What do you think?
Rate this book
Columbia Global Reports
The Agenda: How a Republican Supreme Court is Reshaping America
From 2011, when Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives, until the present, Congress enacted hardly any major legislation outside of the tax law President Trump signed in 2017. In the same period, the Supreme Court dismantled much of America's campaign finance law, severely weakened the Voting Rights Act, permitted states to opt-out of the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion, weakened laws protecting against age discriminationn and sexual and racial harassment, and held that every state must permit same-sex couples to marry. This powerful unelected body, now controlled by six very conservative Republicans, has and will become the locus of policymaking in the United States.
Ian Millhiser, Vox's Supreme Court correspondent, tells the story of what those six justices are likely to do with their power. It is true that the right to abortion is in its final days, as is affirmative action. But Millhiser shows that it is in the most arcane decisions that the Court will fundamentally reshape America, transforming it into something far less democratic, by attacking voting rights, dismantling and vetoing the federal administrative state, ignoring the separation of church and state, and putting corporations above the law. The Agenda exposes a radically altered Supreme Court whose powers extend far beyond transforming any individual right--its agenda is to shape the very nature of America's government, redefining who gets to have legal rights, who is beyond the reach of the law, and who chooses the people who make our laws.
Ian Millhiser, Vox's Supreme Court correspondent, tells the story of what those six justices are likely to do with their power. It is true that the right to abortion is in its final days, as is affirmative action. But Millhiser shows that it is in the most arcane decisions that the Court will fundamentally reshape America, transforming it into something far less democratic, by attacking voting rights, dismantling and vetoing the federal administrative state, ignoring the separation of church and state, and putting corporations above the law. The Agenda exposes a radically altered Supreme Court whose powers extend far beyond transforming any individual right--its agenda is to shape the very nature of America's government, redefining who gets to have legal rights, who is beyond the reach of the law, and who chooses the people who make our laws.
113 pages, Kindle Edition
First published March 30, 2021
40 people are currently reading
340 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 - 27 of 27 reviews
April 19, 2021
This is a short well-researched audiobook produced by a legal scholar who shares my liberal views. Unfortunately, the outlook is not optimistic. The times are not just changing, they have changed. I am a product of the sixties, who once believed that America would change the world for the better. That did not occur. Read this book and you may agree that all hope is lost. SCOTUS will not save us. Don't blame individual justices. They are smart lawyers who do what they think is best. The problem is with the American people who tolerate a populist political movement that is clever enough to know how to install and keep in power an oligarchy. Just to be clear, this book is not about politics. It is a review of the changes that have occurred in the justices and decisions of the Supreme Court.
April 1, 2024
This book focuses on the Republicans' non-democratic control of the Supreme Court as it relates to four issues: the right to vote; dismantling the power of executive administration offices (such as the EPA); allowing religious people to discriminate against others and superseding the law; and chipping away at individuals right to sue through forced arbitration.
Of course, this book was published in 2021, and as such was in the naive days before the Supreme Court completely delegitimized itself by rejecting stare decisis and overturning Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (June 24, 2022). Not only did it obliterate 50 years of settled precedent and the very concept of respect for precedent, but it was the first time the US Supreme Court took away a fundamental liberty right. Women lost the constitutional right to "privacy," which most of us conceptualize more clearly as bodily autonomy as it relates to our most intimate body parts and organs.
Terrifyingly, Justice Thomas stated in his opinion that:
[I]n future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold [v. Connecticut], Lawrence [v. Texas], and Obergefell [v. Hodges]. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous” . . . , we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents . . . . After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated. For example, we could consider whether any of the rights announced in this Court’s substantive due process cases are “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
As such, this book seems too mild and not nearly alarmist enough.
Of course, this book was published in 2021, and as such was in the naive days before the Supreme Court completely delegitimized itself by rejecting stare decisis and overturning Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (June 24, 2022). Not only did it obliterate 50 years of settled precedent and the very concept of respect for precedent, but it was the first time the US Supreme Court took away a fundamental liberty right. Women lost the constitutional right to "privacy," which most of us conceptualize more clearly as bodily autonomy as it relates to our most intimate body parts and organs.
Terrifyingly, Justice Thomas stated in his opinion that:
[I]n future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold [v. Connecticut], Lawrence [v. Texas], and Obergefell [v. Hodges]. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous” . . . , we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents . . . . After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated. For example, we could consider whether any of the rights announced in this Court’s substantive due process cases are “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
As such, this book seems too mild and not nearly alarmist enough.
June 14, 2021
Very short but effective rundown of four major ways the 6-3 conservative majority on SCOTUS is poised to Make America Great* Again in the next few years (or even days...). It's pretty depressing and even a little despairing. The minoritarian theocracy we've all longed for will be an interesting chapter in US history.
*Great = just like things were in the 1920s when there was no regulatory oversight of business, no pesky restrictions on child labor or minimum wages, severely restricted ballot access for nonwhites, a universal assumption that non-Christians are not fully American, and generally a great environment for being a rich dude.
*Great = just like things were in the 1920s when there was no regulatory oversight of business, no pesky restrictions on child labor or minimum wages, severely restricted ballot access for nonwhites, a universal assumption that non-Christians are not fully American, and generally a great environment for being a rich dude.
September 2, 2024
Very well-researched. Author did a decent job of fleshing out legal theory and opinions such that a non-lawyer could understand. Short and concise.
July 28, 2022
Short and to the point. I think I would have preferred an expanded book, but this was still good.
September 17, 2021
If you need to stay up all night, read this terrifying book, which outlines a dystopian, anti-democratic future thanks to Trump’s packing the court with right wing extremists. You won’t sleep afterwards. Very insightful and disturbing.
.
.
January 13, 2022
Millhiser has written a very good, concise book on what the Roberts court likely intends to get up to with their new supermajority. Although everyone's eyes are on Roe v. Wade, Millhiser is quite correct to put little emphasis on that precedent; although overturning the federal right to an abortion would rightly be considered a catastrophe, it really is merely the tip of the iceberg for what the conservative majority have planned (and let's face it, Roe—which was already in some respects a mediocre opinion to begin with—has kind of been a moribund precedent for some time now thanks to Casey's "undue burden" standard).
Millhiser instead lays out how Gorsuch, who seems to be the ideological leader, longs to lead the court back to the freedom of contract doctrine of the Lochner court, which would comprehensively strip the American worker of power and tip the scales even further in favour of the wealthy. I was struck by the anecdotes of the shocking conditions bakery workers experienced in the Lochner era, working mercilessly long hours in revolting environments. When one thinks of what Amazon et al. are already able to get away with, the prospect of handing them even more power to dominate their workforces fills one with dread. Gorsuch's other big project, to dismantle the administrative state and agency regulations (because blah blah chevron deference and non-delegation doctrine), seems potentially so vast in its consequences I can scarcely even imagine the damage that could be caused if he's successful.
Millhiser engages in a bit of lawyerly gotcha rhetoric of the sort that I often see in Supreme Court journalism where the hypocrisy of conservative self-proclaimed textualists/originalists is pointed out (Millhiser points out that they used two different definitions of "commerce" in Circuit City v. Adams, depending on which suited their preferred outcome). I often feel authors can get a bit too wrapped up in criticism of this sort, taking elaborate routes to their gotcha moments that conservatives don't pay one iota of attention to, as they're too busy thinking "haha, majority opinion go brrrrr." I always think about the peyote case on this point: one might think that a conservative would consider the case to have raised perplexing issues about how to consistently apply the principle of free exercise of religion and respect the rights of religious minorities, or something to that effect; an actual conservative seems just to think, "Are the plaintiffs Christians? No? And they're doing drugs? They can fuck off, then." Conservatives have no problem discarding their professed principles as soon as it suits them, and liberals arguably waste their energy when they tie themselves up in knots trying to wield conservative jurisprudential philosophies that they probably shouldn't really care much about in the first place.
The other topics Millhiser addresses are just as alarming—voter suppression, exemptions from anti-discrimination laws for religious conservatives, allowing class action lawsuits to be quashed before they occur. I think my biggest takeaway lesson might be on the decidedly more law school 101 matter of the Carolene Products footnote, the source of strict scrutiny, which I must have heard of before, but now I'll actually remember it (it has already popped up in the next book I've started reading, so it truly is the most famous footnote in constitutional law).
Millhiser instead lays out how Gorsuch, who seems to be the ideological leader, longs to lead the court back to the freedom of contract doctrine of the Lochner court, which would comprehensively strip the American worker of power and tip the scales even further in favour of the wealthy. I was struck by the anecdotes of the shocking conditions bakery workers experienced in the Lochner era, working mercilessly long hours in revolting environments. When one thinks of what Amazon et al. are already able to get away with, the prospect of handing them even more power to dominate their workforces fills one with dread. Gorsuch's other big project, to dismantle the administrative state and agency regulations (because blah blah chevron deference and non-delegation doctrine), seems potentially so vast in its consequences I can scarcely even imagine the damage that could be caused if he's successful.
Millhiser engages in a bit of lawyerly gotcha rhetoric of the sort that I often see in Supreme Court journalism where the hypocrisy of conservative self-proclaimed textualists/originalists is pointed out (Millhiser points out that they used two different definitions of "commerce" in Circuit City v. Adams, depending on which suited their preferred outcome). I often feel authors can get a bit too wrapped up in criticism of this sort, taking elaborate routes to their gotcha moments that conservatives don't pay one iota of attention to, as they're too busy thinking "haha, majority opinion go brrrrr." I always think about the peyote case on this point: one might think that a conservative would consider the case to have raised perplexing issues about how to consistently apply the principle of free exercise of religion and respect the rights of religious minorities, or something to that effect; an actual conservative seems just to think, "Are the plaintiffs Christians? No? And they're doing drugs? They can fuck off, then." Conservatives have no problem discarding their professed principles as soon as it suits them, and liberals arguably waste their energy when they tie themselves up in knots trying to wield conservative jurisprudential philosophies that they probably shouldn't really care much about in the first place.
The other topics Millhiser addresses are just as alarming—voter suppression, exemptions from anti-discrimination laws for religious conservatives, allowing class action lawsuits to be quashed before they occur. I think my biggest takeaway lesson might be on the decidedly more law school 101 matter of the Carolene Products footnote, the source of strict scrutiny, which I must have heard of before, but now I'll actually remember it (it has already popped up in the next book I've started reading, so it truly is the most famous footnote in constitutional law).
June 24, 2021
A short review of the current Court through the lens of its rightward shift. The Author, argues that the Supreme Court, with its 6-3 Republican majority, is a threat to “liberal” democracy in the America. With Congress increasingly partisan and dysfunctional, the author asserts that the court has exerted decisive policy changes: dismantling campaign finance law and weakening the Voting Rights Act, the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion, laws shielding workers from sexual and racial harassment, public sector unions’ ability to raise funds, and the Clean Power Plan.
The author looks closely at cases in four areas: voting rights, limitations on federal power, expression of religion, and the right to sue. The author shows how the court’s decisions work against the democratic elections by allowing redistricting laws that favor suppressor dilute voting, thereby transforming legislative elections into little more than a formality in many states.
Limiting federal regulatory power favors a conservative agenda, for example, impeding the government in addressing climate change. This fight over the federal government’s power to address climate change is just one battle in a many-front war over federal agencies power to regulate.
All that said, the Supreme Court today is a remarkably powerful body — too powerful in my view — and the appointment process has become partisan to an unprecedented degree. I also agree that the court has taken some important wrong turns. Even so, I am skeptical that the court will alter the law as dramatically as the author fears. Time will tell, and recent events have given some cause for alarm, but I suspect future electoral success of any party will depend much more on its policy positions and willingness to run electable candidates than on anything the Supreme Court does. In most areas, furthermore, I suspect the court will pursue incremental rather than radical changes. Throughout history, the court has normally done just that, and recent threats to add court seats or take other aggressive actions seem likely to encourage restraint.
The responsibility to shape policy resides with Congress. Deferring to the court means placing unchecked power in the hands of men and women who serve for life, and who may be no less partisan than the people who can be voted out of office if they use their power irresponsibly. The court’s role in the words of Chief Justice Roberts is to call balls and strikes yet the current make-up of the court seems to have significantly expanded the strike zone, and maybe allowed for an occasional spit ball.
The author looks closely at cases in four areas: voting rights, limitations on federal power, expression of religion, and the right to sue. The author shows how the court’s decisions work against the democratic elections by allowing redistricting laws that favor suppressor dilute voting, thereby transforming legislative elections into little more than a formality in many states.
Limiting federal regulatory power favors a conservative agenda, for example, impeding the government in addressing climate change. This fight over the federal government’s power to address climate change is just one battle in a many-front war over federal agencies power to regulate.
