What do you think?
Rate this book
A Court Divided: The Rehnquist Court and the Future of Constitutional Law
"An incisive consideration of the Supremes, offering erudite yet accessible clues to legal thinking on the most important level."-- Kirkus Reviews In this authoritative reckoning with the eighteen-year record of the Rehnquist Court, Georgetown law professor Mark Tushnet reveals how the decisions of nine deeply divided justices have left the future of the Court; and the nation; hanging in the balance. Many have assumed that the chasm on the Court has been between its liberals and its conservatives. In reality, the division was between those in tune with the modern post-Reagan Republican Party and those who, though considered to be in the Court's center, represent an older Republican tradition. As a result, the Court has modestly promoted the agenda of today's economic conservatives, but has regularly defeated the agenda of social issues conservatives; while paving the way for more radically conservative path in the future.
416 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2004
1 person is currently reading
106 people want to read
About the author
Mark V. Tushnet
95 books14 followersA specialist in constitutional law and theory, including comparative constitutional law, Mark Victor Tushnet is William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law, Emeritus at Harvard Lew School. Tushnet graduated from Harvard College and Yale Law School and served as a law clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall. His research includes studies of constitutional review in the United States and around the world, and the creation of other "institutions for protecting constitutional democracy." He also writes in the area of legal and particularly constitutional history, with works on the development of civil rights law in the United States and a history of the Supreme Court in the 1930s.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
February 18, 2018
"The story of the Rehnquist Court is the story of a court divided not simply between liberals and conservatives but, more important, between two types of Republican."
The role of the US Supreme Court in shaping the country and the recent evolution of the court are my favorite topics: I believe that no other institution, not the President, not the Senate, and not the House has a more significant impact on the life of US citizens. Mark Tushnet's A Court Divided (2005) is the eighth book dealing with the Rehnquist era of the US Supreme Court that I have read in recent years. (The links to my reviews of these works can be found in this review .)
The main theme, as shown in the epigraph, and the main dramatic axis of the book is the struggle between "traditional Republicans" on the court, like Justices O'Connor or Souter, and the "modern Republicans", shaped by Ronald Reagan and primarily by Barry Goldwater, represented on the court by Justices Scalia and Thomas. The modern conservatives had hoped for a judicial revolution that would overturn the liberal legacy of the Warren Court: it did not happen. The "centrist" traditional Republicans almost always managed to tip the balance of power away from the "revolutionary" modern Republicans by siding with the more or less liberal wing of the court.
I am an ignoramus in legal issues, particularly in the areas of constitutional or business and property related law, so a lot of the author's good work has been wasted on me. I am mostly interested in the social issues and I have found a lot of material in Mr. Tushnet's work that I have not seen before. Also, some material seems to be presented with more clarity here. The in-depth discussions of the First Amendment cases, affirmative action, gender equality, and gay and minority rights are presented exhaustively and convincingly, even for a legal dilettante such as this reviewer.
Most of the book is as compulsively readable as good fiction. The profiles of individual justices that include biographical sketches and studies of their judicial philosophy are particularly interesting. I have learned something new about justices Rehnquist, O'Connor, Souter, Scalia, Thomas, Ginzburg, and Kennedy. Even the less exhaustive portraits of justices Stevens and Breyer are illuminating.
Several themes caught my attention. I find it hard to agree with the author's convoluted interpretation of the Anita Hill's case during Thomas' confirmation hearing. The author seems to be backing away from what he had written in an earlier book on that subject, where he concluded that judge Thomas had lied. The whole issue has suddenly gained a lot of currency these days with the recent wave of sexual harassment accusations. On the other hand, it is also interesting how merciless Mr. Tushnet is in debunking Justice Scalia's image as an intellectual giant on the Supreme Court. The reader will find a lot more good stuff. A highly recommended read.
Four stars.
The role of the US Supreme Court in shaping the country and the recent evolution of the court are my favorite topics: I believe that no other institution, not the President, not the Senate, and not the House has a more significant impact on the life of US citizens. Mark Tushnet's A Court Divided (2005) is the eighth book dealing with the Rehnquist era of the US Supreme Court that I have read in recent years. (The links to my reviews of these works can be found in this review .)
The main theme, as shown in the epigraph, and the main dramatic axis of the book is the struggle between "traditional Republicans" on the court, like Justices O'Connor or Souter, and the "modern Republicans", shaped by Ronald Reagan and primarily by Barry Goldwater, represented on the court by Justices Scalia and Thomas. The modern conservatives had hoped for a judicial revolution that would overturn the liberal legacy of the Warren Court: it did not happen. The "centrist" traditional Republicans almost always managed to tip the balance of power away from the "revolutionary" modern Republicans by siding with the more or less liberal wing of the court.
