What do you think?
Rate this book
Saving Nine: The Fight Against the Left’s Audacious Plan to Pack the Supreme Court and Destroy American Liberty
In this national bestseller praised by Mark Levin and Sean Hannity, a leading conservative senator explains how the left’s partisan push to pack the Supreme Court with liberal justices has fully migrated from the fringes into the mainstream of Democratic politics. It wasn’t long ago that liberal icons, including the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, were against the idea of overhauling the court for political gain. But now, in the Biden era, more and more powerful Democrats are getting behind the cause, claiming the high court is broken and actively dismantling our democracy. Even Joe Biden—who once called court-packing a “bonehead idea”—gave in to the progressive wing of his party, appointing a committee to examine “reforms” to the court after being sworn in as president.
In Saving Nine , Mike Lee, a brilliant legal mind, details the history of the current composition of the Supreme Court and strongly warns against the norm-shattering precedent that would be set by politically motivated attempts to turn the Supreme Court into just another partisan weapon.
In Saving Nine , Mike Lee, a brilliant legal mind, details the history of the current composition of the Supreme Court and strongly warns against the norm-shattering precedent that would be set by politically motivated attempts to turn the Supreme Court into just another partisan weapon.
240 pages, Hardcover
Published June 7, 2022
65 people are currently reading
1313 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 - 26 of 26 reviews
July 17, 2024
The book is okay. Too much legalese. And Lee overstates the case. The threat of packing the court is low and many liberals—including justice Breyer—are vehemently against it.
Indeed, overstating the case when it comes to the court is now commonplace. For example, many think the new court (with three Trump appointees) is pro-Trump and paving the way for Trump to become a dictator if he wins in November.
An example: Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called the court's recent decision giving presidents immunity for official acts “an assault on American democracy.” She continued: “It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture.”
But if you actually look at the cases, the facts tell a different story. The court isn't as well-functioning as Lee argues. His background (as a clerk to Samuel Alito and his father being Reagan's solicitor general) clouds his judgment.
But the court also isn't pro-Trump. In a long series of cases, the court has rejected Trump’s attempts to:
—overturn the 2020 presidential election
—prevent a New York prosecutor from getting his tax returns
—prevent the January 6 commission from getting his presidential records
—overturn DACA
—limit LTGBQ rights
—overturn Obamacare
—add a citizenship question to the census
The court has, of course, also ruled in favor of Trump, including in recent cases keeping him on Colorado’s ballot and finding broad immunity for his official acts.
The sum total of the court's Trump cases shows that sometimes they rule for him and sometimes they rule against him.
Oversimplifying things with the court, like Lee does in this book, isn't helpful. Both sides have to look at the facts, which reveal a complex and mixed picture.
One thing is clear, however. The court is functioning better than the executive and legislative branches —where the presidency rotates between a reality-television inspired wannabe dictator and an octogenarian clinging to power; and congress has been over-run by celebrity narcissists more concerned with their next Instagram post than running the country.
Indeed, overstating the case when it comes to the court is now commonplace. For example, many think the new court (with three Trump appointees) is pro-Trump and paving the way for Trump to become a dictator if he wins in November.
An example: Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called the court's recent decision giving presidents immunity for official acts “an assault on American democracy.” She continued: “It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture.”
But if you actually look at the cases, the facts tell a different story. The court isn't as well-functioning as Lee argues. His background (as a clerk to Samuel Alito and his father being Reagan's solicitor general) clouds his judgment.
But the court also isn't pro-Trump. In a long series of cases, the court has rejected Trump’s attempts to:
—overturn the 2020 presidential election
—prevent a New York prosecutor from getting his tax returns
—prevent the January 6 commission from getting his presidential records
—overturn DACA
—limit LTGBQ rights
—overturn Obamacare
—add a citizenship question to the census
The court has, of course, also ruled in favor of Trump, including in recent cases keeping him on Colorado’s ballot and finding broad immunity for his official acts.
The sum total of the court's Trump cases shows that sometimes they rule for him and sometimes they rule against him.
Oversimplifying things with the court, like Lee does in this book, isn't helpful. Both sides have to look at the facts, which reveal a complex and mixed picture.
One thing is clear, however. The court is functioning better than the executive and legislative branches —where the presidency rotates between a reality-television inspired wannabe dictator and an octogenarian clinging to power; and congress has been over-run by celebrity narcissists more concerned with their next Instagram post than running the country.
May 21, 2022
In Saving Nine, Senator Mike Lee, a former law clerk to Justice Alito and often-talked about possible Supreme Court nominee, presents a well-reasoned, historically-based rebuttal to the radical proposition to “pack the Court” to force the Court to rule in accordance with the wishes of one side of the political spectrum, not according to its constitutional duty. Much of the fairly short book considers the history of the High Court from Its beginnings to FDR’s failed plan to “pack the court” in the late 1930’s to the modern-day madness. The history takes the reader through the famous stories of the Court and the major cases that demonstrated changes in the Court’s approach from Marbury through Lochner. Ultimately, Senator Lee concludes that the mad plan of the radicals would strip all legitimacy from the High Court and render it just another political animal held captive to the whims and caprices of the loudest voices. In such an event, none of our rights would be safe because there would be no separate nonpolitical coequal branch of government to act as a check and balance on the other two branches. This is a brilliantly written argument and one that should be read by anyone who comments on this issue.
July 26, 2024
I have once again decided to embark on a mission to read a number of books on subjects that will be of great importance to the upcoming 2024 US Presidential Election. This was a great success as I prepared for 2020, with an outcome at the polls (and antics by both candidates up to Inauguration Day) that only a fiction writer might have come up with at the time! Many of these will focus on actors and events intricately involved in the US political system over the last few years, in hopes that I can understand them better and, perhaps, educate others with the power to cast a ballot. I am, as always, open to serious recommendations from anyone who has a book I might like to include in the process.
With the events of July 21, 2024, when Joe Biden chose not to seek re-election, the challenge has become harder to properly reflect the Democratic side. I will do the best I can to properly prepare and offer up books that can explore the Biden Administration, as well as whomever takes the helm into November.
This is Book #16 in my 2024 US Election Preparation Challenge.
US Senator Mike Lee offers a well-developed book exploring the role of the US Supreme Court and how the left, led by President Joe Biden, has sought to tinker with it and turn the Court into a political entity. Lee provides a great deal of history about the Court, as well as offering some key aspects as to why changing the makeup (read: number of appointed justices) is a leftist view that would ruin the Judicial Branch of the US Government. A wonderfully informative and well-paced book, this left me with a great deal to consider.
Lee does not hide the fact that he is a conservative senator, nor that he has a great deal of familial experience with the US Supreme Court. Lee explores how his father, once Solicitor General for the United States, instilled in him the importance of the Court and its justices. Lee gives a few vignettes to provide foundation for the reader that he is not simply espousing views from his Senate office willy-nilly, which is much appreciated. That said, he does try to use stories from his youth to vilify pro-choice groups, which is transparent to the attentive reader.
Lee then tackles the importance of keeping the Court from being a partisan place of business. While the press and television have made it seem as though the justices are divided along partisan lines and toss epithets at one another, Lee argues that it is highly collegial and that there have been a number of unanimous or close to unanimous decisions since the latest three Trump appointees have made their way to the Court. While I would not disagree that the justices are said to work in concert, rather than a battlefield, there is no doubt that partisan politics are prevalent on the Court, especially in the Trump Administration and moving into the Biden years. To say that what the public witnessed was no partisan or divisive is a mocking of the layperson’s intelligence, but there have been other times the Court has strayed beyond the scope Lee deems acceptable, most prominently Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision to offer a woman the right to choose abortion. I leave it to Lee to discuss the specifics, but he makes a solid argument for it, as well as the 2022 reversal by the Court to return the responsibility to the states. That legislative bodies have sought to restrict a woman’s options since this ruling is fodder for another book entirely.
Lee also explores the idea of packing or adding to the size of the Court, something that President Biden hinted at doing to remove the logjam presently in place. In the waning months of his presidency, Biden is apparently considering doing this again, which has Lee worried and tossing panicked attacks to vilify his opponents. He makes a cogent argument that what is good for the legal goose would be good for the gander, which fails to resonate with liberals (the left). Any hammer than might come down now would surely offer the same issues when the political pendulum swings in the other direction. There ought to be a great deal of thought put into adding to the Court before simply creating a number of new faces to ‘balance’ things out.
The Court has taken it upon itself to be somewhat political through the years, as Lee argues. The idea of a ‘living tree constitution’, in which the US Constitution is evolving based on the times and ever ‘growing’ is one that liberal justices tend to argue and interpret from the bench. There has been a historical argument about how to approach the US Constitution, from a literal reading of what is in the document to a modern interpretation of that which could not have been considered in the late 18th century. This divergence is highly divisive and has caused many arguments, which Lee highlights.
One final argument worth exploring is the selection of an Associate Justice (or Chief, in rare situations when they are not already part of the Court). Presidents are able to choose from a variety of legal minds and elevate them to the Court at will. While things must go through the Senate, these choices are usually done after scrutiny. As Lee will admit, the Senate has made the process a great deal more political and partisan (though Trump added gasoline to the fire as well), slicing and dicing up those who come before it as nominees. The reader ought only think of Robert Bork, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas when pondering how things flew off the rails (oddly, all three were Republican nominees), before the latter two were appointed and the former was removed from consideration is disgrace. The politics of the Court comes during the nomination and vetting process, for the most part, though there will be decisions that come down reflecting the conservative or liberal leaning of any justice. However, Lee argues that it is the law that speaks to the justices, not their political leanings. I would Ike to believe this, though there have been many examples that political leanings play a large role. Things are couched in law, as they ought to be, giving decisions and rulings a more law-based perspective.
The US Supreme Court is a hot potato, there is no doubt. Mike Lee offers up this book, partly to dissuade the reader from falling into the trap of liberal packing schemes, but also to offer up a strong history of the Court. He does well and while there are obvious partisan leanings. He is less sycophantic to Trump and the right than I expected. His arguments are clear and usually backed with some substance, which is not always the case (see one of Lee’s colleagues who write about the Court, Ted Cruz). I did follow and agree with some of what Lee said, while I dissented as well, a true sign of the First Amendment in place. I am eager to read more on the subject and from the right, as they seek to portray the innocence of their selection process. Keeping a partisan president who does not respect the Court for what it ought to be is something worth considering when going to the ballot box. The choice is up to the voter, with senators also on the chopping block, the true puppeteers of the Supreme Court nomination process.
Kudos, Senator Lee, for this thought-provoking piece.
Love/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/
With the events of July 21, 2024, when Joe Biden chose not to seek re-election, the challenge has become harder to properly reflect the Democratic side. I will do the best I can to properly prepare and offer up books that can explore the Biden Administration, as well as whomever takes the helm into November.
This is Book #16 in my 2024 US Election Preparation Challenge.
US Senator Mike Lee offers a well-developed book exploring the role of the US Supreme Court and how the left, led by President Joe Biden, has sought to tinker with it and turn the Court into a political entity. Lee provides a great deal of history about the Court, as well as offering some key aspects as to why changing the makeup (read: number of appointed justices) is a leftist view that would ruin the Judicial Branch of the US Government. A wonderfully informative and well-paced book, this left me with a great deal to consider.
Lee does not hide the fact that he is a conservative senator, nor that he has a great deal of familial experience with the US Supreme Court. Lee explores how his father, once Solicitor General for the United States, instilled in him the importance of the Court and its justices. Lee gives a few vignettes to provide foundation for the reader that he is not simply espousing views from his Senate office willy-nilly, which is much appreciated. That said, he does try to use stories from his youth to vilify pro-choice groups, which is transparent to the attentive reader.
Lee then tackles the importance of keeping the Court from being a partisan place of business. While the press and television have made it seem as though the justices are divided along partisan lines and toss epithets at one another, Lee argues that it is highly collegial and that there have been a number of unanimous or close to unanimous decisions since the latest three Trump appointees have made their way to the Court. While I would not disagree that the justices are said to work in concert, rather than a battlefield, there is no doubt that partisan politics are prevalent on the Court, especially in the Trump Administration and moving into the Biden years. To say that what the public witnessed was no partisan or divisive is a mocking of the layperson’s intelligence, but there have been other times the Court has strayed beyond the scope Lee deems acceptable, most prominently Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision to offer a woman the right to choose abortion. I leave it to Lee to discuss the specifics, but he makes a solid argument for it, as well as the 2022 reversal by the Court to return the responsibility to the states. That legislative bodies have sought to restrict a woman’s options since this ruling is fodder for another book entirely.
Lee also explores the idea of packing or adding to the size of the Court, something that President Biden hinted at doing to remove the logjam presently in place. In the waning months of his presidency, Biden is apparently considering doing this again, which has Lee worried and tossing panicked attacks to vilify his opponents. He makes a cogent argument that what is good for the legal goose would be good for the gander, which fails to resonate with liberals (the left). Any hammer than might come down now would surely offer the same issues when the political pendulum swings in the other direction. There ought to be a great deal of thought put into adding to the Court before simply creating a number of new faces to ‘balance’ things out.
The Court has taken it upon itself to be somewhat political through the years, as Lee argues. The idea of a ‘living tree constitution’, in which the US Constitution is evolving based on the times and ever ‘growing’ is one that liberal justices tend to argue and interpret from the bench. There has been a historical argument about how to approach the US Constitution, from a literal reading of what is in the document to a modern interpretation of that which could not have been considered in the late 18th century. This divergence is highly divisive and has caused many arguments, which Lee highlights.
One final argument worth exploring is the selection of an Associate Justice (or Chief, in rare situations when they are not already part of the Court). Presidents are able to choose from a variety of legal minds and elevate them to the Court at will. While things must go through the Senate, these choices are usually done after scrutiny. As Lee will admit, the Senate has made the process a great deal more political and partisan (though Trump added gasoline to the fire as well), slicing and dicing up those who come before it as nominees. The reader ought only think of Robert Bork, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas when pondering how things flew off the rails (oddly, all three were Republican nominees), before the latter two were appointed and the former was removed from consideration is disgrace. The politics of the Court comes during the nomination and vetting process, for the most part, though there will be decisions that come down reflecting the conservative or liberal leaning of any justice. However, Lee argues that it is the law that speaks to the justices, not their political leanings. I would Ike to believe this, though there have been many examples that political leanings play a large role. Things are couched in law, as they ought to be, giving decisions and rulings a more law-based perspective.
The US Supreme Court is a hot potato, there is no doubt. Mike Lee offers up this book, partly to dissuade the reader from falling into the trap of liberal packing schemes, but also to offer up a strong history of the Court. He does well and while there are obvious partisan leanings. He is less sycophantic to Trump and the right than I expected. His arguments are clear and usually backed with some substance, which is not always the case (see one of Lee’s colleagues who write about the Court, Ted Cruz). I did follow and agree with some of what Lee said, while I dissented as well, a true sign of the First Amendment in place. I am eager to read more on the subject and from the right, as they seek to portray the innocence of their selection process. Keeping a partisan president who does not respect the Court for what it ought to be is something worth considering when going to the ballot box. The choice is up to the voter, with senators also on the chopping block, the true puppeteers of the Supreme Court nomination process.
Kudos, Senator Lee, for this thought-provoking piece.
Love/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/
May 18, 2022
In Saving Nine, Senator Mike Lee offers a well reasoned and well written rebuttal to the concept of “court packing”. The book starts out with a comprehensive history of the Court itself, and how the number of justices eventually settled at nine (the Constitution never defined how many justices there should be). He also reviews FDR’s court packing threat, and how it probably led to one justice switching his vote on a case, which Senator Lee feels opened the floodgates for the administrative state. He also summarizes the current reasoning on the Left for increasing the number of justices, and most importantly, why it’s been considered a bad idea, even by liberal justices such as RBG.
An excellent book, comprehensive and well done. Kudos to Senator Lee for his cogent reasoning and well written arguments against court packing.
My thanks to Center Street and also to Netgalley for providing an ARC of this very topical book.
An excellent book, comprehensive and well done. Kudos to Senator Lee for his cogent reasoning and well written arguments against court packing.
My thanks to Center Street and also to Netgalley for providing an ARC of this very topical book.
December 5, 2023
Not nearly as inflammatory as the title would lead you to believe, “Saving Nine: The Fight Against the Left’s Audacious Plan to Pack the Supreme Court” is really an history lesson about the highest court in our land; how it began, how it evolved, and how it’s been tried to be used for political persuasion.
Senator Mike Lee is a member of the Judicial Committee and the son of Rex Lee, former Solicitor General to the Supreme Court for President Ronald Regan. He’s been enamored with the Supreme Court since he was 10 years old and his reverence for the institution is evident in the writing of this book.
The book begins with a quick story about Mike’s first visit to the court and then he gets right into defining what exactly the Supreme Court is supposed to be. I’ll only say here that it’s NOT supposed to be political and it’s one of the three branches of our government, separate and apart from the Executive and Legislative. Read the rest for yourself; chances are you didn’t learn this in school unless your creaking and grey, like me.
The second chapter traces how we arrived at 9 justices and the battles to remain there. Yes, he includes all the duplicitous quotes from the current players. Did you think he wouldn’t? Read in context with the history behind it, (other presidents tried to pack the court long ago), makes for a different experience, hopefully.
Slavery, Due Process, Labor Laws, including Child Labor, are a few landmark cases looked at and then a chapter in FDR and his New Deal. Actually, there are a few chapter devoted to Roosevelt and his designs on how best to use the court. One of the best reasons to read history is to keep from repeating past mistakes.