All that said, the Supreme Court today is a remarkably powerful body — too powerful in my view — and the appointment process has become partisan to an unprecedented degree. I also agree that the court has taken some important wrong turns. Even so, I am skeptical that the court will alter the law as dramatically as the author fears. Time will tell, and recent events have given some cause for alarm, but I suspect future electoral success of any party will depend much more on its policy positions and willingness to run electable candidates than on anything the Supreme Court does. In most areas, furthermore, I suspect the court will pursue incremental rather than radical changes. Throughout history, the court has normally done just that, and recent threats to add court seats or take other aggressive actions seem likely to encourage restraint.
The responsibility to shape policy resides with Congress. Deferring to the court means placing unchecked power in the hands of men and women who serve for life, and who may be no less partisan than the people who can be voted out of office if they use their power irresponsibly. The court’s role in the words of Chief Justice Roberts is to call balls and strikes yet the current make-up of the court seems to have significantly expanded the strike zone, and maybe allowed for an occasional spit ball.
May 16, 2023
Not very insightful
This is a review of the audiobook edition of this work.
The biggest problem with this book is that it does not provide any much in the way of insight to those who have even a rudimentary knowledge of the current make up of the Supreme Court and the views of its constituents, gained from reading just the popular press, never mind anyone with more knowledge than that.
The book concentrates on four areas of the law and concentrates just about exclusively on those. They are voting rights, administrative actions (in the field of regulations), Religion and the right of private individuals to sue in courts of law (primarily the restrictions placed on these by employment arbitration and commercial transactions – other areas such as non-compete agreements are not covered). The book provides an overview of the current Supreme Court justices views in these areas as well as future implications. As stated previously however, none of these are that insightful to anyone who even keeps up on these issues in the lay media, never mind for someone with knowledge over and above this. The book is really designed only for those with barely an iota of knowledge. For them it may be a four star but for the more knowledgeable, at most, a three star.
One last criticism of the book is that it should have delved more outside these four areas of law, in particular the implications, institutionally, of the current make up of the Supreme Court in a paralyzed legislative environment. This would have been very interesting but, unfortunately, is not done.
With respect to the performance of the audiobook it is quite average. Not bad but nothing out of the ordinary either.
Three stars.
This is a review of the audiobook edition of this work.
The biggest problem with this book is that it does not provide any much in the way of insight to those who have even a rudimentary knowledge of the current make up of the Supreme Court and the views of its constituents, gained from reading just the popular press, never mind anyone with more knowledge than that.
The book concentrates on four areas of the law and concentrates just about exclusively on those. They are voting rights, administrative actions (in the field of regulations), Religion and the right of private individuals to sue in courts of law (primarily the restrictions placed on these by employment arbitration and commercial transactions – other areas such as non-compete agreements are not covered). The book provides an overview of the current Supreme Court justices views in these areas as well as future implications. As stated previously however, none of these are that insightful to anyone who even keeps up on these issues in the lay media, never mind for someone with knowledge over and above this. The book is really designed only for those with barely an iota of knowledge. For them it may be a four star but for the more knowledgeable, at most, a three star.
One last criticism of the book is that it should have delved more outside these four areas of law, in particular the implications, institutionally, of the current make up of the Supreme Court in a paralyzed legislative environment. This would have been very interesting but, unfortunately, is not done.
With respect to the performance of the audiobook it is quite average. Not bad but nothing out of the ordinary either.
Three stars.
December 20, 2023
I wish it didn't take me almost two weeks to read a book I could have read in a day or two. But alas sometimes life gets in the way of reading. Anyway, this book was published in 2021, before the Dobbs decision, of course. Like many other experts the author rightly predicted what would become of abortion rights with a majority conservative Supreme Court. Basically the book is about the other related perils. What has happened and is likely to happen when the Court is run by conservatives? They have and will continue to chip away at voting rights and access, shift decision-making from agencies run by (theoretically) experts in their field and/or elected officials to Supreme Court judges who are neither elected nor ever leave the job, allow Christians more first amendment leeway at the expense of everyone else, and narrow our right to sue or have recourse against large corporations. This is all in the context of the GOP having way more power than it should because of the way the Senate is structured. I wish I had more time to properly digest this book, but it's short so maybe someday when I have more time I will reread it.
August 4, 2022
This booked was published in 2021 when many cases that the author was foreshadowing ended up getting decided. Even if one is a conservative, this should enrage one that the Supreme Court is taking such an aggressive stance on voting rights, administrative law, religion, and forced arbitration for the entire country. These small incremental changes can be dramatic in the long run due to the changes that follow. After Justice Kennedy retired, Chief Justice Roberts was considered the swing vote. Once Justice Barrett got confirmed after Justice Ginsburg passed away in the fall of 2020, it the whole dynamics of the court changed where the swing vote shifted swiftly right.
A decent number of laws were not easy to understand for a non-law background but the author does a good job explaining it towards the end of major arguments. A short read, and the four major areas in focus should be revisited because only time and cases will tell if the predictions occur or not.
A decent number of laws were not easy to understand for a non-law background but the author does a good job explaining it towards the end of major arguments. A short read, and the four major areas in focus should be revisited because only time and cases will tell if the predictions occur or not.
November 8, 2021
Was this book googled and ghost written? Because the content is so short you almost believe the Conservative stacking on the court does not have any impact. /s
I wish Millhiser have deeper analysis and bring fought upcoming cases that aren't likely to be covered by the media but will have great impact. Or even just how the new judges are going to shape the future. Instead all he really had was that Kavanaugh and Barrett have no history to judge on and Roberts is notorious to swing more than a PMSing woman. What about Breyer and Kagan? I don't think their names were even mentioned, realizing they are Democrat judges.
I wish Millhiser have deeper analysis and bring fought upcoming cases that aren't likely to be covered by the media but will have great impact. Or even just how the new judges are going to shape the future. Instead all he really had was that Kavanaugh and Barrett have no history to judge on and Roberts is notorious to swing more than a PMSing woman. What about Breyer and Kagan? I don't think their names were even mentioned, realizing they are Democrat judges.
April 30, 2021
I really like this Columbia Global Reports series! They're like super-timely mini books written by knowledgeable insiders. As it happens, I've read several books about the Supreme Court and it's members. But this is the first one discussing the current conservative super-majority. And it is, in a word, terrifying. It's looking forward at the issues that this court is going to be ruling on, and it extrapolates how the current makeup is going to alter American law, and American life. Read it and weep.
August 12, 2023
Insightful commentary based on facts of Supreme Court decisions are the heart of this book. There is political commentary included, but from a position of explanation rather than partisanship. The book is a bit dry, as it covers Supreme Court cases and interpretations, without much discussion of the individuals those decisions impact. However, for those who follow the news the impacts are self-evident.
December 12, 2023
Too hard to read on Kindle!
5 stars for content, 1 star for using end notes rather than footnotes!
A lot of the explanation for the rationale for the opinions expressed in the main text are captured in the end notes, which are impossible to relate to the main text on a Kindle. Purchase the book if you want to understand it all while killing more trees.
5 stars for content, 1 star for using end notes rather than footnotes!
A lot of the explanation for the rationale for the opinions expressed in the main text are captured in the end notes, which are impossible to relate to the main text on a Kindle. Purchase the book if you want to understand it all while killing more trees.
April 20, 2021
The hysterics of a small mind. It's the same Supreme Court that did a lot of other Reshaping. And that is fine with Millhiser, as long as it does only his reshaping. A democracy, run only by a few aristocrats.
February 11, 2022
Short book but very well researched and packed with lots of important information in regards to how the SCOTUS has shifted more and more to the right to arrive where we are at in 2022. It's a depressing read really and the future does not look bright...
July 15, 2022
A short and concise explanation of the current state of the Supreme Court and how we got to this point. I think I had been in denial about how political the court has become. This book left me feeling anxious about the future of the court and our country and also angry about how dysfunctional Congress is.
May 10, 2021
This reads like an extended Vox essay. The author does a good job supporting each section's main ideas, but I was waiting for him to make a point that hasn't been brought up before.
July 31, 2021
This concise book shares an urgent warning regarding the Court's rightward shift in the last two decades. It's a great justification for the hand-wringing we see around the courts today.
October 2, 2021
Excellent and timely reporting/writing, purposely inconclusive, Millhiser is waiting to see what the current Supreme Court, with its three Trump appointees does.
January 29, 2022
So disturbing but necessary. Will be reading this again to digest all the information.
June 18, 2024
OMGosh is this depressing, alarming and unfathomable. I wonder if I'll actually complete it.
October 20, 2021
Very accessible for my non attorney friends. I really wish it was longer!
December 30, 2024
This was a helpful read for me to better understand the law, the role of the Supreme Court, how different justices interpret (and misinterpret) the Constitution, and how the deck is typically stacked in favor of corporations. Most likely something that I should read again, but it outlines the basics of how the current Conservative majority on the Supreme Court inconsistently hands down rulings that typically favor conservatives, corporations, and whose originality/textual interpretations are sometimes wishy washy.
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews