The Supermajority: How the Supreme Court Divided America

by Michael Waldman

A “terrific, if chilling, account” (The Guardian) of how the Supreme Court’s new conservative supermajority is overturning decades of law and leading the country in a dangerous political direction.

In The Supermajority, Michael Waldman explores the tumultuous 2021­­–2022 Supreme Court term. He draws deeply on history to examine other times the Court veered from the popular will, provoking controversy, and backlash. And he analyzes the most important new rulings and their implications for the law and for American society. Waldman What can we do when the Supreme Court challenges the country?

Over three days in June 2022, the conservative supermajority overturned the constitutional right to abortion, possibly opening the door to reconsider other major privacy rights, as Justice Clarence Thomas urged. The Court sharply limited the authority of the EPA, reducing the prospects for combatting climate change. It radically loosened curbs on guns amid an epidemic of mass shootings. It fully embraced legal theories such as “originalism” that will affect thousands of cases throughout the country.

These major decisions—and the next wave to come—will have enormous ramifications for every American.

It was the most turbulent term in memory—with the leak of the opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, the first Black woman justice sworn in, and the justices turning on each other in public, Waldman previews the 2022­–2023 term and how the brewing fights over the Supreme Court and its role that already have begun to reshape politics.

The Supermajority is “a call to action as much as it is a history of the Supreme Court “ (Financial Times) at a time when the Court’s dysfunction—and the demand for reform—are at the center of public debate.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, History, Law, Government, Audiobook, American History

408 pages, Kindle Edition

First published June 6, 2023

Reviews

[Matt · Rating 5 out of 5]

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 #43 in my 2024 US Election Preparation Challenge.

Many have become disheartened by the US Supreme Court over the last while. Its significant leaning to the right as a means of dismantling fundamental law while forgetting precedent and current sentiment of the population has become the new norm for the Court with its conservative supermajority. While the Court is not beholden to the people (or anyone, after a lifetime appointment), Michael Waldman argues that the current supermajority panders to an ideological view that has been decades in the making and seeks to enact retribution to appease views that ignore the core values of the Court’s long history. A sensational assessment of the Court’s past and how it came to this point, as well as a look into where things might be headed.

While many terms in the US Supreme Court can be quite dull or passive, there are times that things get heated, due to the cases that make their way before the Justices. This is further intensified when the Court is composed of nine Justices whose legal and personal views flavour the cases that appear before them. Michale Waldman has penned this book to explore the highly contentious 2021-22 term, in which the Court’s conservative supermajority began working through its cases and applied highly ideological interpretations, leaving the country reversing course on many issues and presenting the public with odd reinterpretations on topics long thought solved. The rule of stare decisis, a legal term regarding following Court precedent, was tossed out the window in favour of original thinking on laws that the Founding Fathers might have meant when they penned the US Constitution, called originalism. At issue was also the push away from long-held views and a move towards a conservative and strict interpretation of the law, called textualism. This view was made more mainstream after President Trump’s three appointments to the Court.

Waldman explores the history of the Court, as well as many of the Justices who sat during the term mentioned above. He explores the backstories of the Justices and their rise through the ranks, all shaping their views and sentiments about legal topics that impact the American public. While likely quite clear to the curious reader, this foundational development provides a strong idea where things were, are now, and likely will move in the years to come. The sentiment of following precedent is not a liberal view that Michael Waldman tries to hatch in this book or to twist legal sentiment for the reader to consider, but rather a long-held value that many courts have followed without hesitation bs dates back to English Common Law. However, Waldman argues that the new conservative supermajority used their unchecked powers to rewrite the history of the Court and legal foundation in order to shape things in their preferred perspective.

While there is also a strong sentiment about the running of the Court through its Chief Justice. Waldman argues that John Roberts saw his leadership challenged and replaced when the supermajority took hold of the Court. His views were diluted and centrist views erased when majority decisions were turned towards the conservative flavouring. Issues on gun violence, abortion, climate change, and state rights began begin dissected and dismantled through cases that were floated out to use this supermajority to rewrite laws. Waldman argues effectively that the Court’s use of precedent to interpret laws was replaced with a chance to pen new views on laws that forget or ignore previous rulings in order to soak conservative values into the laws of the land. The blazé challenge of ‘simply’ using Congress to change things the Courts might have interpreted in ways the population did not like leaves the general public frustrated. However, nothing illegal took place, simply walking through a loophole created by an unchecked body of the three branches of power.

With the permanency of the US Supreme Court, laws are not set to change anytime soon. The unlikely victory by Donald Trump in 2016 and using some power hungry members of the US Senate helped take advantage of vacancies on the Court to turn things towards the conservatives. It was then that the Court could rewrite the rules and push for things in their own advantage. While long-quiet Justice Clarence Thomas emerged to take hold of the conservative flavouring, his patience has surely paid off for him as his plays the shadow Chief role best. Waldman also handles this and does so with great analysis. This shift can only be called a significant change and there is no glimmer of hope that a reawakening might take place at the Court to quell the conservative reconstruction of American laws. The question remains, can things be chipped away with a more centrist president whose nominations can fill future vacancies? We will surely see!

While I do not always agree with the sentiment of a book, I try to see it for what it is. Other times, as in this case, I sense that the author nailed the topic on its head in the criticisms that it offers. Michael Waldman develops strong views that are supported by great sentiments, sure to interest the open-minded and curious reader. Legal analyses and the presence of ideological views when trying to decipher and dissect Supreme Court decisions can turn things into a bloodbath, should those who read and discuss them allow it to do so. I never have felt that my views are shielded, nor should they be, but I seek something that can offer support for views before lapping it up. Waldman offers up chapters that are full of grounded views, providing support in his analyses and critiques of the Court’s rulings. The curious reader is sure to take something away from this book, even if they do not believe it. Perhaps I love analyses of Court decisions because it picks at the scabs of the American foundation and forces people to have a view, rather than remaining mind-numbingly ignorant. That said, intelligent thinking is key. I accept alternative views, but shirk at those who try to toss epithets to argue their views. Waldman does not take this approach. Rather, he makes his point and supports it, while leaving the reader to wonder what could happen if future Court vacancies are left for outlandish presidents to fill them.

Kudos, Mr. Waldman, for pushing the envelope on issues of judicial decision-making.

Love/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/

[Gail · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is the second of two books I’ve read in rapid succession on the contemporary Supreme Court. The first (also reviewed) was a more technical exploration of one aspect of the Court’s decisions (The Shadow Docket). It was dense and more academic, but useful nonetheless and introduced me to some important legal language and concepts.

This book was a more general exploration of the Court and its rightward swing. It reviewed many of the cases mentioned in the first book but seemed to emphasize more how those decisions have impacted American life and will do so for perhaps decades to come. This book was accessible to the general reader who is informed and interested in the Court.

Perhaps one of the most valuable chapters was the conclusion in which the author discusses the need for court reform (at all levels) and what options have the potential to become reality … and which ones, even if they did become real, would be a mistake.

Recommend, especially for activists who are trying to decide where to put their time, money, and energy in societal reforms that can reverse the terrible hole that Trump and the Republican legal activists have dug for our country.

[Thomas Kiley · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Supermajority is a timely and vital analysis of the Supreme Court's 2022 term and the dangers created by the six member conservative majority. The book is accessible to lawyers and lay people alike and by the end makes a strong case for why the current court is a product of decades of political organizing meant to destroy democracy and promote business and conservative interests. The Supermajority of six justices is in control and they are just beginning to reshape the country to conform to their views.

The book begins with a broad history of the Supreme Court. Waldman draws many parallels between controversies of the past and modern debates, like the leak of the Dred Scott opinion, the controversy over FDR advocating for court packing to protect the New Deal, and the politicization of hearings on appointments. Then Waldman walks through the modern Supreme Court, giving background on the nine justices sitting on the Court and how they ended up there. This all works as helpful background to the focus of the book on the 2022 term and the wide-ranging cases that the Court heard.

Waldman does a great job criticizing the current Supreme Court and pointing out the sources of its most dangerous ideas and the problems its decisions will have on America in the coming years. The central cases Waldman analyzes are Bruen (preventing states from passing firearms regulation), Dobbs (overturning the constitutional right to an abortion and returning the issue to the states), and West Virginia v. EPA (in general limiting the authority of the regulatory state, and in particular the ability to combat climate change). But Waldman also discusses many of the other problematic decisions issued by the court that did not get a much coverage, like the Court's various cases on religious liberties.

The book ends looking towards the future, including the major cases of the 2022 term that are going to be released in the coming weeks, and suggestions for change that can help preserve democracy and the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. As a law school student, a lot of this book was very familiar to me from my classes (I took my constitutional law final the day the Dobbs decision leaked), but Waldman still engaged me with his perspective on the history of the Court and some reporting from the last few years that I had missed related to the Court. The Court continues to release poorly argued, ahistorical, and disastrous decisions, but Waldman does give some reasons for hope and methods to change in the end, so now it is on "We the People" to stand up for our rights and make sure the Court can become legitimate once again.

