Rating: 
Summary: Behind-the-scenes look at the Burger Court
Review: Although "The Brethren" was written a quarter of a century ago and it covers the Supreme Court sessions from 1969 to 1975, there are two reasons to hunt down a used copy of this book and read it today. The first is its examination of the important Court decisions of Warren Burger's early years, all of which still reverberate with their controversy and implications. The second is to learn how, in spite of its famously left-of-center decisions, the Court began taking a sharp turn to the ideological right, spurred by the appointment of Burger and by the ascent of the young William Rehnquist."The Brethren" gave the Burger Court a reputation from which it never quite recovered. Although the Supreme Court has historically had its share of in-fighting, incompetence, and inanity, its internal meltdowns in the 1970s were occasionally beyond the pale. Woodward and Armstrong portray Burger as a well-meaning but ultimately misguided man obsessed by the legacy of Earl Warren, concerned far more with image than with principle, unskilled in management techniques that would have helped bring the Court to a consensus, and unashamed of his repeated attempts to assign the Court's decisions in a fashion insured to thwart the will of the majority. Even today, most historians, regardless of ideological bent, view the Burger years as a mediocre and often inconsistent transition between the liberal Warren Court and the conservative Rehnquist Court. It's not a perfect book, by any means. Woodward and Armstrong are at their page-turning best when they examine in detail some of the more famous decisions and controversies faced by the Court (busing, obscenity, abortion, the death penalty, and--especially--Watergate). And the account is surprisingly balanced: anyone expecting a "liberal" flogging of an increasingly conservative court will be surprised, on the one hand, by the authors' depictions of the increasingly unfit and ornery Douglas and the unsophisticated yet affable Marshall and, on the other hand, by their open admiration of Rehnquist, who comes across as (by far) the most likeable and amiable of the justices. Nevertheless, their account is a bit too heavy on office gossip. True--this journalistic style brings the fourteen justices who served during these years to life, but what's lacking is the necessary detailed legal background that would make sense of the Court's day-to-day work rather than its scandalous backbiting and personality conflicts. Overall, though, it's an admirable piece of journalism that makes the Court seem as human as it really is.
Rating: 
Summary: Ought to Be Reissued Forthwith
Review: Although "The Brethren" was written a quarter of a century ago and it covers the Supreme Court sessions from 1969 to 1975, there are two reasons to hunt down a used copy of this book and read it today. The first is its examination of the important Court decisions of Warren Burger's early years, all of which still reverberate with their controversy and implications. The second is to learn how, in spite of its famously left-of-center decisions, the Court began taking a sharp turn to the ideological right, spurred by the appointment of Burger and by the ascent of the young William Rehnquist. "The Brethren" gave the Burger Court a reputation from which it never quite recovered. Although the Supreme Court has historically had its share of in-fighting, incompetence, and inanity, its internal meltdowns in the 1970s were occasionally beyond the pale. Woodward and Armstrong portray Burger as a well-meaning but ultimately misguided man obsessed by the legacy of Earl Warren, concerned far more with image than with principle, unskilled in management techniques that would have helped bring the Court to a consensus, and unashamed of his repeated attempts to assign the Court's decisions in a fashion insured to thwart the will of the majority. Even today, most historians, regardless of ideological bent, view the Burger years as a mediocre and often inconsistent transition between the liberal Warren Court and the conservative Rehnquist Court. It's not a perfect book, by any means. Woodward and Armstrong are at their page-turning best when they examine in detail some of the more famous decisions and controversies faced by the Court (busing, obscenity, abortion, the death penalty, and--especially--Watergate). And the account is surprisingly balanced: anyone expecting a "liberal" flogging of an increasingly conservative court will be surprised, on the one hand, by the authors' depictions of the increasingly unfit and ornery Douglas and the unsophisticated yet affable Marshall and, on the other hand, by their open admiration of Rehnquist, who comes across as (by far) the most likeable and amiable of the justices. Nevertheless, their account is a bit too heavy on office gossip. True--this journalistic style brings the fourteen justices who served during these years to life, but what's lacking is the necessary detailed legal background that would make sense of the Court's day-to-day work rather than its scandalous backbiting and personality conflicts. Overall, though, it's an admirable piece of journalism that makes the Court seem as human as it really is.
Rating:
Summary: An Inside Look at the Supreme Court
Review: Despite being a bit dated, The Brethren, by Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong, remains one of the most illuminating looks at the inner workings of the Supermen Court. And certainly it will remain a very interesting historical look at the court it examines. The Brethren attempts to present the reader with what "really" goes on in the Supreme Court. It describes the conferences, the personality of justices, and how justice's feel toward each other, items which are generally hidden from the public. Covering the terms from 1969-1975, Woodward and Armstrong gives us a look at the fourteen justices and how they dealt with the major issues facing the court. The book describes how Burger changed his conference votes so he could assign the majority opinion of the court, angering William Douglas and William Brennen. He also describes how Thurgood Marshall greeted Burger "Hey chiefy baby", getting a kick out of making him feel uncomfortable. The reader sees how Harry Blackmun agonized at being considered Burger's "boy" which eventually led to his breaking away from the conservative wing of the court. Woodward also tells of the lack of respect the justices had for the abilities of Chief Justice Burger, who wrote poorly reasoned opinions that embarrassed some members of the court. The main thesis of the book is how the moderates control the opinions of the court. A majority opinion must have the vote of at least five members of the court, therefore the opinion becomes a compromise between the author of the opinion and his joining brethren. Even when an ideologue writes an opinion, his opinion must be amended to maintain the votes of his brethren. Therefore, the majority opinions of the court usually reflect a somewhat moderate solution, as compared to the ideological make-up of the court. The Brethren also relates how politics play a key role in the decisions of the court. Justices have predispositions to every case they decide, and most have an ideology that influences their decisions. The role of the moderates on the court is also an example of how politics effects the decisions of the court. If a president is able to appoint enough justices of his political persuasion, the court's ideological make-up will change, as will the direction of the court's decisions. Justices on the court do worry about the effect of new appointments to the Supreme Court. When President Gerald Ford appointed Justice John Paul Stevens to the court to replace Justice Douglas, Brennen and Marshall worried about the future of abortion and busing, fearing a new conservative justice might vote to overturn or limit the scope of decisions in these areas. These are a few examples of the role of politics in the Supreme Court. The strengths of this book include its in-depth view of court personalities, antidotes, and relationships between the justices. These are aspects of the court normally not made public. Another strength of the book is its description of how cases are decided, and how a court is "built" (a majority opinion). Further, the reader gets an understanding of the factors that influence a court's opinions such as ideology, compromise, persuasive arguments, and even interaction with the clerks. The major weakness of the book is the lack of documentation. There is absolutely no documentation for the material presented in the book. Woodward's disclaimer is he got the information on background and deep background, meaning the sources go unnamed. He also claims he read memos, unpublished and rough draft opinions, and other unpublished written material generated by the court. Despite the lack of documentation The Brethren remains a must read for students interested in law and politics.
Rating:
Summary: An Inside Look at the Supreme Court
Review: Despite being a bit dated, The Brethren, by Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong, remains one of the most illuminating looks at the inner workings of the Supermen Court. And certainly it will remain a very interesting historical look at the court it examines. The Brethren attempts to present the reader with what "really" goes on in the Supreme Court. It describes the conferences, the personality of justices, and how justice's feel toward each other, items which are generally hidden from the public. Covering the terms from 1969-1975, Woodward and Armstrong gives us a look at the fourteen justices and how they dealt with the major issues facing the court. The book describes how Burger changed his conference votes so he could assign the majority opinion of the court, angering William Douglas and William Brennen. He also describes how Thurgood Marshall greeted Burger "Hey chiefy baby", getting a kick out of making him feel uncomfortable. The reader sees how Harry Blackmun agonized at being considered Burger's "boy" which eventually led to his breaking away from the conservative wing of the court. Woodward also tells of the lack of respect the justices had for the abilities of Chief Justice Burger, who wrote poorly reasoned opinions that embarrassed some members of the court. The main thesis of the book is how the moderates control the opinions of the court. A majority opinion must have the vote of at least five members of the court, therefore the opinion becomes a compromise between the author of the opinion and his joining brethren. Even when an ideologue writes an opinion, his opinion must be amended to maintain the votes of his brethren. Therefore, the majority opinions of the court usually reflect a somewhat moderate solution, as compared to the ideological make-up of the court. The Brethren also relates how politics play a key role in the decisions of the court. Justices have predispositions to every case they decide, and most have an ideology that influences their decisions. The role of the moderates on the court is also an example of how politics effects the decisions of the court. If a president is able to appoint enough justices of his political persuasion, the court's ideological make-up will change, as will the direction of the court's decisions. Justices on the court do worry about the effect of new appointments to the Supreme Court. When President Gerald Ford appointed Justice John Paul Stevens to the court to replace Justice Douglas, Brennen and Marshall worried about the future of abortion and busing, fearing a new conservative justice might vote to overturn or limit the scope of decisions in these areas. These are a few examples of the role of politics in the Supreme Court. The strengths of this book include its in-depth view of court personalities, antidotes, and relationships between the justices. These are aspects of the court normally not made public. Another strength of the book is its description of how cases are decided, and how a court is "built" (a majority opinion). Further, the reader gets an understanding of the factors that influence a court's opinions such as ideology, compromise, persuasive arguments, and even interaction with the clerks. The major weakness of the book is the lack of documentation. There is absolutely no documentation for the material presented in the book. Woodward's disclaimer is he got the information on background and deep background, meaning the sources go unnamed. He also claims he read memos, unpublished and rough draft opinions, and other unpublished written material generated by the court. Despite the lack of documentation The Brethren remains a must read for students interested in law and politics.
