Customer Rating: 
Summary: Conservative Agenda
Comment: The subject matter of the book is the impact of the conservative agenda on the Supreme Court. The death of Chief Justice Rehnquist is covered in the Prologue. The Warren Court had transformed the entire legal culture.
By 1991 and the appointment of Clarence Thomas the conservatives had made remarkable progress. Thomas is a philosophical heir to Booker T. Washington. Chief Justice Rehnquist used a line from IOLANTHE regarding his conduct during the Clinton impeachment trial that he did nothing in particular and he did it very well.
Near the end of the Clinton years the conservative judicial revolution was sputtering. The Bush v. Gore opinion amounted to a catalogue of the Court's worst flaws as judges, the author asserts. The argument is supported by Toobin's description of the procedures followed and the atmosphere of the Court in December 2000.
Subsequently, the Court became more liberal as evidenced by Lawrence v. Texas and other decisions. Justices Breyer and Kennedy, in reaching for solutions to the Court's cases, sometimes emulated foreign models.
Justice O'Connor saw in the Schiavo case a threat to judicial independence. After Justice O'Connor left the Court, Justice Kennedy's position became critical to the case outcomes of the Court. In the Roberts Court, dissenting justices wondered what had happened to the doctrine of stare decisis.
This excellent book concludes with a focus on the primacy of ideological differences. The text throughout is able and interesting.
Customer Rating: Summary: Legal Politics
Comment: A legal analyst with CNN News and a graduate of Harvard, Jeffrey Toobin brings forth an account and supberb evaluation of how he sees the Supreme Court at present which has resulted in his individual interviews with these justices.
The election of 2008 for a new President might very well change the status of our Judicial System. It is important to keep in mind that all members of the Supreme Court, the highest body in the United States, are appointed by the current President and confirmed by the Senate. In addition, the President selects individuals who share his idealogical views.
I recommend Mr. Toobin's "The Nine" to those who are interested in law and politics and what the Supreme Court is today.
Customer Rating: 
Summary: Not so much inside, as its impact on the outside and how to get in
Comment: I liked this book a lot, it concerns the Supreme Court personalities and impacts from the mid Eighties to 2006, though the bulk of the book concentrates on the Clinton/Bush era. I read it after Woodward's `the Brethren', which deals with the years 1968-73. The tenures of the justices are so long, that this book is almost a continuation. The processes of picking and adjudicating cases are the same as described in the Brethren, as is the processes by which majorities opinions are shaped and preserved. However Chief Justice Rhenquist seems to have taken pride in the running a far more efficient process than his predecessor. One key difference seems to be that there is a more explicit process of caballing to ensure that a particular opinion becomes the majority, though still informal, it seems to be a more acknowledged behaviour than in the early 1970s.
The book's main focus is the political impact of the decisions taken - particularly on the `culture wars', and the more focused approach (particularly among Republicans) on getting candidates selected and approved who will take a conservative line.
The Rhenquist court, despite having 8 of 9 justices who were appointed by Republican presidents, was a disappointment to conservatives who wished to reverse the `liberal' trend of its predecessor courts. However, due in part to Rhenquist's focus on efficiency rather than philosophy and the peculiarly individualistic natures of Justice Scalia and Thomas, the courts opinions were influenced by those of Justice O'Connor; whose views were decidedly middle-of-the road - not against restricting abortion, but ensuring that the mother's health was given paramount consideration; not against school prayer as long as it wasn't promoted by school authorities; not in favour of forced integration, but in favour of desegration; not in favour of gay practice, but an upholder of rights to privacy, incorporating sexual orientation
The book is quite good on giving pen portraits of the character and concerns of each of the justices, and shows what a varied bunch they are. It is particularly good at demonstrating how the work, and its associated experiences, have changed Justices O'Connor, Stevens and Kennedy, while leaving Justices Souter, Scalia and Thomas almost unchanged. It's most telling impression on me was that both the Clinton (Ginsburg and Breyer) and Bush (Jnr) appointees (Roberts and Alito) were much more heavily scrutinised and their subsequent opinions were much more predictable, than previous appointees - Stevens,O'Connor and Souter were viewed a `squelches' by conservatives, appointed by
Ford, Regan and Bush (Snr) respectively, they were viewed as having veered `leftward' upon appointment.
I particularly enjoyed the descriptions of the political machinations around the appointment process of new justices, from Bork onwards. Bush Snr's approach seemed detached, Clinton's haphazard and chaotic approach, while Bush Jnr's was focused and ruthless, but also impersonal, in the sense that it seemed run by a selection team rather than a personal priority.
The book is best on the processes by which Bush vs. Gore was decided. Toobin is of the view that the Court shamed itself on this. I found this argument convincing, it seems the court intervened early, and the Justices took pre-determined positions, in short became too political. However there is also an argument that if the Court was to decide on a vote, then it had to do so, rather than let the re-counts and re-runs continue until chaos ensued. However, given the Republican appointed majority and the partisan process by which the court was invited to decide the case, I think I agree with Toobin that it was this Courts least fine hour, and indeed tainted this set of Justices in relations to their predecessors.