[Ryan Crackel · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was heavy with historical context at many points that I had to catch up on but it was very well researched and leaves you feeling a bit crestfallen at our current predicament with the Supreme Court. Would definitely recommend this to others who want to learn more about how our highest court operates and how it got to where we are now.

[Dasha · Rating 4 out of 5]

Expanded my knowledge past what I learnt in Hamilton

[Melanie Grant · Rating 5 out of 5]

This has so much history of how we got the court we have today. Some of it is still shocking to me. “Let’s shed any illusions: today’s justices are not conservative because they are originalists; they are originalists because it is conservative. They fly a flag of convenience.” !!!!!

[Hung Le · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Supreme Court, 9 unelected people serving for life, wields so much power. Some members of the Court are corrupted. Its decisions were not always right and have been more extreme recently. Unbelivable. This book provided a window into how the Court makes its decisions and how it affects every American life. It makes a strong argument for imposing term limits.

[Larisa Perryman · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thorough and depressing.

[Evelyn Petschek · Rating 5 out of 5]

Another fascinating must-read by the author! Well-written, well-researched analysis of the Supreme Court’s decisions at the end of the 2021-22 term. The author, a brilliant lawyer and legal historian, puts the three most controversial decisions of term into historical and social context. Great audio narration.

[Amanda · Rating 5 out of 5]

This should be a must read.

[John Daniell · Rating 5 out of 5]

I’ve wavered on rating this book either 4 and 5 stars. It is an incredibly informative read on the Supreme Court and the current moment we are in. It is also dense and is difficult to understand at points, but perhaps that is due to the challenge of writing about the law for non-lawyers. The early history as well as some of the legal reasoning in some of the court cases (Parts 1 and 3) need to be read, reread, and broken apart in order to understand. He does a particularly good job on explaining the Dobbs, Bruen, and West Virginia vs EPA cases and how this is an example of the conservative justices truly legislating from the bench and bending originalism to fit their own political needs. Waldman’s proposed solutions for reforming SCOTUS at the end of the book, though short, are more practical than most proposals floating out there nowadays.

[Cameron Kuhn · Rating 5 out of 5]

I went into this book anticipating just a drawn out news article on the current makeup of the Supreme Court, how we got here, and what it means for future democracy. And, should it have been that, that would've been just fine! But "Supermajority" was so much more than I anticipated in the best way possible. It covers a broads history of the Court, when it started implementing policy within its rulings, and the power of the dark money behind the current phenomenon of "originalism" and "textualism." It also does a fine job of telling the story from a neutral perspective. I didn't pick up on the author's political viewpoints until the last 1/10 of the book, I'd argue. I'd call it a brilliant analyzation and exciting from start to finish. Definitely would recommend!

[Michael · Rating 5 out of 5]

I recently read Joan Biskupic's "Nine Black Robes" and thought that it was the best book that I had ever read about the Supreme Court. This one is even better. Michael Waldman is a constitutional lawyer and president and CEO of the Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU School of Law and his legal background and analytical skill add a dimension to the story of the recent Supreme Court that was not present in Biskupic's excellent book.

It is no secret that the Supreme Court has turned sharply to the right since three Donald Trump-appointed justices gave the conservative wing of the court a supermajority but Waldman's incisive analyses of recent decisions involving voting rights, Second Amendment rights, reproductive rights, and executive agency management of environmental issues paint a convincing portrait of a court that has veered sharply away from its prior decisions in pursuit of what appears to many, including Waldman, to be an attempt to enact various elements of the Republican Party agenda in the guise of judicial decisions. Waldman skillfully takes apart the court's tortured reasoning in its recent cases, demonstrating the inconsistencies in the rulings and the absurdities of relying on old dictionaries and long forgotten histories in an attempt to turn the clock back to 1791 or 1868, depending on the issue. Unless, of course, that history, such as that pertaining to gun rights, conflicts with the goal. He also points out that the court is not above inventing new legal doctrines in order to reach the desired result.

The book is much more than a critique of recent decisions, however. Waldman places the recent history in historical perspective, showing how, more than fifty years ago, conservatives began a project to remake the judiciary as a tool to achieve its desired ends after what was perceived as the activism of the Warren court created rights in a series of decisions that upset conservatives. The backlash resulting from decisions based on the right to privacy or other implied rights not specifically set forth in the Constitution has been building for a long time and has reached new heights thanks to an appointment process that places a priority on ideological conformity, with judges appointed at younger ages so that they can serve for many years.

The author raises some interesting questions as to whether liberals, now smarting from the sting of one adverse ruling after another, erred in placing so much reliance on unelected, unaccountable judges to secure important rights, particularly since they were apparently sleeping while the Republicans spent a half century remaking the federal court system in its image. He suggests that the legislative process is a better path, requiring compromise and attention to public opinion, which unelected, appointed for life judges are free to ignore.

Some of the discussion parallels the Biskupic book, particularly with regard to the backgrounds of the current justices, which diverge sharply from what one would see years ago. Waldman points out that Supreme Court justices used to be highly respected lawyers at the pinnacle of their careers. Many had previous careers in politics, as Cabinet members, or governors or members of Congress. Many had extensive backgrounds in the practice of law. They had seen issues from many sides. They represented clients, dealt with judges themselves, or had to respond to the conflicting demands of constituents, political allies and foes, and the public at large. The justices recently appointed have mostly lived lives in one bubble or another. They go to elite law schools, almost always Harvard or Yale, they become judicial clerks, they spend a few years working in some political job and then get appointed, with almost no real legal experience, to a district court. They issue a few decisions to establish that their judicial views conform to those of the party that has been grooming them, and then they wind up on the Supreme Court. The result is an inability to see any view of an issue that diverges from their own, and an arrogance that causes them to sneer at the reasoning of prior decisions that they have no hesitation in overruling.

Waldman points out some interesting facts. No current Supreme Court justice attended a public university, but two of them attended the same Washington, D.C., area elite prep school. Three of the justices, a third of the court, worked for the Bush campaign in the 2000 dispute over Florida's electoral votes. They have gotten to where they are because of rigid adherence to the views of their own political party and we somehow expect them to be impartial and evenhanded when they win the big prize of a position on the Supreme Court. Why?

What came through most strongly to me was the authoritarianism of many of today's supermajority. They view rights as something that no one is entitled to. Rights are doled out to people by the government at its discretion. The government is mostly themselves. They can grant rights, and take them away whenever they want to. But there is another view that they don't see. That is that all of the rights belong to the people. Sometimes people will willingly give up some of their rights in order to form governments for the good of society. Perhaps a strict constructionist or textualist or originalist or whatever label a judge wants to give himself or herself should interpret the Constitution from that perspective.

A great book, an important book. It should be read, thought about, discussed and debated.

[Mai H.]

Non-fiction November TBR

📱 Thank you to NetGalley and Simon & Schuster

[Jesse Langel · Rating 5 out of 5]

A Deeply Researched Account of the Court's Sharp-Right Turn:

Constitutional law expert Michael Waldman traces the court's alarming lurch to the right in recent years. Waldman, the author of books on the Second Amendment and voting rights, draws on his deep knowledge to show how an emboldened conservative supermajority is disregarding precedent and the will of the people to enact its ideological agenda.

Waldman's analysis is supported by several recent landmark Supreme Court decisions that have dramatically reshaped the legal landscape:

1). In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022), the Court overturned nearly 50 years of precedent by eliminating the federal constitutional right to abortion, returning the issue to the states to regulate. This controversial ruling represents a significant shift in the Court's interpretation of substantive due process rights.

2). New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022) significantly expanded Second Amendment protections, establishing a new test for evaluating gun regulations based on the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment. It effectively struck down "may-issue" concealed carry permit laws in several states, raising concerns about public safety.

3) Brnovich v. DNC (2021) addressed challenges to Arizona voting regulations, with the Court ruling that these regulations do not violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Critics argue that the decision weakened the Voting Rights Act by making it more difficult to challenge potentially discriminatory voting regulations.

Exposing the Rise of Judicial Extremism:

Waldman reveals how justices like Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett are:

1) Embracing controversial legal theories like the "major questions doctrine" to curb federal agencies, as exemplified in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (2022);

2) Weaponizing the First Amendment to strike down campaign finance laws and favor religious interests, as in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022) and 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023);

3) Weakening the Voting Rights Act and enabling partisan gerrymandering, as seen in Brnovich v. DNC (2021) and the recent case Merrill v. Milligan (2023);

4) Radically expanding gun rights while potentially compromising public safety, as in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022).

The book exposes how the court's 6-3 conservative supermajority, engineered by figures like Mitch McConnell and the Federalist Society's Leonard Leo, is increasingly out of step with the values and priorities of a diverse American public.

The Perils of Strict Originalism:

Waldman skewers the conservative justices' reliance on "originalism," arguing that they selectively interpret historical evidence to justify preferred outcomes. In the Bruen case expanding gun rights, for instance, Justice Alito made questionable claims about the prevalence of gun ownership in colonial America. The author contends that this rigid historicism, also deployed in Dobbs v. Jackson to overturn abortion rights, fails to acknowledge that the Constitution must evolve to address modern realities.

Spotlighting Hypocrisy and Conflicts of Interest:

The book also highlights instances of the justices' perceived hypocrisy and potential ethical concerns. It discusses Clarence Thomas's acceptance of gifts and favors from right-wing interests, as well as his wife Ginni's controversial involvement in efforts to overturn the 2020 election. It critiques Samuel Alito's apparent disdain for privacy rights in cases like Dobbs. The book also notes Neil Gorsuch's familial connection to past EPA controversies and suggests it may influence his hostility towards the agency, as seen in West Virginia v. EPA.

A Roadmap for Fighting Back:

Even as he raises the alarm about the Court's troubling direction, Waldman sees reasons for hope. He notes that the Dobbs decision galvanized voters in the 2022 midterms, with several states acting to protect abortion rights. The book offers a roadmap for progressives to fight back by expanding the court, implementing term limits, and mobilizing voters. As Waldman argues, citizens must reclaim the Constitution from those who would wield it as a weapon against democratic values.

An Important Work for Our Times:

Powerfully argued, and engagingly written, "The Supermajority" is helpful for anyone seeking to understand the Supreme Court's hard-right turn and its implications for the country. With abortion rights (Dobbs), LGBTQ+ equality (303 Creative), voting access (Brnovich and Merrill), environmental regulations (West Virginia v. EPA), and other critical issues hanging in the balance, Waldman's expert analysis and urgent call to action could not be more timely.

[Gulshan B. · Rating 5 out of 5]

A blistering and unforgiving repudiation of the judicial authority of the highest Court of the land, this book goes to great lengths to make a compelling case for civil and public action to reclaim what’s rightfully ours, The People’s.

Tracing the long arc of the establishment of the SCOTUS, beginning with the philosophy and principles of the Founding Fathers, through multiple tumultuous periods of the High Court finding its footing, all the way to a screaming three-day tear-down of modern civil society principles, Mr Waldman provides copious evidence of the origins and sources of today’s Court composition, and its rather presumptuous idea of Judicial Supremacy. While the overall writing leans hard left and quite unabashedly liberal, the author doesn’t waiver in pointing out shortcomings on both sides of the political divide. While obviously, according to him, a clear and overwhelming portion of the blame lies on the conservative establishment, he does mention (if fleetingly!) the times when the liberals had their way, in flagrant disregard of the principles of fairness and democratic values.

The relentless tirade makes spectacular attacks on the Justices, and how they’ve managed to repeatedly and blatantly subvert and undermine the constitutional rights of Americans. Taking his words at face value, it is clear that this Court and more specifically its six conservative Justices have begun to display their authority in a very public and political way, while cherry picking the basis for their various arguments, sometimes taking a diametrically opposite approach from one day to the next. To make his point, Mr Waldman spends a considerable amount of time on providing historical judicial precedent and context from some landmark cases, showing that while differences between the Legislatures and the Judiciary are nothing new or uncommon, they used to be handled differently - read civilly - and the arguments on either side were at least not overtly divisive. Precedent, or state decisis, as the Court calls it, is an important and crucial basis for legal debate and decisions, as demonstrated repeatedly over decades and in fact centuries of legal history. How our current Court has chosen to throw all that aside, not just once or twice but repeatedly, across a wide variety of issues, beggars belief.

When defending the right of gun owners, they cite freedoms enumerated in the Second amendment - whose mere existence as an amendment shows that the Founders could and did change their mind. However, when attacking the rights of a pregnant person, they refuse to allow the same standards, instead hiding behind laws from 1235 A.D. (not a typo, really - statements from nearly a thousand years ago were cited by the majority when labeling abortion as illegal, and being against the founding principles of this Nation). It’s as if societal progress stopped nearly 160 years ago, when the Fourteenth Amendment was written.

At another place, there’s a quip of how if Great Britain would think of implementing a gun control law, or really any law, they wouldn’t first ask “Hmm, now what would King George III have to say about this”!

In the end, he does offer some suggestions and solutions to what can help - largely more public participation, some Federal Government authorities, but above all, legislative reforms. Term limits seem to be an appealing and effective approach, and there’s a very simple model proposed for how this can be taken on, and while no plan is without its pitfalls, it certainly has the potential to at least address some of the more egregious shortcomings of the present Court system.

All in all, an urgent and fairly comprehensive book.

Thanks to Simon & Schuster and Natgalley for providing a eARC in exchange for this honest and original review.

[J.K. George · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a fact-filled book, nearly too much so, but worth the effort. The reading can be a grind. The "real title" could be "A Divided Supreme Court," and the current membership reflects the political skills and bare-knuckled leadership of Mitch McConnel coupled with the razor-thin election of Donald Trump and the resulting pivotal point of membership turnover on the Court. McConnel blocked one nomination of Barak Obama near the end of his presidency, and then he and Trump had the opportunity for three nominations in four years, a seminal impact.

The book lists key Supreme Court decisions over the last one hundred years but focuses on the current justices and issues. The author, Michael Waldman, is no fan of the current Court majority and laments both blockage of Obama's final nominee as well as the land-rush of Trump nominees. He profiles the current "Supremes" one by one and is especially harsh on Alito. His comments on Amy Coney Barrett are marked by her rather deep religious influences, where she was "raised in an intense faith continuously" in an immersive-closely knit Catholic family. The author paints a particularly "wary" picture of influential Clarence Thomas who was raised in a remote and unusual part of the South, in a family with a "Gullah" upbringing, who spoke a dialect that is a hangover from prior times called "Geechee," a former slave dialect, as well as English. Thomas' wife, Virginia, is a prominent and outspoken conservative and apparently has a significant influence on the justice.

The demographic changes in the USA are noted, where all the population growth now takes place in the South and Southwest, and some 90% of that growth is from "Latino, Asian, and other communities of color." Republican efforts to "assure voter integrity" have placed impediments to voting in several areas according to the book.

Clearly the author considers Donald Trump a threat to Democracy. The former President's long litany of recent and continuous efforts to contest the election of Joe Biden has underscored the serious and continuous movements to both replace Biden's election with Trump, as well as underscore the continuing loyalty of Trump voters. With the polls showing a roughly 44-44 percent tie in preference between the two men, the next election is more or less a toss-up. Based on the background in this book, along with the long litany of legal charges against Trump, the US appears to be entering a period of perilous political uncertainties.

[Ronald Gruner · Rating 5 out of 5]

Michael Waldman's book is a very readable overview of the impact the Supreme Court has and continues to have on Americans. Waldman opens the book with landmark cases which have affected American including Marbury vs Madison (1803) which established the Court's right to strike down laws it considers unconstitutional, Dred Scott (1857) which helped precipitate the Civil War, and Lochner (1905) which ruled unconstitutional state and local statutes which protected workers. Waldman discusses these landmark cases clearly and concisely.

The core of the book though discusses the Supreme Court's three landmark decisions in 2022: 1) Bruen which overturned a New York City statute prohibited the carrying of concealed weapons, and confirming the right of citizens to carry arms in public, 2) Dobbs which ruled the U.S. Constitution does not confer the right to abortion pushing the decision down to the states, and 3) West Virginia which ruled the EPA does not have the authority to require utilities to switch energy sources to limit emissions.

But the sections I found most interesting were the author's discussion throughout the book of why the Court has lost the respect and trust of so many Americans. According to a recent Gallup poll, trust in the Supreme Court is at a fifty year low. There are many reasons for this from unpopular court decisions, to flippant remarks by the Justices, to personal scandals. Waldman explains how the Court has lost trust through many specific examples such as Justice Alito's comment after Dobbs that "Roe was egregiously wrong from the start" undermining fifty years of decisions by the Court supporting Roe vs Wade -- and trust in the Court.

Highly recommended as a thoughtful and well-written book on the Supreme Court's history, fallibilities, and impact on every American.

[Stephen Harrison · Rating 4 out of 5]

The gist of the book is that the new "supermajority" on the Supreme Court has abused its powers for partisan advantage, undermining the legitimacy of the court and our entire system of representative government. The list of charges are long. The big ones are disregard for precedent, abuse of power and incoherent legal/procedural practices. It takes on "originalism" as fundamentally flawed and absurdly implemented, which is a problem since six of the nine justices purport to follow it. It also takes on most of the conservative justices, showing them more as partisan hacks than legal thinkers and impartial judges. It is much more favorable in its opinions of the liberal justices, who apparently stick to traditional practices and beliefs more.

The book looks at several decisions as deeply flawed. First and foremost is the Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe. Waldman argues that it had nothing to do with judicial theory or the law, but was about the justices personal feelings. They wanted a result and found the rationale to get there. The same is true for the Bruen case, which expanded gun rights. The mental gymnastics required to make them seem "originalist" were impressive, but the overall reasoning was not. The decisions author, Clarence Thomas, had to cherry pick a lot of history to make this seem legitimate. He failed, but the decision is still the law of the land.

This book is persuasive but with a major weakness. It is, without question, written from the liberal perspective taking direct shots at the conservative supermajority. That bias permeates the book. He makes a few efforts to mitigate that, but by and large the reader has to take everything with a grain of salt. I recommend it for anyone interested in the Supreme Court's recent rightward turn, but with the warning that you'll want to verify some of his claims.

[Gretchen Hohmeyer · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is my third book in recent months that I've read about the Supreme Court, and it might be the best one yet. The first one, Nine Black Robes: Inside the Supreme Court's Drive to the Right and Its Historic Consequences, does a lot of similar stuff but it was written by a journalist. That's not a bad thing, but it reads like a narrativization of news articles you've likely already read. I also read The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic, which I think is still important reading to understand exactly what the Shadow Docket is since even Waldman doesn't get into it as deeply. This one, however, benefits from Waldman's years as a legal scholar and has a deeper edge of analysis than Nine Black Robes. As someone actively working on court reform, he also has a much stronger conclusion about where we go from here. Are parts of this a bit more dense than Nine Black Robes? Yes. However, I think that--overall--if you asked me to recommend just one to you, I would go with this book.

[Catherine Woodman · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is basically a book that looks briefly at bad decisions the court has rendered at the end of its term one year ago, but it includes a brisk history of the court’s last 200 years, from the disastrous lows of Dred Scott v Sandford (1857) and Plessy v Ferguson (1896) to the highs of Brown v Board of Education (1954) and Obergefell v Hodges (2015). The unmooring of the court from stare decisis is at core the concern and a blueprint for why this unravels the authority of the court, and the justices that play those roles. What the book does do is to pose possible reasons for each justice's position from their own life experiences, which is bad enough, but what it does not do is to pose questions about the outside influences essentially buying decisions from various justices--much of the information about Alito, Thomas, and Roberts getting big payouts from right wing donors who have had decisions go their way is a further erosion of public faith in the work that the court does. It also side steps the question of who leaked the Dobbs decision to the press, when it seems the preponderance of evidence is that it was Alito himself, attempting (successfully) to box other justices in, and creating the firestorm of support for abortion nationally, even in conservative bastions--at least so far. This book would be best if you were not already following the court closely and wondering exactly how bad this really is.

[Alex]

Generally good. My two issues are as follows:

1. The author completely disregards adding justices because he claims it will result in a continued back and forth depending on who is in power, ignoring the fact that the number of justices has been changed multiple times throughout US history, with retributive changes never occurring. Furthermore, nine corresponds to the number of federal judicial circuits from when judges used to ride circuit, there are now 12 federal circuits. More justices would also decrease polarization.

2. I wish more attention would have been given to the fact that the majority of the current court was appointed by Presidents that the majority of American voters voted against, with conservative justices being determined, not by respective Presidents or congresspersons, but instead are appointed by wealthy right wing think tanks and the Koch brothers, who then pay to have cases argued before the court. Unfettered capitalism leading to kleptocracy and oligarchy is a very common pattern in America, and particularly problematic when it comes to appointing the members to the highest court.

[Pamela Okano · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you're a Democrat or a Never Trumper, reading this book will make your blood boil. Michael Waldman, CEO and President of the Brennan Center for Justice exposes today's SCOTUS for exactly what it is: a group of right-wing justices with an agenda and they don't care how they execute that agenda. They subscribe to originalism, which makes no sense when a reading of history makes it obvious that not only the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution disagreed on what it meant, but our society has changed a lot since 1789 (when many of them had slaves and hardly anyone thought women had rights) and the 1868 (when the 14th Amendment was ratified). They fudge facts (the Bremerton School Prayer case), they're selective about history (Dobbs), they refuse to get involved in gerrymandering, a clear violation of the Constitution, simply because they consider it to be "political." How we will ever recover from this SCOTUS is beyond me. It probably won't happen in my lifetime.

[Cassie C · Rating 5 out of 5]

Waldman truly pulls no punches in his criticism of the Supreme Court, and his blunt summary of the history of the court from its inception to the landmark cases in 2022 demonstrate how problematic things have become. This book solidified for me many of the feelings I had had recently with respect to, not only the Supreme Court, but many of the democratic institutions of this country. These feelings are that democracy is fragile and must be defended from those that will do everything they can to undermine it. Additionally, this book brought even more light to some of the naivety that I had had with respect to a blind faith in these institutions, and that justice would be upheld in the end. After reading this book and knowing the results of our most recent election, I fear for this country and for the future of our democracy, especially when the Court that is supposedly supposed to be above politics and partisanship has so clearly become a farce.

[Ell, Ess Jaeva · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Three little pigs" and likewise "The emperors new clothes" are fables illustrative of the "1984" world we have always lived in. This book is a peek behind another curtain, the US judicial system. Therein, conservatives have been playing chess against the progressives' (liberals) checkers. Legislative districts (electoral power; state and federal), corporate money and courts stacked to the end of total control. Goal seems, to maintain and advance a WASP society in contrast to the multi-cultural confederacies sprouting across the US. The conservatives being better organized and with few focused platforms, easily outmatch the heterogeneous infighting liberals.

The courts are biased. Justice is NOT blind. If conservatives weren't mastering it, liberals likely would. Humans care to win, not be fair, just appear fair. We all are forced to drink the Kool-aid of spin and propaganda, our system is better than any alternative.

[Roger Smitter · Rating 5 out of 5]

MiMichael Waldman gives a history that probably your teacher (high school and college) didn’t tell about the third unit of our that makes the decisions that can be done and cannot be done.

Early in the book, we get the “Nine Old Men” theme. It’s a part of history that we don’t study. It’s a good piece of catch up if we want to understand what happened with the third part of our government in the 1800’s and 1900’s. Yes, it’s a touch but it’s good reading in history (really).

Several parts of the book take us back to some of the people you heard about in your history courses.

The last chapter is “We the People.” It’s clear what we need to know history – especially when we understand the words “We are the people.”

[Hank Ng · Rating 4 out of 5]

Has a non-lawyer, some of these terms were beyond me.

Author does a decent job of tracking significant Supreme Court history and precedent. But to be honest, mainly focuses on the conservative super majority ‘Thomas court’

This goes through the major cases which have changed the lives of Americans everywhere most notably Dobbs (abortion) the overturning the Chevron deference in the West Virginia case. The destruction of precedent and stare decisis - the rise of originalism -(restricting gun control laws to what would have been allowed in constitution or precedent At that time)

Most importantly, the critique of how politicize the Supreme Court has become, and how nine unelected officials hold so much sway over our democracy, this is a wonderful/terrifying read

[Haleh · Rating 4 out of 5]

The first half of the book is an excellent history of the Supreme Court. It gives the context for the last half of the book about the Supreme Court's 2022 term where a  supermajority of the court "crammed decades of social change" into just a few days. 

Although Waldman attributes the Court's conservative takeover, in part, to a Court that he says moved to the left too quickly, he gives concrete examples of how the conservative majority's current "power grab" is threatening democracy and its institutional legitimacy. He concludes by parsing through possible Supreme Court reforms (such as term limits for justices) that could be implemented to restore the court's legitimacy.

[Mel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wonder how did this Supreme Court became what it is? This book offers a thoughtful answer. We are divided and this court has done nothing to bring us together. In fact events since this publication have arguably made things worse. The book reviews how we got 6 judges we now how and how decisions from the past drove those choices. You conclude with three fundamental decisions in June 2022 that will reshape our lives concerning guns, abortion, and the environment. It is readable and explains complicated law in understandable terms. It is time we all become better informed and this might be a good place to start.

[Daniel Mala · Rating 5 out of 5]

Sort of a disheartening read. This book tells how the Supreme Court went from the widely respected arbiters of fairness to a majority of political idealogs. It also discusses the courts power grab. It’s unfortunate but there is hope that the jurists will start serving 18 year terms in the future with a new jurist selected every congressional session. The saddest part is that the court has lost all credibility and way more than arbitrary punishment itself credibility that keeps civil society law abiding. Recommended reading for anyone that wants to be informed about governmental failure is okay with feeling frustrated by taking a close look at the state of affairs.