Rating:
Summary: good but there's better
Review: For a remarkable, journalistic view of the workings of the Supreme Court, this is an excellent book detailing the political ebb and flow that is not covered on the outside. However, the best remains Edward Lazarus' expose of his term as a Supreme Court Clerk, Behind Closed Doors. Lazarus is almost encyclopedic in his treatment of three major cases and the political background to each, making his book a preferable read for anyone seriously interested in learning about the workings of the Court.
Most problematic are the portraits of the psychological reasoning of the justices. While Woodward/Armstrong no doubt interviewed a handful of them, they accept too often the simple dismissals and mental evaluations. How on earth could they step inside Justice Stewart's mind to learn that he was the one justice "most desirous of confrontation and most committed to compromise"? (p. 328) Which clerk(s) told them that?
Read it for presenting snapshots of justices that connect them to their human natures, rather than their legal positions. The inept machinations of Justice Burger, the decline of the Warren legacy, the courageous battle of Justice Douglas against conservativism and his own mortality: the Brethren shines when it addresses such episodes, humanizing what has for so long been kept hidden.
But the problem with 'humanizing' the Court is that the mistaken belief that one comprehends it as a political body fails when trying to understand the Court's role as a legal institution. Reduced to political gambits by contrasting parties, the legal doctrines that moved these judges lose their luster (and comprehensibility).
When law becomes a game of 'who appointed whom' and what they had for breakfast, it becomes a game that any journalist may play, and outsiders may keep score on the decisions.
Which is a misfortune of this book.
Rating:
Summary: Stands the Test of Time
Review: I learned more of the hows and whys of the Supreme Court from Bob Woodward's "The Brethren" than I did in my three years of law school. In addition to being an excellent and surprisingly interesting breakdown of the procedure and function of the high court, the book (which reads like a novel) paints a fascinating picture of the Burger Court and the contemporary influences thereon. Woodward gives background history and profiles of each justice on the court, how they were picked (and by whom they were nominated, as well as why they were nominated and others who nearly took their chair). Woodward also dissects the major decisions that faced the court (namely the case law developed from Brown v. Board of Education school desegregation and the abortion cases including and brought on by Roe v. Wade). Woodward explains the policy and personal influences affecting the justices and their decisions of the cases and the volatile and emotional toll taken during the writing of the opinions.
I anticipated that this would be one of those books that I "should" read, and would appreciate having read once I was finished. I was surprised when, not 20 pages in, I had a hard time ever putting it down until I finished.
Rating:
Summary: Supremely Informative
Review: I read The Brethren because I have an interest in constitutional law and knew Woodward would do exhaustive research about the Supreme Court before writing this story. This book did not disappoint in its discussion of the constitutional issues debated in the court during the first 6 years of the Burger Court and it was a fascinating expose of the behind-the-scenes activites at the court and the personalities of the justices. Woodward does an excellent job presenting the cases in layman terms, perhaps because he began the project with no legal training himself, and it makes everything very clear for the reader. The most unsettling revelation in the book is how critical constitutional decisions often come down to compromises ("I'll side with you on this case if you side with me on that case") and personality clashes, though it is important to understand that the justices are people and their determinations are often subject to human passions. I think this book is an excellent history of the court in the early 70s and a cautionary tale for the future and I would highly recommend it to people interested in the Court and/or people interested in practicing law. I would also recommend it for people interested in politics in general, because the court is obviously very political whether it tried to remain independent or not.