I am an ignoramus in legal issues, particularly in the areas of constitutional or business and property related law, so a lot of the author's good work has been wasted on me. I am mostly interested in the social issues and I have found a lot of material in Mr. Tushnet's work that I have not seen before. Also, some material seems to be presented with more clarity here. The in-depth discussions of the First Amendment cases, affirmative action, gender equality, and gay and minority rights are presented exhaustively and convincingly, even for a legal dilettante such as this reviewer.
Most of the book is as compulsively readable as good fiction. The profiles of individual justices that include biographical sketches and studies of their judicial philosophy are particularly interesting. I have learned something new about justices Rehnquist, O'Connor, Souter, Scalia, Thomas, Ginzburg, and Kennedy. Even the less exhaustive portraits of justices Stevens and Breyer are illuminating.
Several themes caught my attention. I find it hard to agree with the author's convoluted interpretation of the Anita Hill's case during Thomas' confirmation hearing. The author seems to be backing away from what he had written in an earlier book on that subject, where he concluded that judge Thomas had lied. The whole issue has suddenly gained a lot of currency these days with the recent wave of sexual harassment accusations. On the other hand, it is also interesting how merciless Mr. Tushnet is in debunking Justice Scalia's image as an intellectual giant on the Supreme Court. The reader will find a lot more good stuff. A highly recommended read.
Four stars.
October 7, 2012
Really 3.5
A trip through the 90s and early 00s in the Supreme Court. He seems mostly objective. (He's very generous to the Thomas/Hill affair, suggesting that he just didn't know how to talk to girls and had been out of the dating scene because he had been married earlier. But the author also admits that when it was going on, he thought Thomas must be a liar.)
There's biographies of all the justices, and I did learn plenty I didn't know. Maybe more political than I really had the stomach for at the time. It really does appear that Scalia is just an asshole. (Funny bit about his dissent to the sodomy case, where he arites "What's next, gay marriage?" as if that was the most ridiculous thing in the world.)
He ends with a conclusion discussing the fact that there is a right-leaning justice theory, but not really a left-leaning one.
A trip through the 90s and early 00s in the Supreme Court. He seems mostly objective. (He's very generous to the Thomas/Hill affair, suggesting that he just didn't know how to talk to girls and had been out of the dating scene because he had been married earlier. But the author also admits that when it was going on, he thought Thomas must be a liar.)
There's biographies of all the justices, and I did learn plenty I didn't know. Maybe more political than I really had the stomach for at the time. It really does appear that Scalia is just an asshole. (Funny bit about his dissent to the sodomy case, where he arites "What's next, gay marriage?" as if that was the most ridiculous thing in the world.)
He ends with a conclusion discussing the fact that there is a right-leaning justice theory, but not really a left-leaning one.
July 27, 2008
This book is good for folks interested in the personalities of the Court right before Justice Roberts took over as Chief. It's definitely readable for folks not totally up on con law. But it has fair profiles of all the big names - O'Connor, Thomas, etc.
As with most Supreme Court writers, the author is too infatuated with his subjects to really be considered as an objective voice, but close enough to the action to offer readers rare insights into the goings on behind the scenes. Working through it now.
As with most Supreme Court writers, the author is too infatuated with his subjects to really be considered as an objective voice, but close enough to the action to offer readers rare insights into the goings on behind the scenes. Working through it now.
November 4, 2010
Mark Tushnet truly capture fascinating insights into the workings of the Rhenquist Court. The briefs on cases, and the reasonings behind the legal arguments are informative and captivating. There's hardly a dull moment with power struggles between factions on the court and with such strong personalities as there were in the Rhenquist Era. This is definitely an excellent read for anyone interested in the judiciary or some of the more 'hot button' issues decided by the court in those days.
Read
January 3, 2009I know it seems like it'd be boring, but this book really gives a first hand looking into one of the lives of one of our nations most influential human beings! My favorite line from the book is, "the most common road to the court is the path of randomness and serendipity."
July 27, 2013
This book seems more suited for law students or those considering a law career. Much of it seemed well over my head. I have read other books on the Supreme Court that were more in tune with laymen like me.
February 26, 2008
Great book. Good summaries of important cases decided by supreme ct over the years and how it came to be under Rehnquist era.
February 5, 2010
Unfortunately shallow.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews