Andrade was sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole for 50 years. He appealed to the Supreme Court that the punishment was excessive. SCOTUS upheld the sentence, deeming it not cruel and unusual, and Leandro Andrade was sentenced to prison until at least age 87.
This is the justice of our great country.
I am so disappointed in my country, and its Supreme Court. Not because I have any legal training, special knowledge, or acumen. Rather, Adam Cohen has clearly outlined key rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States since 1969 and the ways this group of 9 robed humans has systemtically, unquestionably, increased inequality and concentrated power in the hands of those already in possession of it. It is a heart wrenching tale of injustice incarnate. The charge that this body has become politicized and aloof is undeniably true.
Cohen does a brilliant job lining up his thesis. He begins by outlining the progress made by the the liberal Warren court in striking down:
- “Man in the house” rules, whereby a woman’s welfare could be discontinued if someone reported seeing a male entering or leaving her home
- Anti-Okie laws making it illegal to transport a poor person into a particular state
- Durational residency requirements for welfare and other state benefits
- Right to counsel regardless of offence (Gideon v. Wainwright)
- Myriad others in all domains of law
But then, the court turns on the poor. Dandridge v. Williams (capping welfare benefits regardless of number of children). US v. Kras (you need to pay fees to file for bankruptcy). Myriad others. This was the result of a sudden change in SCOTUS composition, the brainchild of Richard Nixon. The Warren Court had become the “Nixon Court”
Nixon was using the Attorney General and the Justice Department to investigate Justice Abe Fortas’ wife, threaten their family (eventually Fortas would resign under this pressure). Nixon was getting constant updates on the health of liberal justices to pounce on any opportunities. He was using the IRS to threaten his political enemies. An astonishing situation.
Eventually, Adam Cohen weaves a tale of hypocrisy and inconsistency in our Supreme Court rulings. Of course, scholars of the court will argue that there are myriad rulings that countervail Cohen’s thesis. But, I am sorry to say, the juxtaposition of SCOTUS rulings when dealing with white collar vs. blue collar defendants is harrowing.
Corporations get unlimited political speech, not to be constrained. Small political activists who want to staple paper leaflets on telephone poles are NOT ALLOWED TO DO SO in California.
SCOTUS has ruled that if your court-appointed lawyer is sleeping during your capital offense case, that is still adequate representation.
Maetta Vance is being harassed by a co-worker who makes her schedule, is being called a “porch monkey” and other epithets. The court rules that Maetta doesn’t have standing to sue for discrimination, because the co-worker isn’t technically her supervisor.
And so on.
If you hate injustice, this book will break your heart. The quote above is in reference to:
The court rejected a multimillion-dollar lawsuit against State Farm Insurance, which had broken the law in taking advantage of its clients. SCOTUS deemed the monetary punishment excessive (it was <0.3% of State Farm’s annual revenue). A 37-year old father and military veteran stole $150 in children’s VHS tapes. Under California’s three-strikes policy, Leandro Andrade was sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole for 50 years. He appealed to the Supreme Court that the punishment was excessive. SCOTUS upheld the sentence, deeming it not cruel and unusual, and Leandro Andrade was sentenced to prison until at least age 87.
This is the justice of our great country.
May 7, 2022
Infuriating history about the Supreme Court's anti-democratic drift over the past 50 years, culminating in its illegitimacy today where a justice lectures about Americans not respecting institutions while his wife urges the overthrow of the U.S. government.
March 28, 2020
This is a battle cry of a book, both a polemic and a thoughtful study of the SC's shift to conservatism starting in the 1960s. He surveys this in discrimination cases, electoral law, campaign finance, corporate rights, labor law, poverty, and criminal justice, among others. In each case he shows how the SC has A. limited the rights and fair treatment of the less privileged members of our society B. Expanded the power of businesses and corporations both over their workers and in politics and C. Contributed to the creation of a much more unequal society. Overall I found his case to be detailed, well-organized, and compelling.
One thing that struck me when I read this book is what a great rejoinder it is to Chris Caldwell's Age of Entitlement, which argues that since the 1960s minorities, liberals, and women have taken advantage of a "Second Constitution" to expand their rights and privileges in spite of the "democratic" desire to be done with Civil Rights. Cohen convincingly shows that the courts, especially the SC, have actually been pretty harsh to the rights and interests of minorities and women. A large part of this, Cohen shows, is that the Warren Court had members from a variety of socio-economic backgrounds who understood what it was like to be marginalized, whereas more recent courts have been from more elite backgrounds (and almost exclusively from Ivy League law schools).
I have two criticisms of this book. First, Cohen does only a so-so job of rooting this story in a large political/intellectual context. He plays close attention to the context of the shift from the Warren Court to the Burger Court, but then the providing of context becomes spotty. This creates a problem for his argument. To an extent, the rightward movement of the court reflected the conservative ascendency in American politics in the last 3-4 decades of the 20th century. It is generally to be expected that the court would follow this rightward tilt. COhen's story here is about elite manipulation, but it is fair to say that the court's general trend-line (not necessarily each decision) reflected the shifting will of the people.
Second, it is incredibly important for Cohen that the SC refused to grant protected status to the poor during the 1960s, which he says would have compelled the court in later years to rule in favor of the poor more often. However, while this undoubtedly would have helped, it doesn't seem absolutely necessary. First, poverty is obviously something that people have some control over, as opposed to race or sex. Second, there was no reason the court could have been more sympathetic to the plight of the poor in criminal justice or arbitration issues than they were just based on existing Constitutional Law. After all, the Warren court didn't need to take that leap in order to rule in favor of indigent defendants in Gideon, for example.
Overall, this is a strong and forceful book that drives home the importance of the court in both reflecting and shaping national trends and the importance of voting (goddamit) even for candidates you don't like who will help your side get control of the courts.
One thing that struck me when I read this book is what a great rejoinder it is to Chris Caldwell's Age of Entitlement, which argues that since the 1960s minorities, liberals, and women have taken advantage of a "Second Constitution" to expand their rights and privileges in spite of the "democratic" desire to be done with Civil Rights. Cohen convincingly shows that the courts, especially the SC, have actually been pretty harsh to the rights and interests of minorities and women. A large part of this, Cohen shows, is that the Warren Court had members from a variety of socio-economic backgrounds who understood what it was like to be marginalized, whereas more recent courts have been from more elite backgrounds (and almost exclusively from Ivy League law schools).
I have two criticisms of this book. First, Cohen does only a so-so job of rooting this story in a large political/intellectual context. He plays close attention to the context of the shift from the Warren Court to the Burger Court, but then the providing of context becomes spotty. This creates a problem for his argument. To an extent, the rightward movement of the court reflected the conservative ascendency in American politics in the last 3-4 decades of the 20th century. It is generally to be expected that the court would follow this rightward tilt. COhen's story here is about elite manipulation, but it is fair to say that the court's general trend-line (not necessarily each decision) reflected the shifting will of the people.
Second, it is incredibly important for Cohen that the SC refused to grant protected status to the poor during the 1960s, which he says would have compelled the court in later years to rule in favor of the poor more often. However, while this undoubtedly would have helped, it doesn't seem absolutely necessary. First, poverty is obviously something that people have some control over, as opposed to race or sex. Second, there was no reason the court could have been more sympathetic to the plight of the poor in criminal justice or arbitration issues than they were just based on existing Constitutional Law. After all, the Warren court didn't need to take that leap in order to rule in favor of indigent defendants in Gideon, for example.
Overall, this is a strong and forceful book that drives home the importance of the court in both reflecting and shaping national trends and the importance of voting (goddamit) even for candidates you don't like who will help your side get control of the courts.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 233 reviews