Rating:
Summary: Inspiring and Nostalgic
Review: I read this book at fifteen, and it convinced me to become a lawyer. That was foolish, because I should have paid more attention to the undercurrent. The book is a cautionary tale, and was explaining the direction of the Supreme Court, and the beginning of the end of its civil libertarian bent. By the time I was out of law school, the damage had been done, and the court that I fell in love with in this book was long gone. And when I say the court I fell in love with, I don't just mean the individual justices, which this book explores with depth and care, but the institution it used to be. This is a book to own and to remember. My copy has been thumbed to tatters.
Rating:
Summary: A Snapshot of the Burger Court
Review: The 'Introduction' says the Supreme Court is the highest court and final forum. It operates in absolute secrecy, only revealing its judgments in formal written opinions. Their decision making has been kept secret from the people who are affected. This book tells about the inner workings of the Burger Court from 1969 to 1976. The Supreme Court can reinterpret laws, the Constitution, and prior cases. Numerous confidential sources provided information. It tells how 'LIFE' magazine was used to discredit Abe Fortas to force his resignation (pp.18-19). Page 21 gives the political reasons for Burger's selection. Page 24 suggests the fix was in: the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously recommended Burger. The next seven chapters cover the years 1969 to 1975; each Supreme Court term coves one year from October to June or early July.
Do you know that newspapers manipulate the news (p.31)? [You can see this if your area has more than one newspaper.] One of Burger's first actions was against the rigorous code of ethics proposed for federal judges by Earl Warren (p.32). Next he restricted the normal intercommunication between the law clerks (pp.34-35). Was Burger "petty, unpleasant, and dishonest" (p.71)? Page 85 tells how Burger tried to change the rules to benefit a monopoly. This was a violation of judicial restraint and strict constructionism! Burger then backed down from Douglas' proposed dissent. While the emphasis is on Warren Earl Burger, the personalities and characters of the other Judges are displayed. Many cases were undecided because the Court was deadlocked 4 to 4. Blackmun would provide the deciding vote on these and future cases. This ended Burger's first term as Chief Justice. This book seems slow-paced in covering many details about the Justices. After 25 years, this then important story has faded into the background of history. But its important to understand that the Justices are politicians who do not need popular approval. This book does not go into much detail as to why a specific judge was picked.
The "Constitutional Journal" by Jeffrey St. John was written as a journalistic summary of the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Article III Section 1 defined the Court system. They left further changes to Congress. There is nothing in Section 1 that mandates life-tenure, except by default. Congress could specify a term for a fixed number of years, or an age limit. There are examples from history for an age limit. There were six Justices in Washington's era, seven for Jefferson, and nine for Jackson. About one Justice for every two states. If this example was followed we could have had twenty-one Justices by FDR's era. This could allow more work to be done more quickly.
Rating:
Summary: Still the best book to read to understand the Supreme Court
Review: This is still a must-read for people seriously interested in the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, some of my fellow reviewers had to read this for class or were not interested in the topic, which is really too bad, but these individuals should not be the last word on the issue. I would also like to respond to some of the more outrageous comments from other reviewers:
"It is not an easy reading."
To those who do not have trouble reading the newspaper, it will be extremely easy reading. In fact, it is written in such a clear style, with short, to-the-point sentences, as to be among the easiest books I have ever read.
"The secretive world of the court would be difficult for any journalist to penetrate, and here Woodward and his cohort Armstrong prove themselves not to be up to the task."
Whoever wrote this obviously had not come of age when the book was published. The publication of "The Brethren" ranks as probably the most scandalous moment in the history of the Supreme Court, because no one to that date had even come close to gaining the insider access that Woodward and Armstrong did-- and no journalist has gotten this close to the Court since. This is an utterly glib and untrue comment. As close as is humanly possible, Woodward and Armstrong penetrated the Court.
"'The Brethren' is, more than any book I've ever read, a product of its times. It reflects the anti-war, anti-establishment, anti-Nixon, pro-activist, and downright revolutionary times of the early 1970s. If you choose to read "The Brethren," you should understand that it takes positions as being either right or wrong. And with political powder kegs (abortion, busing, the Watergate tapes, the death penalty, etc.), that is an intellectually risky proposition."
Funny, because when I read it I had the exact opposite reaction-- I was upset by the excesses of that period. However, I should note that "The Brethren"'s presentation of the issues is absolutely non-judgmental. It notes with honesty what each justice's view was, in such simple language that it often sounds reductionist. People who have read Woodward's other books know that he is not a partisan hack.
Again, people who are really interested in the Supreme Court should definitely hunt this down.
|