The last few chapters deal with contemporary people and events you’ve probably heard ad nauseum, but there’s a twist. This information has a different point of view - it’s with the Supreme Court in mind. There is new information, people and perspective, if you can set aside your personal opinions and politics.
This isn’t a long book full of personal “how great I am” moments. It’s well written and respectful of the Court but I could have done without the occasional theatrics. That issue aside, this book can provide a good understanding of the workings of the SC, it’s importance to the three part system of government and why it’s vitally important to be educated about “Saving Nine”📚
Senator Mike Lee is a member of the Judicial Committee and the son of Rex Lee, former Solicitor General to the Supreme Court for President Ronald Regan. He’s been enamored with the Supreme Court since he was 10 years old and his reverence for the institution is evident in the writing of this book.
The book begins with a quick story about Mike’s first visit to the court and then he gets right into defining what exactly the Supreme Court is supposed to be. I’ll only say here that it’s NOT supposed to be political and it’s one of the three branches of our government, separate and apart from the Executive and Legislative. Read the rest for yourself; chances are you didn’t learn this in school unless your creaking and grey, like me.
The second chapter traces how we arrived at 9 justices and the battles to remain there. Yes, he includes all the duplicitous quotes from the current players. Did you think he wouldn’t? Read in context with the history behind it, (other presidents tried to pack the court long ago), makes for a different experience, hopefully.
Slavery, Due Process, Labor Laws, including Child Labor, are a few landmark cases looked at and then a chapter in FDR and his New Deal. Actually, there are a few chapter devoted to Roosevelt and his designs on how best to use the court. One of the best reasons to read history is to keep from repeating past mistakes.
The last few chapters deal with contemporary people and events you’ve probably heard ad nauseum, but there’s a twist. This information has a different point of view - it’s with the Supreme Court in mind. There is new information, people and perspective, if you can set aside your personal opinions and politics.
This isn’t a long book full of personal “how great I am” moments. It’s well written and respectful of the Court but I could have done without the occasional theatrics. That issue aside, this book can provide a good understanding of the workings of the SC, it’s importance to the three part system of government and why it’s vitally important to be educated about “Saving Nine”📚
June 9, 2023
Senator Mike Lee, who clerked for Justice Alito on the United States Supreme Court, gives a clear tutorial on the history of the Supreme Court, the size of the Court throughout history, and why there is a push by the Democrats to add seats to the Court.
I am an attorney who majored in Political Science and History in undergrad, so this book is right up my alley. It is a well-written book that explains the problems which would arise if one party added seats to the Court making it a political cog in the party machine. Once the other side came back into power they too would be forced to add seats to the Court. This would be a non-stop event.
The Supreme Court is not a political organization like the Presidency or Congress. It is not elected by the people. The talk of the left-wing liberals to pack the Court with more left-wing Justices, just because they don't like a decision by the Court is ridiculous. It is the typical short-sighted emotional response libtards are famous for. Spoiled children who don't get their way and as a result pitch a hissy fit.
This was tried once by FDR and was so unpopular that it failed quickly. Biden views himself as the next FDR so his actions don't surprise me. I think Biden was a Senator back then so FDR was likely his mentor.
I am an attorney who majored in Political Science and History in undergrad, so this book is right up my alley. It is a well-written book that explains the problems which would arise if one party added seats to the Court making it a political cog in the party machine. Once the other side came back into power they too would be forced to add seats to the Court. This would be a non-stop event.
The Supreme Court is not a political organization like the Presidency or Congress. It is not elected by the people. The talk of the left-wing liberals to pack the Court with more left-wing Justices, just because they don't like a decision by the Court is ridiculous. It is the typical short-sighted emotional response libtards are famous for. Spoiled children who don't get their way and as a result pitch a hissy fit.
This was tried once by FDR and was so unpopular that it failed quickly. Biden views himself as the next FDR so his actions don't surprise me. I think Biden was a Senator back then so FDR was likely his mentor.
July 13, 2023
It’s decent. The subtitle is a little misleading, as only the latter half or so of the book actually discusses court packing efforts, and only SOME of that (maybe 20% of the whole book) is actually about any modern efforts in that vein. The analysis is blatantly partisan throughout most of the book, but the author’s political status makes this facet of the book obvious before you even start, so it’s kind of caveat emptor. Overall it’s actually a pretty sound history of the Court written by someone who is obviously well-versed in its traditions and is quite capable of explaining complicated cases to a lay audience. The personal interjections and anecdotes were a surprisingly nice touch.
June 15, 2022
The author drew me in right at the outset. What a great way to start a book. He begins by addressing his experiences as a 10-year-old boy visiting the Supreme Court while his father argued cases for the Reagan administration. He notes the reverence he experienced even then for the court and its atmosphere. I loved that. It sets a humanizing tone for the book and makes you want to know more about this individual's perspective. There is nothing here that screams and pounds desks. Quite the opposite is true. This is a thoughtful carefully written perspective on the part of someone who seems to rarely be a fire brand on the floor of the Senate. That same someone who manages to be effective in his own sphere, however.
In chapter two, we learn about how the country arrived at 9 justices. That number did not change from 1869 to 1937 when Franklin D. Roosevelt wanted to pack the court. Indeed, this book looks at the impact Roosevelts efforts have over the court and its deliberations even now. But I get ahead of myself. Lee credits John Marshall for bringing the court out of obscurity and helping it find its stride and purpose. Until his tenure, the court seemed uncertain as to its role. Washington called it "that department which must be considered the keystone of our political fabric."
In its early years, the court had six justices, and when it came time to hand down an opinion, each justice turned his in separately. Lee says almost no one read those original opinions. They didn’t finish the current Supreme Court building until the court had existed some 150 years. This court history as it exists in chapter two is outstanding in its comprehensiveness and conciseness. He focuses briefly on the landmark Marbury Vs. Madison case in which Justice Marshall ruled that the high court has the authority to declare a law unconstitutional. During his tenure as chief justice, Marshall set the tone for the court as an apolitical body.
Lee points out in this chapter that Lincoln was the first court packer, bringing the number of justices to 10 at one point. While that may have been a net positive for ending slavery, Lee argues that it set a precedent for future court packing proposals.
Lee looks at the Woodrow Wilson years and the harm of an isolated unelected bureaucracy would do.
Chapter four tells the story of the dramatic attempt by Roosevelt to pack the courts. In plain English, the author shows you how Roosevelt’s threats intimidated the court and caused at least one justice to switch his opinions on several cases. I was staggered to learn how deeply a failed move would change the court and especially the Interstate Commerce clause of the constitution.
There’s so much that appeals to me about this book. I loved the plain-English way the author writes. His prose animates the law, taking what could have been in-the-weeds names-and-faces two-dimensional writing and turning it into fascinating human drama that’s worth reading about.
This is a short book. If you 3X this narrator, and you can, cause he’s not all that fast, you’re done in two hours and 15 minutes. When you’re done, you’ll wish there was more of this to read.
In chapter two, we learn about how the country arrived at 9 justices. That number did not change from 1869 to 1937 when Franklin D. Roosevelt wanted to pack the court. Indeed, this book looks at the impact Roosevelts efforts have over the court and its deliberations even now. But I get ahead of myself. Lee credits John Marshall for bringing the court out of obscurity and helping it find its stride and purpose. Until his tenure, the court seemed uncertain as to its role. Washington called it "that department which must be considered the keystone of our political fabric."
In its early years, the court had six justices, and when it came time to hand down an opinion, each justice turned his in separately. Lee says almost no one read those original opinions. They didn’t finish the current Supreme Court building until the court had existed some 150 years. This court history as it exists in chapter two is outstanding in its comprehensiveness and conciseness. He focuses briefly on the landmark Marbury Vs. Madison case in which Justice Marshall ruled that the high court has the authority to declare a law unconstitutional. During his tenure as chief justice, Marshall set the tone for the court as an apolitical body.
Lee points out in this chapter that Lincoln was the first court packer, bringing the number of justices to 10 at one point. While that may have been a net positive for ending slavery, Lee argues that it set a precedent for future court packing proposals.
Lee looks at the Woodrow Wilson years and the harm of an isolated unelected bureaucracy would do.
Chapter four tells the story of the dramatic attempt by Roosevelt to pack the courts. In plain English, the author shows you how Roosevelt’s threats intimidated the court and caused at least one justice to switch his opinions on several cases. I was staggered to learn how deeply a failed move would change the court and especially the Interstate Commerce clause of the constitution.
There’s so much that appeals to me about this book. I loved the plain-English way the author writes. His prose animates the law, taking what could have been in-the-weeds names-and-faces two-dimensional writing and turning it into fascinating human drama that’s worth reading about.
This is a short book. If you 3X this narrator, and you can, cause he’s not all that fast, you’re done in two hours and 15 minutes. When you’re done, you’ll wish there was more of this to read.
June 2, 2022
No amount of paid "reviews" can resuscitate this stinker from its well-earned, pitiful 2 star rating. When will you publishers learn that right wing nutjobs aren't the reading type? Maybe if it was in comic book form with lots of bright colors and no "big words." Every time one of you grifters sneaks onto the giveaways list (I've signed up anyway in order to put the paper to good use as toilet paper), goodreaders punish you. You will not convert us to your cult of ignorance and hatred of democracy. We won the election by over 7 million votes for a reason. Readers know better. Get out.
December 24, 2022
An A for content, a strong D for editing. I've rarely read a book with such egregious typos. Just one example on page 73, Felix Frankfurter was a respected legal scholar and law professor at Harvard by the age of 3! Senator Lee, please edit the book before the next printing!
July 17, 2023
There are the makings of an incredible introductory discussion into constitutional law in this book and for that reason alone it is still worth reading. The book would be infinitely improved, however, by the attention of a proof reader. What follows is a doubtlessly incomplete list of incomprehensible errors picked up in a single casual reading:
1. Pg 73- "At the time, Frankfurter was a respected legal scholar who had, by the age of 3, become the first Jewish law professor at Harvard." - not to doubt Frankfurter but I find it unlikely he was teaching at Harvard by the ripe age of 3.
2. Pg 107- "President Roosevelt also worked cunningly, behind the scenes, promising an eventual Supreme Court seat to an importantally, Senate Majority Leader Joe Robinson of Arkansa, who was at the time, if the man would take up the cause in the Senate." - A mess of a sentence. Less importantly a space is missing between "important" and "ally". More importantly the reader is never to know what Robinson was at the time.
3. Pg 119 - "--- so long as Congress properly articulates the connection to interstate commerce properly and utters the right words in the right sequence---" - the repetition of "properly" is perhaps forgivable, but in concert with the other errors one wo ders how this made it to print.
4. Pg 173 "trail court" - I assume this was supposed to be trial court.
5. Pg 173 - "In a federal appellate court, you typically argue in front of these judges, although in rare cases it can be more." - in context it is clear he meant to say three judges not these.
1. Pg 73- "At the time, Frankfurter was a respected legal scholar who had, by the age of 3, become the first Jewish law professor at Harvard." - not to doubt Frankfurter but I find it unlikely he was teaching at Harvard by the ripe age of 3.
2. Pg 107- "President Roosevelt also worked cunningly, behind the scenes, promising an eventual Supreme Court seat to an importantally, Senate Majority Leader Joe Robinson of Arkansa, who was at the time, if the man would take up the cause in the Senate." - A mess of a sentence. Less importantly a space is missing between "important" and "ally". More importantly the reader is never to know what Robinson was at the time.
3. Pg 119 - "--- so long as Congress properly articulates the connection to interstate commerce properly and utters the right words in the right sequence---" - the repetition of "properly" is perhaps forgivable, but in concert with the other errors one wo ders how this made it to print.
4. Pg 173 "trail court" - I assume this was supposed to be trial court.
5. Pg 173 - "In a federal appellate court, you typically argue in front of these judges, although in rare cases it can be more." - in context it is clear he meant to say three judges not these.
July 11, 2022
Great overview of what has, recently, come out of the 2020 Presidential debates, on the part of Democrats, called "court packing." Court packing is when one wants to add justices to the Supreme Court. Lee goes into reasons why this would attack the vital structure of our Constitutional Republic, and his voice is given great weight with his evidence.
Lee dives into a brief history of Supreme Court, and when FDR tried to pack the court back in 1937. He then goes up into the modern era with the 2020 Presidential debates. The Supreme Court has been 9 justices since 1869 for good reason. I am in 100% agreement that adding more justices now is a very BAD idea, and hopefully one that will never gain any momentum. For if it did, it will destroy American liberties.
Lee dives into a brief history of Supreme Court, and when FDR tried to pack the court back in 1937. He then goes up into the modern era with the 2020 Presidential debates. The Supreme Court has been 9 justices since 1869 for good reason. I am in 100% agreement that adding more justices now is a very BAD idea, and hopefully one that will never gain any momentum. For if it did, it will destroy American liberties.
September 20, 2022
Senator Lee has presented a persuasive argument for not packing the United States Supreme Court. Along the way, he provides some interesting autobiographical information, including his father's role as United States Solicitor General. The Senator gives a history of the Court and analyzes FDR's failed attempt to pack it. The book came out just before the Court overruled Roe v. Wade .
The book contains a number of typographical errors, including one I laughed at on page 71. Because of that, I suspect that the book was rushed to publication. That's okay; it timely discusses a topic of overwhelming importance to the survival of our constitutionsl republic.
The book contains a number of typographical errors, including one I laughed at on page 71. Because of that, I suspect that the book was rushed to publication. That's okay; it timely discusses a topic of overwhelming importance to the survival of our constitutionsl republic.
September 25, 2022
This was the first book by Senator Mike Lee that I have read.
His style was comprehensive, his explanations quite clear and, overall, the book very readable to a person like me who is not an attorney!
The importance of the topic, maintaining our supreme court with nine members, is so very timely amidst all the rancor and divisiveness happening all over our country.
I thoroughly recommend this book to anyone, regardless of politics, who cares about the integrity of maintaining the Court as an apolitical entity!!
His style was comprehensive, his explanations quite clear and, overall, the book very readable to a person like me who is not an attorney!
The importance of the topic, maintaining our supreme court with nine members, is so very timely amidst all the rancor and divisiveness happening all over our country.
I thoroughly recommend this book to anyone, regardless of politics, who cares about the integrity of maintaining the Court as an apolitical entity!!
Read
July 3, 2022Saving Nine by Senator Lee is a great read and hits all the social points of today. Why the court needs to remain at nine justices is a must-read to saving our Republic. To force changes for the cause of political want would be ruinous to our Republic and Constitution. If you love the Constitution, our Republic, and our way of life. "Saving Nine" is a critical read for each American and America's future.
July 27, 2022
Written in cold logic. Near tears at the conclusion reached.
Savage media emotional drumbeat can be effective in overcoming logical thinking. Mike Lee expresses concern for emotional plea from media influencers to “pack” the Supreme Court.
Lee then explains why SCOTUS machinations will likely destroy the constitutional separation of powers designed by the founding fathers. And he does so using logic instead of drumbeats.
Savage media emotional drumbeat can be effective in overcoming logical thinking. Mike Lee expresses concern for emotional plea from media influencers to “pack” the Supreme Court.
Lee then explains why SCOTUS machinations will likely destroy the constitutional separation of powers designed by the founding fathers. And he does so using logic instead of drumbeats.
November 16, 2022
Written by the only Senator in the United States right now which is rated at 100% for a constitutional
stand in his votes in the US Senate. States very clearly in history and principle why the court should not be 'stacked' or have their number increased.
stand in his votes in the US Senate. States very clearly in history and principle why the court should not be 'stacked' or have their number increased.
June 27, 2022
A simple mind and its simple thoughts: somehow the holy vessels of the gods would save your soul, even if they might destroy your body.
July 21, 2022
Several minor editing gaffes, but not severe enough to react from the overall message. Well-researched, and much-needed.
July 22, 2022
A very readable history of the structure of the Supreme Court, with special attention to failed efforts at court packing. A good read.
October 10, 2022
Good historical account and then some valid concerns, easy read, enjoyed it.
November 7, 2023
A conservative’s take on the court-packing argument. Interesting read. I especially enjoyed the thorough history lesson at the beginning.
March 25, 2025
Well written, moves nicely and is quite interesting.
March 20, 2023
Great book if want an overview of Supreme Court system of government. I was very interested in learning more about “stacking the court”. I’d heard about it but didn’t really understand. This book gave a great perspective and help me understand how fragile our government is and yet how strong the constitutional foundation has been and continues to be.
September 29, 2022
The content of the book is excellent.. Most notably Lee points out the inevitable reality that if Democrats add 4 seats to the Supreme court, then at the very first opportunity Republicans have it will be necessary for them to add another 4. And on and on.
Having said that, the poor editing of the book was a distraction, particularly in the first half. Without those distractions I would give the book 5 stars instead of 4. Following are a few examples.
the Supreme Court of the United States has the power to declare law a unconstitutional.
Senate Majority Leader Joe Robinson of Arkansas, who was the at the time, if the man would take up the cause in the Senate.
When you argue in a trail court, there is only one judge
Hopefully Lee will find a new editor for his next book
Having said that, the poor editing of the book was a distraction, particularly in the first half. Without those distractions I would give the book 5 stars instead of 4. Following are a few examples.
the Supreme Court of the United States has the power to declare law a unconstitutional.
Senate Majority Leader Joe Robinson of Arkansas, who was the at the time, if the man would take up the cause in the Senate.
When you argue in a trail court, there is only one judge
Hopefully Lee will find a new editor for his next book
February 7, 2023
Good book on explaining how the Democrats try to pack the court
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews