What do you think?
Rate this book
The Great Decision: Jefferson, Adams, Marshall, and the Battle for the Supreme Court
In 1800, the United States teetered on the brink of a second revolution. The presidential election between Adams and Jefferson was a bitterly contested tie, and the government neared collapse. The Supreme Court had no clear purpose or power—no one had even thought to build it a courtroom in the new capital city. When Adams sought to prolong his policies in defiance of the electorate by packing the courts, the fine words of the new Constitution could do nothing to stop him. It would take a man to make those words good, and America found him in John Marshall. The Great Decision tells the riveting story of Marshall and of the landmark court case, Marbury v. Madison , through which he empowered the Supreme Court and transformed the idea of the separation of powers into a working blueprint for our modern state. Rich in atmospheric detail, political intrigue, and fascinating characters, The Great Decision is an illuminating tale of America's formative years and of the evolution of our democracy.
258 pages, Hardcover
First published February 10, 2009
20 people are currently reading
562 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 66 reviews
March 7, 2019
This is a fairly short, narrowly-focused book concerning the precedent-setting Supreme Court decision Marbury vs. Madison. The authors provide a solid lead-up to the event, setting the stage for the political environment at the beginning of 19th century Washington, D.C. Adequate introductions are given for all of the major participants. And the decision is included as an Appendix at the end of the text.
Chief Justice John Marshall is the main character here, but the real issue is the still-weak and as yet largely undefined powers of the Supreme Court. Constitutionally speaking, it was designed to be the third, equal branch of the federal government. But in reality, it was by far the least important of the three branches, and was thought so little of that it had to scrounge around just to find a home. Marshall did more than anyone else to help propel the Court to a position of prominence in our governmental system. Today, we take for granted that the Court is no less important than the executive and legislative branches, but that was far from certain in the early days of the nation.
A thorough review of Marshall's selection as Chief Justice by the outgoing President John Adams is discussed, along with the controversial election of 1800 which resulted in Thomas Jefferson narrowly edging out Aaron Burr for the presidency. Despite being related to each other, Jefferson and Marshall despised each other and worked at cross-purposes in their political philosophies. Adams' appointment of Marshall during the last few months of his presidency was a definite slap at Jefferson, and unlike today's political environment where Barack Obama's nomination was not even given a hearing, Marshall was easily confirmed (there were no hearings on judicial nominees back in those days). It is hard to see that same appointment being made, let alone ratified by the Senate, now.
The case stems from last-minute judicial appointments that Adams made. They were so last-minute that some of the appointments, while approved by the Senate, signed by Adams, and sealed by the Secretary of State (who, ironically, was John Marshall!), went undelivered. When Jefferson took over, he scuttled the commissions and refused to allow Madison to deliver them. The issue was whether Jefferson had the power to do so or not. In the meantime, Congress repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801 and enacted a countermeasure Act of 1802, thus causing the Supreme Court to not meet for over a year.
The book then goes into the case further, the arguments in Court, the decision, and the impact that the decision - establishing judicial review - has had on later Court decisions. There is a nice epilogue relating to how some modern-day justices view the decision. The epilogue also briefly reviews what happened to each of the major participants. This is a pretty easy and quick read, and does not get bogged down in legal language.
What is missing is a review of how Marshall and the other justices arrived at their decision. What was the debater amongst them like? Was there any dissension before the unanimous opinion was handed down? Did Marshall have to convince anyone to go along with his thinking on the scope of the federal judiciary as its power relates to Congress? Oddly, nothing is mentioned about those topics. The other parts of the book are solid, but this seems to me to be a glaring omission.
Still, if you have any interest in early American politics, the Supreme Court, Adams, Jefferson, or Marshall, you will find this an interesting slice out of their lives.
Grade: B-
Chief Justice John Marshall is the main character here, but the real issue is the still-weak and as yet largely undefined powers of the Supreme Court. Constitutionally speaking, it was designed to be the third, equal branch of the federal government. But in reality, it was by far the least important of the three branches, and was thought so little of that it had to scrounge around just to find a home. Marshall did more than anyone else to help propel the Court to a position of prominence in our governmental system. Today, we take for granted that the Court is no less important than the executive and legislative branches, but that was far from certain in the early days of the nation.
A thorough review of Marshall's selection as Chief Justice by the outgoing President John Adams is discussed, along with the controversial election of 1800 which resulted in Thomas Jefferson narrowly edging out Aaron Burr for the presidency. Despite being related to each other, Jefferson and Marshall despised each other and worked at cross-purposes in their political philosophies. Adams' appointment of Marshall during the last few months of his presidency was a definite slap at Jefferson, and unlike today's political environment where Barack Obama's nomination was not even given a hearing, Marshall was easily confirmed (there were no hearings on judicial nominees back in those days). It is hard to see that same appointment being made, let alone ratified by the Senate, now.
The case stems from last-minute judicial appointments that Adams made. They were so last-minute that some of the appointments, while approved by the Senate, signed by Adams, and sealed by the Secretary of State (who, ironically, was John Marshall!), went undelivered. When Jefferson took over, he scuttled the commissions and refused to allow Madison to deliver them. The issue was whether Jefferson had the power to do so or not. In the meantime, Congress repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801 and enacted a countermeasure Act of 1802, thus causing the Supreme Court to not meet for over a year.
The book then goes into the case further, the arguments in Court, the decision, and the impact that the decision - establishing judicial review - has had on later Court decisions. There is a nice epilogue relating to how some modern-day justices view the decision. The epilogue also briefly reviews what happened to each of the major participants. This is a pretty easy and quick read, and does not get bogged down in legal language.
What is missing is a review of how Marshall and the other justices arrived at their decision. What was the debater amongst them like? Was there any dissension before the unanimous opinion was handed down? Did Marshall have to convince anyone to go along with his thinking on the scope of the federal judiciary as its power relates to Congress? Oddly, nothing is mentioned about those topics. The other parts of the book are solid, but this seems to me to be a glaring omission.
Still, if you have any interest in early American politics, the Supreme Court, Adams, Jefferson, or Marshall, you will find this an interesting slice out of their lives.
Grade: B-
March 16, 2010
The authors of The Great Decision contend that the written decision of Marbury v. Madison is almost as important as The Declaration of Independence and Constitution when it comes to solidifying our country's ideals, and they make a compelling case as to why. Many Americans may remember that Marbury established the principal of judicial review, which meant that the Supreme Court can declare an act of Congress or the Executive branch unconstitutional. Some may also recall that it was the appointment of several "midnight justices" by outgoing President John Adams that touched off the crisis. However, I'd venture to guess that very few are familiar with the facts surrounding the case, or the details of the life of the plaintiff William Marbury. In addition to providing biographical sketches of all the major players connected to the case, the authors also do a very good job of describing the political environment in which the suit was brought.
I've been waiting for a book like this for a long time, I'd strongly recommend it to anyone with an interest in the Supreme Court or U. S. History.
I've been waiting for a book like this for a long time, I'd strongly recommend it to anyone with an interest in the Supreme Court or U. S. History.
February 6, 2010
I liked this book and thought the authors were skillful in making an otherwise dry topic interesting and compelling. There are some flaws in the book, however, which caused me to rate it with only three stars.
On the plus side, the authors did a lot of primary research from the leading political papers at that time, which helps the reader keep a pulse on the rivalry and political infighting of the time. The polarizing politics of our modern era almost pale in comparison to the early 19th century. As the authors point out, the newspapers at that time, such as the Federalist Gazette and the Aurora, were openly political, picking sides and sticking to their guns. There was no pretense of impartiality. Some politicians, in fact, were not so openly partisan, such as Thomas Jefferson, and used the press to advance their agendas.
The book also does an excellent job of painting the characters of these historic figures, who took their politics very personally. I had read before about the mutual dislike between Jefferson and his cousin John Marshall, but never quite understood why. The book sheds light on this by suggesting family feuds as well as political differences.
The writers stray from the storyline occasionally, which I found distracting. In chapter nine, which deals with the trial, they devote a long paragraph -- almost an entire page -- to newspaper advertisements of health remedies for worms and other ailments, with no relation at all to the trial. It bears no relation to the previous or following paragraphs; it's just plopped down for us to behold and scratch our heads. It's likely that this is for filler, because the book is longer than it needs to be. The writing could be much tighter without sacrificing anything, and the book suffers for it occasionally, losing momentum and dragging. At the end of the book the entire decision of Marbury v. Madison is printed, as well as the shorter Stuart v. Laird, which is completely unnecessary as the book is not a detailed exegesis of these opinions. Anybody interested in reading the entire opinions can look them up online.
I was also disappointed in the book's treatment of the immediate aftermath of Marbury v. Madison. While it refers to how some individuals and newspapers reacted to it, I'm left wondering how the Supreme Court got away with invalidating an act of Congress, particularly since it was a court of Federalists pitted against a Republican Congress. Was there no serious debate, no caucusing by the Republicans to declare the Supreme Court as arrogating power it didn't have? Did Congress just accept this with a whimper? It's hard for me to believe that they did and, if so, why they did. This is the stuff of a Constitutional crisis. The book makes clear there would have been had the court found for Marbury, as President Jefferson may have defied the writ of mandamus. Why did the Congress not defy this? There has to be some insight one way or another.
Some of the book's more serious flaws stem from errors and inaccuracies, some minor and some major. These start from the very beginning of the book in the Prologue, where, for example, reference is made to the two large paintings in the Rotunda of the National Archives. The book wrongly asserts that the two depict the signing of Declaration of Independence. The two paintings -- murals, actually -- depict two different events. One is of the presentation (not signing) of the Declaration of Independence and the other of presentation of the Constitution.
The Prologue also refers to "an original copy" of the Declaration of Independence, and likewise for the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which suggests that there are other "originals." The fact is, these are the originals, singly and exclusively. Some of these errors may not cause any reader to flunk a history test, but we should expect better powers of observation on the part of the writers.
More serious errors emerge later. On page 29 the book says, "Secretary of State Marshall wrote to the defeated vice-presidential candidate Charles Pinckney...," whereas it was actually Charles Cotesworth Pinckney who was the vice-presidential candidate. This is not splitting hairs over a middle name, because Charles Pinckney was an equally prominent political figure of that time -- a Republican senator from South Carolina who helped defeat John Adams and Charles Cotesworth Pinckney in their bid for the White House. The two Pinckneys were cousins. Similarly, on page 33 it says that "Marshall confided to Charles Pinckney...," whereas it was Charles Cotesworth Pinckney. It is critical to differentiate between these two Pinckneys, and the way the Charles Cotesworth Pinckney did was by using his middle name.
On pages 70-71 it says that Jefferson "entrusted the letters to fellow Virginian John Dickinson," but Dickinson was not a Virginian. He was born in Talbot County, Maryland. He later lived in Pennsylvania and then Delaware, but never in Virginia. On page 105, the book refers to the Senate majority leader as "Stevens Thomas Mason," whereas his name was Stevens Thomson Mason.
The book suffers from poor editing. For example, on page 20 it reads, "While the Philadelphia Aurora...was the Republican standard-bearer...," while on the very next page it reads, "One leading Republican newspaper, the Aurora...," as if we need reminding just three paragraphs later. Chapter 10 is named "Deliberation," but the headers on the odd-numbered pages read "The Decision." Chapter 11 is named "Decision," but the headers on the odd-numbered pages read "The Great Decision." And, again, a good editor would have tightened up the writing and kept the authors from straying from the storyline.
Overall, and despite its shortcomings, The Great Decision is a good read and I recommend it.
On the plus side, the authors did a lot of primary research from the leading political papers at that time, which helps the reader keep a pulse on the rivalry and political infighting of the time. The polarizing politics of our modern era almost pale in comparison to the early 19th century. As the authors point out, the newspapers at that time, such as the Federalist Gazette and the Aurora, were openly political, picking sides and sticking to their guns. There was no pretense of impartiality. Some politicians, in fact, were not so openly partisan, such as Thomas Jefferson, and used the press to advance their agendas.
The book also does an excellent job of painting the characters of these historic figures, who took their politics very personally. I had read before about the mutual dislike between Jefferson and his cousin John Marshall, but never quite understood why. The book sheds light on this by suggesting family feuds as well as political differences.
The writers stray from the storyline occasionally, which I found distracting. In chapter nine, which deals with the trial, they devote a long paragraph -- almost an entire page -- to newspaper advertisements of health remedies for worms and other ailments, with no relation at all to the trial. It bears no relation to the previous or following paragraphs; it's just plopped down for us to behold and scratch our heads. It's likely that this is for filler, because the book is longer than it needs to be. The writing could be much tighter without sacrificing anything, and the book suffers for it occasionally, losing momentum and dragging. At the end of the book the entire decision of Marbury v. Madison is printed, as well as the shorter Stuart v. Laird, which is completely unnecessary as the book is not a detailed exegesis of these opinions. Anybody interested in reading the entire opinions can look them up online.
I was also disappointed in the book's treatment of the immediate aftermath of Marbury v. Madison. While it refers to how some individuals and newspapers reacted to it, I'm left wondering how the Supreme Court got away with invalidating an act of Congress, particularly since it was a court of Federalists pitted against a Republican Congress. Was there no serious debate, no caucusing by the Republicans to declare the Supreme Court as arrogating power it didn't have? Did Congress just accept this with a whimper? It's hard for me to believe that they did and, if so, why they did. This is the stuff of a Constitutional crisis. The book makes clear there would have been had the court found for Marbury, as President Jefferson may have defied the writ of mandamus. Why did the Congress not defy this? There has to be some insight one way or another.
Some of the book's more serious flaws stem from errors and inaccuracies, some minor and some major. These start from the very beginning of the book in the Prologue, where, for example, reference is made to the two large paintings in the Rotunda of the National Archives. The book wrongly asserts that the two depict the signing of Declaration of Independence. The two paintings -- murals, actually -- depict two different events. One is of the presentation (not signing) of the Declaration of Independence and the other of presentation of the Constitution.
The Prologue also refers to "an original copy" of the Declaration of Independence, and likewise for the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which suggests that there are other "originals." The fact is, these are the originals, singly and exclusively. Some of these errors may not cause any reader to flunk a history test, but we should expect better powers of observation on the part of the writers.
More serious errors emerge later. On page 29 the book says, "Secretary of State Marshall wrote to the defeated vice-presidential candidate Charles Pinckney...," whereas it was actually Charles Cotesworth Pinckney who was the vice-presidential candidate. This is not splitting hairs over a middle name, because Charles Pinckney was an equally prominent political figure of that time -- a Republican senator from South Carolina who helped defeat John Adams and Charles Cotesworth Pinckney in their bid for the White House. The two Pinckneys were cousins. Similarly, on page 33 it says that "Marshall confided to Charles Pinckney...," whereas it was Charles Cotesworth Pinckney. It is critical to differentiate between these two Pinckneys, and the way the Charles Cotesworth Pinckney did was by using his middle name.
On pages 70-71 it says that Jefferson "entrusted the letters to fellow Virginian John Dickinson," but Dickinson was not a Virginian. He was born in Talbot County, Maryland. He later lived in Pennsylvania and then Delaware, but never in Virginia. On page 105, the book refers to the Senate majority leader as "Stevens Thomas Mason," whereas his name was Stevens Thomson Mason.
The book suffers from poor editing. For example, on page 20 it reads, "While the Philadelphia Aurora...was the Republican standard-bearer...," while on the very next page it reads, "One leading Republican newspaper, the Aurora...," as if we need reminding just three paragraphs later. Chapter 10 is named "Deliberation," but the headers on the odd-numbered pages read "The Decision." Chapter 11 is named "Decision," but the headers on the odd-numbered pages read "The Great Decision." And, again, a good editor would have tightened up the writing and kept the authors from straying from the storyline.
Overall, and despite its shortcomings, The Great Decision is a good read and I recommend it.
November 2, 2013
A fascinating look at the importance of the Marbury v. Madison decision by the Supreme Court in 1803. In the Marbury decision, John Marshall, the fourth Chief Justice, carved out a position of power for the then rather feeble Supreme Court by claiming the power of judicial review for that body which helped to define the boundaries between the three branches of government. In setting the background for the decision, the authors give a general history of the early Supreme Court, the attempt by John Adams to pack the Judicial branch with the "midnight justices", and the political personalities that interacted during the early years of the Republic. Based primarily on secondary sources and contemporary newspaper articles and editorials, the authors are able to present a vivid account of a period in our history that is often called the Second American Revolution.
September 14, 2023
A great tale for those who are unfamiliar with the beginning of the America judicial system. Even for those who have learned Marbury, the tales from behind the doors of the rooms “where it happened” will find new insightful information about our nations roots.
July 26, 2014
The 1800 elections unveiled a schism in the body politic for the first time in U.S. history. The battle of the two party systems begins with this election. In the final days of John Adam’s presidency, he tried to appoint as many Federalist as possible to position established in legislation passed by the outgoing Federalist majority Congress. He had recently appointed John Marshall as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court when John Jay refused to take the job again. A handful of commissions for justice of the peace remained undelivered when incoming Democratic-Republican President Thomas Jefferson took office. Jefferson ordered his Secretary of State, James Madison, not to deliver them. A disgruntled office seeker, William Marbury, sued to have his commission honored.
The book is well-research even including some contemporary newspaper accounts. The book reads like a political thriller. Marbury V Madison is considered the most important legal case in American history. The case established the judiciary as the final arbiter of any conflict between the law and the Constitution. The authors supply Marbury’s historical context and unravels the complex fabric of personalities, politics and law that animated the case. Sloan and McKean spent most of the book on the 1800 election and the thoughts of Adams and Jefferson. I wished they would have spent equal or more time on John Marshall and how he came to his decision. The book suffers from occasionally losing momentum, dragging and poor editing. But overall the book provided a review of the history of the 1800 election, the antagonism between Adams and Jefferson as well as insight into legal history. If one is interested in American history and legal history this is a great book to start with. I read this as an audio book downloaded from Audible. Peter Jay Fernandez did a good job narrating the book.
The book is well-research even including some contemporary newspaper accounts. The book reads like a political thriller. Marbury V Madison is considered the most important legal case in American history. The case established the judiciary as the final arbiter of any conflict between the law and the Constitution. The authors supply Marbury’s historical context and unravels the complex fabric of personalities, politics and law that animated the case. Sloan and McKean spent most of the book on the 1800 election and the thoughts of Adams and Jefferson. I wished they would have spent equal or more time on John Marshall and how he came to his decision. The book suffers from occasionally losing momentum, dragging and poor editing. But overall the book provided a review of the history of the 1800 election, the antagonism between Adams and Jefferson as well as insight into legal history. If one is interested in American history and legal history this is a great book to start with. I read this as an audio book downloaded from Audible. Peter Jay Fernandez did a good job narrating the book.
June 28, 2012
This was an interesting book about how the Supreme Court arrived at its current position with the powers and limitations we take for granted. It's always fascinating to read about the political inbreeding of those first few decades of our country - a few dozen men (only men) just rotated through all of the leadership roles.
This was particularly enlightening to read during the week SCOTUS announced its ruling on Citizens United, and is about to give their decision on "Obamacare".
This was particularly enlightening to read during the week SCOTUS announced its ruling on Citizens United, and is about to give their decision on "Obamacare".
September 29, 2024
I wanted to revisit the Marbury decision in the wake of the recent Supreme Court opinion granting pretty broad presidential immunity, in that both decisions touch on the relative power between the three branches of government. This was an excellent deep dive as much into the decision as into the geopolitical moment. I took great heart in a few things:
1) Like Trump, Adams did not attend his successor's swearing in.
2) Jefferson ultimately won the presidency over Burr in part due to members of Burr's own party abandoning him as an amoral figure: Hamilton wrote, re: Burr, that he is "bankrupt beyond redepmtion, except by the plunder of his country. His public principles have no other spring or aim than his own aggrandizement."
3) Adams made a lot of midnight appointments during his lame duck term, notably including the appointment that ultimately led to Marbury v. Madison.
4) We were bitterly divided along partisan lines then as well, and Jefferson sounded the earliest "There are no red states and blue states; there is only the United States," with his pronouncement that "We are all republicans, we are all federalists," and that our form of democracy is "the world's best hope."
5) Even among the parties, there was bitter division between the federalists and the "high federalists," not unlike today's MAGA and 'Never Trump' Republican split.
All in all, I was heartened to be reminded of how bitterly our country has been divided before and yet endured. Marbury was indeed an innovative, thoughtful decision the tenets of which underpin our current judicial system...even as it sometimes feels endangered by the current Supreme Court and some Trumpian ideologues on lower and state benches.
1) Like Trump, Adams did not attend his successor's swearing in.
2) Jefferson ultimately won the presidency over Burr in part due to members of Burr's own party abandoning him as an amoral figure: Hamilton wrote, re: Burr, that he is "bankrupt beyond redepmtion, except by the plunder of his country. His public principles have no other spring or aim than his own aggrandizement."
3) Adams made a lot of midnight appointments during his lame duck term, notably including the appointment that ultimately led to Marbury v. Madison.
4) We were bitterly divided along partisan lines then as well, and Jefferson sounded the earliest "There are no red states and blue states; there is only the United States," with his pronouncement that "We are all republicans, we are all federalists," and that our form of democracy is "the world's best hope."
5) Even among the parties, there was bitter division between the federalists and the "high federalists," not unlike today's MAGA and 'Never Trump' Republican split.
All in all, I was heartened to be reminded of how bitterly our country has been divided before and yet endured. Marbury was indeed an innovative, thoughtful decision the tenets of which underpin our current judicial system...even as it sometimes feels endangered by the current Supreme Court and some Trumpian ideologues on lower and state benches.
January 3, 2019
In the course of Mathew Whitaker becoming acting Attorney General op-Ed pieces cited his opinion that Marbury vs Madison was decided incorrectly, or that he believes the Supreme Court cannot judge the constitutionality of the acts of the other branches of government. Well I found this excellent book to capture what that case was about. This book lays out the politics of the time between 1800-1804, and the personal hatreds, the one between Chief Justice John Marshall and President Thomas Jefferson being the key one. The overall issues to be decided and the decisions are plainly explained for the most part. The explanation of course is a bit difficult for non-lawyers such as myself.
Good history book illustrating one set of the ideals that this country should be proud of, the constitution is the highest law of the land, the Supreme Court decides what is constitutional, and as far as governments it is a government of laws not men.
Good history book illustrating one set of the ideals that this country should be proud of, the constitution is the highest law of the land, the Supreme Court decides what is constitutional, and as far as governments it is a government of laws not men.
April 26, 2024
I do feel like the book provides a decent elementary view of the case, however, I'm not really sure who the authors thought their target audience would be. I can't imagine a lot of people wanting to read about Marbury vs Madison and the ones who would probably are expecting something different than what this book attempted to be. A lot of details were added for no apparent purpose, like the color of drapes and descriptions of rooms and buildings. If this was intended to be a narrative history I do not feel like it succeeded and it definitely didn't succeed as a standard history. The editing is also not the best. Simple mistakes like the chapter title being different in the header and the chapter title page are pretty basic things to miss.
February 15, 2017
The story behind the case that gave power to the Supreme Court and making it an equal part of the governement with Congress and the President. Marbury v. Madison set the precedent of "judicial review", but also established the United States as a nation of laws. I completely enjoyed reading this book when it was published in 2009. With the current headlines discussing the authority of judges, I felt it was time to re-visit this history book that could be placed in the political thriller section of your local library. More and more it seems that battles that were fought by our founding fathers are still being waged in the political arena of today.
January 8, 2018
An interesting history of the earlier years of the United States' Supreme Court, culminating in the Marbury v. Madison decision that established judicial review. Reading this in a era when the the Supreme Court holds such a prominent position in public life, it is interesting to see how little regard in which it was held in the formative days of the republic and how, under the leadership of Chief Justice John Marshal, it came to hold such a prominent place in public policy and in the check on the executive and legislative branches on abuses of constitutional rights.
July 27, 2021
This is a nice overview of Marbury vs. Madison and the context surrounding it. Much of the material has been reported in other books, but that's okay. There is just enough detail to keep you informed but not so much that it bogs down the narrative.
I most appreciated learning more about John Marshall. He was quite the dude, and quite possible one of the most underrated of the founding generation.
I most appreciated learning more about John Marshall. He was quite the dude, and quite possible one of the most underrated of the founding generation.
April 15, 2019
This is a full exploration of the famous Marbury v. Madison case that fully established the Judiciary as the third branch of our government with final authority on interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.
It can get a bit dry and was a bit of a slog in parts (though it is short). Purely for those interested in the decision and the politics surrounding it.
It can get a bit dry and was a bit of a slog in parts (though it is short). Purely for those interested in the decision and the politics surrounding it.
November 12, 2019
An eye opening book about the times and politics leading up to the decision of Marbury vs. Madison. The decision established the stature of the supreme court and the principle that the court is the final voice on constitutional issues. The dysfunctional government and press is heartening. If we survived 1804, we can survive 2019.
February 1, 2026
Illuminating and enlightening and brilliantly written, this book takes a heavy weight subject - Marbury vs Madison - and makes it a living breathing if not breathtaking account of early American legal history. A truly engaging account of how this precedent setting case came into being and why it has taken a place next to the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
January 29, 2021
If the recent current events and general Trump administration have left you wondering about American history and basic constitutional law, this is a superb book to read! Interesting, easy to get through, unlike other history books it’s not dry at all. Learned a lot.
September 8, 2024
Loved this book...kudos to Mr. Sloan and Mr. McKean in using their research findings to present a fascinating story to uninteresting, but massively important, Supreme Court decision, which continues to play a huge role in American History and Government...
September 29, 2019
If you ever wanted to know the real background of Marbury v. Madison and why that case still matters this is the book to read. Well researched, informative and a good read.
Read
July 9, 2021It was very good to read this narrative of the people, background, context, and events of Marbury. It was especially interesting to read the actual opinion.
November 18, 2025
Constitutional history book. Founding father drama in a book!
February 12, 2012
The animosity dividing American political opinion dates all the way back to the beginning of the republic. Today Washington and Jefferson nestle side by side on Mount Rushmore, in the change collected on the bedside table, and in the popular mythologies of our public schooling and political pundits. But the two men - more significantly, the political parties they represented - were as diametrically opposed as today's Republicans and Democrats. It's hard to imagine anyone saying the sorts of things a Donald Trump or Rush Limbaugh say about President Obama when speaking of Thomas Jefferson, but that's exactly what some of the Federalists did. And vice-versa with the Republicans. Allegations that Obama wants to institute Islamic law still echo down the blogosphere, to the annoyance of people with a handle on reality. Believe it or not, there were people who warned Americans to hide their Bibles if Thomas Jefferson was elected president, because he would personally come for them.
And to a degree, like today, if one is to admire one political party (s)he must also dislike the other. There's a zero sum quality to a two party system. The same was true in 1800. If a student of history particularly admires the policies of Washington or Hamilton, (s)he's probably taken sides. That means not liking Jefferson and (post-Publius) Madison.
The Great Decision does a great job of explaining this. It more or less does so without taking sides (though it probably sides gently with Adams/Marshall - but that might be my own bias speaking... I tend to go Federalist in my 18th century fantasy political league).
But do not mistake The Great Decision as a definitive study of Marbury v. Madison. It is, at best, a primer. It expands the lecture your professor gave on Marbury in American History to 1877.
Unfortunately The Great Decision doesn't go any further than an explanation of Marbury and the mandatory, rote declaration that the Marshall Court was divine in its judgment that decided the disputatious matter of the role of the judiciary for all time. Actually, Marbury didn't settle the disputatious matter of the role of the judiciary for all time. And some students of history have a little trouble with the manner in which the Court avoided conflict. Upon close inspection, Marbury is without a doubt masterful power politics. But it can appear timid, conciliatory, deferential, shit-eating on the surface. In my opinion these impressions are generally argued away by close inspection, but they nevertheless make the impression at first. The Great Decision would have been better had it spent more than a paragraph discussing this point.
Imperfections aside, The Great Decision offers a short analysis of Marbury, with a minimum of technical language, in a breezy, pop historical voice. Since this is most non-fiction readers' comfort zone, Cliff Sloan and David McKean are writing for the masses. The Great Decision is a decent read for the Wikipedia generation that thirsts for something larger than an encyclopedia entry.
And to a degree, like today, if one is to admire one political party (s)he must also dislike the other. There's a zero sum quality to a two party system. The same was true in 1800. If a student of history particularly admires the policies of Washington or Hamilton, (s)he's probably taken sides. That means not liking Jefferson and (post-Publius) Madison.
The Great Decision does a great job of explaining this. It more or less does so without taking sides (though it probably sides gently with Adams/Marshall - but that might be my own bias speaking... I tend to go Federalist in my 18th century fantasy political league).
But do not mistake The Great Decision as a definitive study of Marbury v. Madison. It is, at best, a primer. It expands the lecture your professor gave on Marbury in American History to 1877.
Unfortunately The Great Decision doesn't go any further than an explanation of Marbury and the mandatory, rote declaration that the Marshall Court was divine in its judgment that decided the disputatious matter of the role of the judiciary for all time. Actually, Marbury didn't settle the disputatious matter of the role of the judiciary for all time. And some students of history have a little trouble with the manner in which the Court avoided conflict. Upon close inspection, Marbury is without a doubt masterful power politics. But it can appear timid, conciliatory, deferential, shit-eating on the surface. In my opinion these impressions are generally argued away by close inspection, but they nevertheless make the impression at first. The Great Decision would have been better had it spent more than a paragraph discussing this point.
Imperfections aside, The Great Decision offers a short analysis of Marbury, with a minimum of technical language, in a breezy, pop historical voice. Since this is most non-fiction readers' comfort zone, Cliff Sloan and David McKean are writing for the masses. The Great Decision is a decent read for the Wikipedia generation that thirsts for something larger than an encyclopedia entry.
December 9, 2012
Every law student reads Marbury v. Madison in constitutional law class, but rarely do most classes (or students) go in depth into the history surrounding the case. The author is not exaggerating when he makes the case that this decision had a profound impact on the development of the political institutions of this country.
Mr. Sloan does a good job of providing color and drama to enliven what could be a dull topic. Even lawyers familiar with the opinion may learn quite a bit.
Unfortunately for Mr. Sloan, I compare every non-fiction book on political or legal history to Robert Caro's Master of the Senate making it hard to get five stars out of me in this genre. Providing interesting facts and details can make "dry history" come alive, but the details should be relevant to the story. Mr. Sloan kept dropping details about seemingly minor characters or even advertisements in newspapers that did not seem relevant. For example, paragraphs throughout the book are devoted to medical advertisements for tapeworm remedies and other ailments and cures of the times. What on earth do these have to do with the main story? And many characters he drops into the story do not reappear and do not appear to affect the outcome.
The main problem for me with these extraneous details is that it felt like the author was puffing the story to make it novel length. Many details could have been dropped and this story would have been a tight well-written lengthy article or novella. Alternatively, the story could have been expanded into a biography of Marshall.
Despite my complaints, I do recommend this book highly for anyone and everyone who raises the charge that something is "unconstitutional."
Mr. Sloan does a good job of providing color and drama to enliven what could be a dull topic. Even lawyers familiar with the opinion may learn quite a bit.
Unfortunately for Mr. Sloan, I compare every non-fiction book on political or legal history to Robert Caro's Master of the Senate making it hard to get five stars out of me in this genre. Providing interesting facts and details can make "dry history" come alive, but the details should be relevant to the story. Mr. Sloan kept dropping details about seemingly minor characters or even advertisements in newspapers that did not seem relevant. For example, paragraphs throughout the book are devoted to medical advertisements for tapeworm remedies and other ailments and cures of the times. What on earth do these have to do with the main story? And many characters he drops into the story do not reappear and do not appear to affect the outcome.
The main problem for me with these extraneous details is that it felt like the author was puffing the story to make it novel length. Many details could have been dropped and this story would have been a tight well-written lengthy article or novella. Alternatively, the story could have been expanded into a biography of Marshall.
Despite my complaints, I do recommend this book highly for anyone and everyone who raises the charge that something is "unconstitutional."
June 6, 2016
It reads like a political thriller and it could be describing today’s headlines, but it is a story from 1803 when Chief Justice John Marshall first laid down the law. Of course I studied the case of Marbury v. Madison in law school, so I knew that it established the Supreme Court as a co-equal branch of our government, but I had no idea of the political intrigue. This book painted colorful pictures of President Jefferson fending off his enemies, Justice Marshall walking a tightrope, and Alexander Hamilton losing his brilliant mind. I learned about Lame Duck judicial appointees called “midnight judges” and the President shutting down the Supreme Court for fourteen full months. Tell me that doesn’t read like my Twitter feed from last week.
Even more on topic was the fight between the branches of government over executive power. President Obama’s executive orders on immigrants and bathrooms look lightweight compared to President Jefferson audacity in declaring war, negotiating in secret to double the land mass of the U.S. and hiding official documents. “Raw enmity between the Republicans and the Federalists was never far from the surface. The Republicans were triumphant and exultant; the Federalists, bitter and apocalyptic….From the Federalist perspective, everything about Jefferson was wrong, even his use of language…” I almost did not recognize Thomas Jefferson in this story, with his philosophy that each branch of government stood alone, absent the checks and balances we hear so much about today. It also gave me a great deal to think about in terms of today’s “federalism” and “state’s rights” debates. I guess there is nothing new under the sun. The Constitution is incredibly resilient in the face of attacks from all sides during three centuries.
Even more on topic was the fight between the branches of government over executive power. President Obama’s executive orders on immigrants and bathrooms look lightweight compared to President Jefferson audacity in declaring war, negotiating in secret to double the land mass of the U.S. and hiding official documents. “Raw enmity between the Republicans and the Federalists was never far from the surface. The Republicans were triumphant and exultant; the Federalists, bitter and apocalyptic….From the Federalist perspective, everything about Jefferson was wrong, even his use of language…” I almost did not recognize Thomas Jefferson in this story, with his philosophy that each branch of government stood alone, absent the checks and balances we hear so much about today. It also gave me a great deal to think about in terms of today’s “federalism” and “state’s rights” debates. I guess there is nothing new under the sun. The Constitution is incredibly resilient in the face of attacks from all sides during three centuries.
November 20, 2009
I'm a junkie, twice over - SCOTUS AND Colonial/US History. So I was expecting good, and very happy to have found EXCELLENT! in this book.
The "Great Decision" was the Supreme Court's decision in Marbury vs. Madison which single-handedly established the Court as a co-equal branch of the federal government and established a strong tradition of the court being non-partisan / beyond politics. Without the interesting and devotedly patriotic high intellect of John Marshall, who knows how America would have come out?
Sloan does an excellent job of tracking back a few years and setting the table for the actual decision. Wow, times were rough. The first transfer of the presidency from one party (Federalists) to another (Republicans, which became the Democratic Party). It was tough going. Sloan lays it all out very clearly, while not getting bogged down in unnecessary detail.
Given what happened with GWB et al, its almost like Marbury never happened. Should be required reading for all Executive Branch employees, and sure would be nice if someone up there in Washington would grow some cojones and reassert the Rule of Law, which is basically what Marbury established. Not holding my breath...
Tom
The "Great Decision" was the Supreme Court's decision in Marbury vs. Madison which single-handedly established the Court as a co-equal branch of the federal government and established a strong tradition of the court being non-partisan / beyond politics. Without the interesting and devotedly patriotic high intellect of John Marshall, who knows how America would have come out?
Sloan does an excellent job of tracking back a few years and setting the table for the actual decision. Wow, times were rough. The first transfer of the presidency from one party (Federalists) to another (Republicans, which became the Democratic Party). It was tough going. Sloan lays it all out very clearly, while not getting bogged down in unnecessary detail.
Given what happened with GWB et al, its almost like Marbury never happened. Should be required reading for all Executive Branch employees, and sure would be nice if someone up there in Washington would grow some cojones and reassert the Rule of Law, which is basically what Marbury established. Not holding my breath...
Tom
August 16, 2009
Like most Americans, I had never heard of Marbury v. Madison, and would have been baffled to see the Supreme Court's opinion in the National Archives next to treasures like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. But this book does an outstanding job of explaining what Marbury v. Madison is, why it mattered, and just how fragile American democracy was at the beginning of the 19th century.
What I didn't know is that the Supreme Court started as by far the weakest of the three branches, with no permanent meeting place and almost no authority to do anything. What's scary is that in 1800, the responsibility of the Supreme Court to strike down unconstitutional law was NOT recognized, and many Americans (President Thomas Jefferson most notable among them) believed that each branch should be the final arbiter of the constitutionality of its own actions.
That viewpoint seems insane today, and Marbury v. Madison is why. How it got to be why is a story that would make a fine David E. Kelley legal television episode, and Sloan and McKean tell their version well. A good read from both the legal and historical perspective.
What I didn't know is that the Supreme Court started as by far the weakest of the three branches, with no permanent meeting place and almost no authority to do anything. What's scary is that in 1800, the responsibility of the Supreme Court to strike down unconstitutional law was NOT recognized, and many Americans (President Thomas Jefferson most notable among them) believed that each branch should be the final arbiter of the constitutionality of its own actions.
That viewpoint seems insane today, and Marbury v. Madison is why. How it got to be why is a story that would make a fine David E. Kelley legal television episode, and Sloan and McKean tell their version well. A good read from both the legal and historical perspective.
August 1, 2013
A fine, engaging history of Marbury v Madison. What's often lost in First Year Con Law courses is the background behind John Adams' appointment of the "Midnight Judges," the hyper-partisan political realities between Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans and the Federalists, and the fact that the Congress had, in the Judiciary act of 1801, completely canceled the Court's 1802 term.
This book does a lovely job of giving the surrounding history that led up to Marbury's last minute appointment, the bureaucratic run-around he and his other plaintiffs received from the Jefferson administration, the passage of the Judiciary Act of 1789 (partially found unconstitutional in the decision) and Marshall's rise to the High Court. Though Marshall REALLY should have recused himself since he was the Secretary of State at the time and was actually the one responsible for preparing and delivering Marbury's commission (something I don't ever recall being mentioned in law school)
Far less a legal analysis of the case than a more easily accessible history text, Sloan does an admirable job providing some needed context to one of the most important foundational cases of American Constitutional Law.
This book does a lovely job of giving the surrounding history that led up to Marbury's last minute appointment, the bureaucratic run-around he and his other plaintiffs received from the Jefferson administration, the passage of the Judiciary Act of 1789 (partially found unconstitutional in the decision) and Marshall's rise to the High Court. Though Marshall REALLY should have recused himself since he was the Secretary of State at the time and was actually the one responsible for preparing and delivering Marbury's commission (something I don't ever recall being mentioned in law school)
Far less a legal analysis of the case than a more easily accessible history text, Sloan does an admirable job providing some needed context to one of the most important foundational cases of American Constitutional Law.
September 18, 2013
The Great Decision is about the case of Marbury v. Madison which is usually viewed as the foundation of the Supreme Court's ability to declare a law unconstitutional. It is interesting that the reason Marbury brought the case was because Chief Justice John Marshall did not do his job properly as the Whigs (Federalists) stacked the court system during the several month lame duck session after Jefferson and the 19th Century 'Republicans' were elected. The decision itself essentially said the court did not have original jurisdiction in the case after Marshall excoriated his cousin Thomas Jefferson and Madison. Mention was made of Marshall's failure to deliver the commission to Marbury. One must also note the Jefferson administration did not consider the court as having jurisdiction over the executive and congress. In essence, John Marshall was an activist judge. Nowhere in the Constitution is the Supreme Court given the 'right' to declare a law unconstitutional nor does it explicitly make the Judicial Branch co-equal to the other branches.
July 27, 2011
Its easy to feel that today's extreme partisanship is new, but the story of Marbury vs Madison dispels that. This book is the story of John Adams making scores of midnight appointments, negative campaigning that led up to a contested Presidential race, and ultimately the creation of the Supreme Court.
Aside from it being important history and a good story, this book was fun to read because you get to see the founding fathers still arguing about how the Constitution should be implemented 20 some years after the Constitutional convention. Plus, they lose their patience with one another, which is fun.
Aside from it being important history and a good story, this book was fun to read because you get to see the founding fathers still arguing about how the Constitution should be implemented 20 some years after the Constitutional convention. Plus, they lose their patience with one another, which is fun.
January 25, 2014
Very well written and structured. Nice details regarding all the players in the early days of Government. Adams lame duck appointments of Federalists in judiciary positions really PO'd Jefferson. Interesting observations on Adams, Marshall, Madison, Hamilton, Jefferson and many other important men of the times. The incestuousness of our Government at that time was also enlightening. Crux of the book was the Marshall opinion on Marbury v Madison (and Jefferson,) which turns out to be one of the most important opinions the Supreme Court has ever made. Neat looks at early Washington DC, Capitol Hill, White House and more.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 66 reviews