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.

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.

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.

I felt that this book took more of a gossip description of the justices--who likes eachother, who tried to set up eachother on dates, who hated eachother. That could have been fine as an addendum but I wanted more meat on the issues and how each jusitce came to form their opinion and their stand.

If you've ever wanted to know what happens in the cloistered world of the Supreme Court, this book will give you a brief glimpse. It details not just the kinds of cases that the Supreme Court has heard over the last 30 years, but also what kind of people the Supreme Court Justices are and where they came from. Others have suggested there's a bias in this book, but I fail to see it. If the author spends a great deal of time talking about what conservatives were up to in filling the current nine seats, it's only because the last 30 years have been dominated by conservative presidents attempting to satisfy their conservative base. Anyway I found this book quite eye opening, and I hope anyone who is interested in how the Supreme Court works will give it a read.

The Nine is an in-depth portrayal of the current Supreme Court. Not only does Toobin cover the personality quirks and politics of the individual justices and their relationships with each other over time, he also analyzes the development and the current state of the Supreme Court's jurisprudence on key issues like abortion, gay rights, and affirmative action. Other than a few interesting bits of trivia, I didn't really learn anything new from The Nine, but I was entertained, and I think this book is a good introduction to the Supreme Court for those without much previous exposure.

In The Nine, Jeffrey Toobin produces a worthy sequel to The Brethren. Covering roughly the period from 1987 to 2007, Mr. Toobin examines how the personalities of the individuals appointed to the court influence the outcome of decisions at the highest level.

In many respects, The Nine is the story of just two justices, Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy. One of the first stories in the book is how Justices Souter, O'Connor and Kennedy crafted a middle of the road compromise in the Casey abortion case which stole the majority away from Chief Justice Rehnquist and kept the more conservative justices from sharply limiting Roe v. Wade.

The Nine traces Justice O'Connor's transformation from a conservative Goldwater Republican to a more liberal voice alienated from her party. The author analyzes Justice O'Connor (who was the only former legislator on the court) as a politician seeking compromise and narrow opinions and trying to reach results consistent with popular opinion.

Her fellow swing vote, Justice Kennedy, receives a less sympathetic treatment. He is portrayed as having a love for flowery rhetoric and empty phrases. Despite their differing styles, they frequently held the balance on the court.

The differing styles of the Kennedy-O'Connor axis had dramatic fallout in Bush v. Gore. In that case, Justice Kennedy inclined toward a dramatic equal protection theory, while Chief Justice Rehnquist opted toward a more technical result under Article II of the Constitution. Justice O'Connor felt that the Florida Supreme Court was playing politics trying to help Al Gore win the election and that the result didn't pass the smell test. She wanted to find a middle ground for striking down the Florida Supreme Court's decision without joining the conservatives on the court. As a result, she agreed to sign on to Anthony Kennedy's opinion, but only if he would tone down his grand pronouncements. In response, Justice Kennedy added a sentence stating that each case was unique and that the Court was not laying down any general principles. O'Connor the politician severely miscalculated here. The Court's opinion was so narrow that it appeared to apply in just one case: allowing George W. Bush to win the election. By trying to go for a narrow, middle of the road solution, Justice O'Connor steered the court into a result that was just as political as the meddling by the Florida Supreme Court which she found to be disagreeable.

The Nine has a good job of depicting the justices as individuals. Clarence Thomas gets a sympathetic portrayal as a NASCAR-loving man of the people who was far more engaged than commonly believed.

Jeffrey Toobin highlights Justice Souter's quirky sense of humor. On being mistaken for Justice Breyer, he was asked what he enjoyed most about serving on the Court. With a perfectly straight face, he replied that it was the honor of serving with David Souter.

The book also captures the unusual collegiality of a court which was sharply divided on ideological grounds. Chief Justices Rehnquist and Roberts are given credit by their colleagues for running a process that was fair and open in conference in contrast to the more heavy handed Warren Burger. Judges of differing viewpoints vacationed and played cards together. Indeed, one of the most poignant stories in the book is the sadness felt by Justice Ginsberg when her two best friends on the court, Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice O'Connor, were no longer there.

Mr. Toobin's liberal point of view shows in a few instances. He doesn't quite get the Federalist Society. He describes the Federalist Society as being the vanguard of a conservative revolution to re-make the court. However, other than a few statements of core principles, the Federalist Society does not take positions on issues or litigate cases. Rather, it is a debating society of conservative and libertarian lawyers who generally favor judicial restraint. Mr. Toobin also devotes several passages to the prominent role of the Constitution-in-Exile movement, a position so obscure that many conservatives are not aware that it exists. (See the recent discussion in the Volokh Conspiracy blog for proof of this).

Despite these minor shortcomings, Mr. Toobin has produced a very readable and well-researched book. In addition to sketching detailed portraits of the individual justices, the book is a good syllabus of the major opinions of the Supreme Court over the past 20 years.

A history of the last 20 or so years of supreme court justices, namely the justices of the rehnquist court, but the end does talk about the nominations of john roberts and alito. Its kind of bland. I thought it would be a little more exciting, considering it was a best seller. How much discussion on Roe v Wade, death penalty, and gay rights can someone actually read about without being bored to tears.

This is a book about the Supreme Court. For those of you with no knowledge of the judicial branch of government, there are nine justices on the Supreme Court. This book focuses on the recent history of the court, especially the years since Bush v. Gore in 2000. Toobin gives the backgrounds of the current justices and the selection process behind many of their nominations.

I found this book engaging and interesting. This is obviously a guy who has followed the Supreme Court very closely and his commentary in weaving together different episodes and characters gave me a greater appreciation for the court. It was not, however, a book I could not put down. I put it down several times and only recently finished it. It has been so long since I actually finished a book I figured I should finally finish one.

This book is accessible to all readers, but for those with only a passing interest in the judiciary, it is probably too much. I follow the Supreme Court fairly closely, and I enjoyed it a lot. This book is not quite as good as "The Brethren" by Bob Woodward, which focused on the Burger court of the mid-70s, but it is still very good.

Toobin's book provides an interesting perspective on the personalities at play in the Supreme Court, while also providing a window into some of the countries most influential cases. The book is balanced in its approach. His focus is primarily on more recent justices, starting with the Rehnquist court.

I found his description of Souter to be among most interesting and comical due to Souters unique personality. Toobin writes, "At first Souters eccentricities drew more notice around the court than his jurisprudence. Fifty-two years old and a lifelong bachelor, he has the habits of a gentleman from another country...He ate the same thing for lunch every day: an entire apple, including the core and seeds, with a cup of yogurt. When the justices sat together in their dining room, the two items would be delivered to Souter on the same fine china that served his colleagues; Souter was familiar with Coca Cola, but he had never heard of a beverage that several of the others justices favored - Diet Coke" (p. 43)

He goes on to describe a successful date Souter had with a woman that Justice O'Connor set him up with. "She thought the evening had gone very well - until the end. Souter took her home, told her what a good time he had, then added 'Let's do this again next year'" (p. 244)

While I have admired Mr. Toobin, I found the text to be very unbalanced. I actually listened to the audio version of the book and I don't know if that had a big impact on how I "heard" the book or not. But there is a troubling slant against the more "conservative" judges. At times, it really seems very hostile (especially to Thomas and Scalia). I do not say this because I always subscript to the justices I just named (often times I don't.) I realize that an author approaches his work with a certain frame of mind, but it made the book much less credible for me. I enjoyed the portions on O'Connor and Breyer but again, I would have preferred a more balanced view of the court.

Anyone who watches much cable news is familiar with Jeffery Toobin. As the chief legal analyst for CNN, and a frequent guest on other networks, Toobin is one of the experts who provide commentary on crime, trials, and other aspects of the law. He has written books about O.J., the Clinton Impeachment, and the 2000 Recount, and now turns his skills to the modern Supreme Court. There are other books about the Rehnquist-era court, but this one is probably the most accessible for the layman. Toobin is not a particularly lively writer, but he produces an easy to follow profile of the justices and some of their more important decisions, and the politics behind their appointments. Worth mentioning are his chapters dealing with the Thomas nomination, the daily life of the justices and the effects international law can have on their opinions. As a lawyer, he can provide more insight than the average journalist, and he certainly has a gift for putting legal jargon into terms the general public can understand. No doubt critics will accuse him of `dumbing down' the material, but they cannot argue with the result: a sympathetic, honest, and readable history of the Court during the late 20th and early 21st centuries.

This is a fascinating, thought-provoking book which should be required reading for any civics or political science student. Toobin provides an insightful look into the selection of justices as well as their evolution once on the bench. He has clearly done his homework in researching the backgrounds, selection process, politics, and personalities of the nine decision makers we call our Supreme Court. Highly recommended!

There are several things about The Nine that make it an absorbing and worthwhile read. As stated in the dust jacket, Jeffrey Toobin has great narrative skills. He shows them in abundance when giving us memorable portraits of each justice. Furthermore, he does an outstanding job summarizing the most important Supreme Court cases from 2000 onward; and distilling the complex issues that each case presents re: abortion, affirmative action, free speech, separation of church and state, federalism, the death penalty, and habeas corpus etc. In these respects, it is an ideal resource for the casual follower of the Supreme Court.

However, I am a paralegal well-versed in legal research, and am fascinated by the Supreme Court. I expected much more from the book, but was greatly disappointed with several omissions. First, Toobin did not offer citations to any of the cases he summarized so well(from Bush v. Gore to Rasul v. Bush, or the Kelo case re: eminent domain). Maybe it was an editorial decision by the publisher not to list the citations; and if true, I would've appreciated knowing this at the outset. To list a case without giving its citation is an unforgivable omission for anyone familiar with how legal research is done. It made the book seem more shallow than I'm sure Toobin intended. Toobin's defense(at the end of the book) that these cases are readily available online is just not good enough. I also would've appreciated a much fuller discussion by Toobin of how and why the Justices have(since the Warren Court era) increasingly allowed political considerations to guide their jurisprudence rather than legal ones.

I have equally strong misgivings about Toobin's approach to the book.
Yes, he is a fairly high-profile legal analyst for CNN; and writes prominently on legal issues for the New Yorker Magazine. These facts alone, however, don't tell us what motivated him to write this book.
The dust jacket tells us that he was born to write this book. How so?
What goals did he set for the book? He didn't say. The book is touted as providing a valauble look inside the Supreme Court; and in some ways, he succeeds. For example, he gives a valuable overview of the Rasul, and Hamdan cases, two outgrowths of the Bush Administration's war on terror. However, Toobin largely had to rely on the information the Justices, and other Supreme Court experts were willing to provide him.

What did Toobin himself bring to the table to advance the goals of his book, other than admirable enthusiasm? Unfortunately, we are not told. He is a journalist, but has given us no idea of how he became one, and has not told us about his legal background(i.e., Has he been to law school?;
Is he an attorney?)

Having answers to these questions could've at least in part explained why he did not offer at least one case citations for people who just might want to do further(more in depth) reading. If he didn't want his book to be a scholarly appraisal of the Supreme Court, Toobin should have told us so beforehand in an introduction. Again, The Nine is quite a good book, as far as it goes. It could have been, and should have been so much better.

Awesome. An easy and fast read. The book rewards you with a perspective on the politics behind the Court for about the past two decades. A great indtroduction for young readers.

Conservatives are just upset that their goals and momentum have been exposed and possibly thwarted to some extent by the release of this widely-read book before the extremely important presidential election of '08.

There are several things about The Nine that make it an absorbing and worthwhile read. As stated in the dust jacket, Jeffrey Toobin has great narrative skills. He shows them in abundance when giving us memorable portraits of each justice. Furthermore, he does an outstanding job summarizing the most important Supreme Court cases from 2000 onward; and distilling the complex issues that each case presents re: abortion, affirmative action, free speech, federalism, and the death penalty, etc. In these respects, it is an ideal resource for the casual follower of the Supreme Court.

However, I am a paralegal well-versed in legal research, and am fascinated by the Supreme Court. I expected much more from the book, but was greatly disappointed with several omissions. First, Toobin did not offer citations to any of the cases he summarized so well(from Bush v. Gore to Rasul v. Bush, or the Kelo case re: eminent domain). Maybe it was an editorial decision by the publisher not to list the citations; and if true, I would've appreciated knowing this at the outset. To list a case without giving its citation is an unforgivable omission for anyone familiar with how legal research is done. It made the book seem more shallow than I'm sure Toobin intended. Toobin's defense(at the end of the book) that these cases are readily available online is just not good enough.

I have equally strong misgivings about Toobin's approach to the book.
Yes, he is a fairly high-profile legal analyst for CNN; and writes prominently on legal issues for the New Yorker Magazine. These facts alone, however, don't tell us what motivated him to write this book. The dust jacket tells us that he was born to write this book. How so?
What goals did he set for the book? He didn't say. The book is touted as providing a valauble look inside the Supreme Court; and in some ways, he succeeds. However, Toobin largely had to rely on the information the Justices, and other Supreme Court experts were willing to provide him.

However, what did Toobin himself bring to the table to advance the goals of his book, other than admirable enthusiasm? Unfortunately, we are not told. He is a journalist, but has given us no idea of how he became one, and how his journalism experience intersected with the law?
How did he become acquainted with law? Has he been to law school? Is he an attorney? He gives us no indication.

Having answers to these questions could've at least in part explained why he did not offer at least one case citations for people who just might want to do further(more in depth) reading. If he didn't want his book to be a scholarly appraisal of the Supreme Court, Toobin should have told us so beforehand in an introduction. Again, The Nine is quite a good book, as far as it goes. It could have been, and should have been so much better.

Jeffrey Toobin makes a strong case in "The Nine" that the 2008 election is indeed a change election if only because another Republican president will doom Roe v. Wade and other constitutional protections hanging by the thread of a moderate Justice (Stevens, Souter or Ginsberg) stepping down during the next Presidential term.

The Nine looks at how the current Supreme Court Justices' personalities impact the process and outcome of deliberations and why those Supreme Court decisions matter in the lives of Americans. He focuses on various confirmation struggles as well as court rulings including Presidential elections (Bush v. Gore), abortion decisions (post Roe v. Wade), gay rights, affirmative action, the war on terror and the separation of church and state.

One of the themes of the book is the rise of the powerful Republican conservative judicial movement. Their ideology demands that justices to be pro-life, for increasing the role of religion in public life, against any and all affirmative action, for certain restraints on free speech except when it impacts public financing in which case they are champions of money as speech. They want Justices to uphold the sanctity of straight marriages and families and grant the Executive broad powers to wage war against terror. And yet despite most of the appointments having come from Republican Presidents, the court hasn't - until recently - surrendered to this conservative ideology. However, that has begun to change with the very conservative Alito taking O'Connor's seat.

Toobin does an excellent job of showing how the Justices' humanity plays out in how they work together, perceive their roles on the court and come to their judicial decisions. He isn't afraid to show them acting poorly but he also shows them as people with a real affection for one another and a commitment to the constitution and their role in American life. As a non-practicing lawyer, I was surprised at how much legal analysis he included but a friend of mine who isn't a lawyer wasn't put off by it at all.

The book isn't a big civic lesson bore. He includes a number of touching and funny stories that develop his larger themes; he relates the great reception Clarence Thomas gets when speaking before an RV convention, he pokes fun at Kennedy's high flown prose, at David Souter's disinterest in dating women and O'Connor's habit of handing out a congratulatory tee-shirt to parent of newborns and making sure that a gay clerk and his partner get one too.

I regrettably cannot recommend this book. I listened to the Audio CD, and I suspect that such medium makes the content more palatable (in the auditory sense) then trudging through the written prose with the days or weeks-long commitment that might entail.

I have renamed the book to better reflect its content, which, to its ultimate undoing, comprises mostly a hagiography or reification of Ms. Sandra Day O'Connor. It is in his near puppy-doggish love for Justice O'Connor that Toobin betrays the same lack of understanding of the limited constitutional role of the Court likely shared by millions of Americans who focus only on the provision of Good, irrespective of its source. This love of result over principle is never clearer than Toobin's analysis of the Court's "affirmative action in education" cases from 2003, known popularly as the Grutter and Gratz decisions, wherein Justice O'Connor surmised that, notwithstanding the Equal Protection Clause, race (qua diversity) could form some basis in the selection of student candidates by state university and that, in 25 years or so, perhaps the Nation shall have progressed to the point that such race-conscious statecraft shall no longer be constitutional, effectively giving our holy Constitution the magnificence of an egg-timer. All the while having hailed Justice O'Connor's knack for crafting CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, whether intentionally or not, to mesh with public opinion (whatever happens to be prevailing at the time of course), Toobin effectively breaks the spine of his book with the embarrassing conclusion that O'Connor's equal protection ruling and timetable was the eminent jurist at her worst (he does not explain) and her best (he goes on to say "[it] was INDEFENSIBLE IN THEORY, AND IMPECCABLE IN PRACTICE (or "application," or words to that effect). My jaw nearly dropped as I listened to Toobin laud any Supreme Court rule making that could be both indefensible as a matter of constitutional theory but impeccable in its prescient steering toward the course of public opinion. That moment alone nearly ruins the book.

Mr. Toobin, like far too many, seems satisfied with a Court unanchored from constitutional limitations of any kind. He wants the Court, like some blind but psychic sentry, to propound reasoned opinions that just so happen to equate with prevailing public opinion, presumably guided by American values. One wonders how such advocates for a fluid if not "living" constitution would regard Court rulings that coincide with a public opinion of a future generation that rejects Progressive values and causes. Would he then, demand fewer rulings "indefensible in theory" but concordant with the desires of "ordinary" Americans, as THEN defined. (Of course, thanks to stare decisis-the rule that prior precedents of the Court should be respected as entrenched constitutional law, immune to overruling except in limited circumstances, the liberal's policy preferences-constitutional rights to abortion, a limitless federal commerce power, e.g.-may be difficult to erode notwithstanding the shift in public opinion of future generations and the willingness of judges like O'Connor to placate it.)

The Constitution, if anything, represents a fundamental structural check on the power of public opinion to soil the vision of the Framers which the People, our political ancestors, ratified through their State governments. This is the Consent that we live by, the Premise of our social community. Should not the fact that the Constitution could not be changed but by Supermajority vote of the States suggest that it ought to be the most cautiously expanded document in our combined lexicon ? Why, instead, should the Constitution be the vehicle of ensuring that modern laws, notwithstanding the popular support that prompted their very enactment through their ELECTED representatives, be ultimately approved or rejected as sufficiently co-extensive with the American experience as viewed by five law professors (i.e. the 5-4 majority necessary to produce a binding constitutional holding). One should hope instead, that public opinion have little if anything to do with expositions on the nature of the delicate but constant document that binds the several branches and several governments of this nation together. Justice O'Connor's failure to serve her true Master, i.e., the Constitution of the United States, instead arrogating the Power to herself as swing vote and guardian of the public's happy regard in a growing Nanny State, in the end makes her less a jurist and more a Soft Tyrant. We Americans should hope that our policy preferences that might otherwise be enacted into law, for experimentation purposes if not ultimately the prevailing Good, do not one day offend the pulse-taking of popular opinion as read by a judge who wants to be loved as Louis XIV, the Sun King.

Liberal, heal thyself.

An interesting, but ultimately disappointing, look at the USSC and how it functions. I can't write a better critique than can be found via this chain of posts by Eugene Volokh of UCLA law school and Orin Kerr of George Washington University law school:

[...]

The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court
Jeffrey Toobin is unquestionably the finest writer and most cogent commentator on the American legal scene today. His book, "The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court," is a marvelous read for layman and lawyer alike.
Unlike Bob Woodward's "The Brethren" Toobin layers the self-revelatory comments of the justices with a lawyer's penetrating sense of nuance and a comprehensive articulation of the role of the third branch of our government.
Toobin writes with such grace and refinement it's difficult to believe that he was once a real lawyer!
It probably should not be a surprise that Toobin has added political commentary on CNN to his body of prose. In the punditry bloated world of cable presidential campaign coverage he has added wit, a sly smile and abundant common sense.

Philip S. Ryan
Attorney/Author

Jeffery Toobin's The Nine is a fantastic book. Not too long and well written. Without overwhelming those of us who are not lawyers or SCOTUS watchers, Toobin conveyed the importance of the work the Justices do. The reader learns about the Justices, their personalities, and their beliefs. Also, as Toobin book focuses mostly on the 1990s and 2000s, one learns a lot about the important Supreme Court cases during those two decades. Finally, and most importantly, after finishing The Nine it is obvious to all how tethered the Justices really are to the politics of the day, some (O'Connor and Kennedy) more than others. That is, Toobin notes, as it should be in a democracy. A great book to jump into an important area of US government even if you don't have any expertise in that area.
A final note: Toobin clearly leans a bit to the left, and that is detectable in the book. But I still felt that he was fair enough for the book to be educational for any and all. Conservatives have told me so anyway.

The topic had so much potential, but the author chooses to advocate his own prejudices. Case in point is the premise of Bush v Gore and the author's view that the court gave the presidency to George Bush. If the author recalls, after independent recounts in Florida, George Bush still came out on top. A subject such as this in my opinion should be handled very objectively and the subject should be viewed from both sides being written about. But disappointingly the author chooses to advocate his own philosophy in this book! This book could have been so much more if the author would have been more objective.

I enjoyed the first few chapters, but it soon became plain that the author was not going to be evenhanded on his critiques of the justices. I think he overdid his adulation for Sandra Day O'Connor, and his dislike for the conservative justices ruined the last chapters of the book. His contempt for President Bush was evident, and when a writer fills his pages with snide comments, he shows that he cannot be objective. Put this one down after you reach the middle of the book.

This started as a wonderful account of the Supreme Court. In later chapters, it became a bashing of President Bush and the Republican party. As a result, it cannot be considered a scholarly text, but a biased view of one reporter, under the guise of history.

A quick review of Jeff Toobin's "The Nine"...fascinating. And who would have thought that of Supreme Court Justices? But Toobin held my attention by revealing the personalities and proclivities of the justices via the cases presented to them. The reader got a double dose of info and a well-written, engaging look into the inner workings of the Supreme Court. Those nine people are actually human beings like you and I. Altho Toobin casts a liberal's slant, the reader still cannot quite hate the conservatives. A good read.

While others may have a positive impression about Alito, Roberts, Thomas and Scalia, I have a negative view of them, reinforced after reading this book.

This book is to the recent Supreme Court history what "The Brethren" was to the Warren Burger court.

Excellent book and well written. And timely for this year's presidential election.

I consider myself to be a reasonably educated American. I have a reasonably good working knowledge of the branches of government. Still, of the three, I would have to say that my knowledge of the judicial branch is the weakest. In theory, I know about the function of the Supreme Court, but I knew very little about the specifics of the people and the workings of the Court now, other than tidbits I'd pick up from the news and magazines. Now, having finished Mr. Toobin's excellent book, I feel like I know much more.

The Nine is not a comprehensive history of the Supreme Court. Instead, it is a look at the current make-up of the Court, particularly in the transition from the Rehnquist Court to the Roberts Court. It blends information on the history and personalities of various justices, a look at important rulings in their various tenures, and offers insight into how the Court might trend in the future. In laying this before us, Toobin gives us a nice overview of the last fifty years or so of American jurisprudence.

In particular, I feel I have a much better sense of these people who have shaped our culture in such powerful ways. Of course, by nature of their impact, some personalities stand out more than other. Sandra Day O'Connor, due to her position as a powerful swing vote on the Court, seems to come through most powerfully, though I feel Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy are also much clearer to me. I also have to admit, I enjoyed learning about Souter's eccentricities. The newer justices, like Roberts and Alito, don't get the depth of treatment due to their short tenure but Toobin takes their impact into account.

Overall, I was extremely pleased by this book. It is very easy to read and informative. There is an undercurrent of concern about how the direction of the Court changes with the appointment of new justices; however, I didn't feel this overwhelmed the flow of the narrative. That is, after all, how the Court changes. As much as we'd like to believe justice is impartial, it very much depends on the people who are meting it out. Mr. Toobin has given us a great look at how this is currently happening in the United States. Every American should read it.

I had to read for extra credit in a class I was taking; however, this is really an interesting read!

Toobin has written in "The Nine" a look at the Supreme Court as most of us have known it, or at least with the Justices we have known. He gives background on where each came from and how they came to be nominated. He discusses the cases on which they ruled and how those rulings have or will affect the laws of this country for some time to come. That he has some prejudices for liberals and against conservatives is clear. However, it's moderates that he praises most and in the Supreme Court, it seems that we have few liberals, and fewer moderates. Much of what he says about the cases can be proved or disproved by simply researching them and their precedents.

What citizens see of the Supreme Court in this book, and what we can see in Washington these days, is a polarization that is both frightening and counter-productive for our country. One of the more important points Toobin gives us in his story is that nothing is written in stone when it comes to our laws in general, particularly when it comes to laws protecting women's rights. If readers believe this book leans a little too much to the left, they should find another that leans a bit to the right, and if they are truly interested in the truth, they should go further and seek out a work that is strongly placed in the center. No one book can give the whole truth, and it's up to us to look at both sides of the issue.

Regardless of where the reader's sympathies and loyalties lie, Toobin gives a good starting place for understanding those who rule on our country's laws, and where their decisions may come from. It is unfortunate that those decisions are not based on blind justice. As interesting as it is, however, there are few places in which Toobin is more than a little obscure and his point is difficult to ferret out. A little more editing would have helped in those areas. In all, though, the book is very readable and should send us all to the book shelves for more information. After all, the general population has to live with what these nine decide, for good or ill.

For those passionate about the supreme court, Tobin's book is a great read. Well laid out for the common reader and picks up at an intersting itme in the court's history. VERY good read.

I was hoping for an update to "The Brethren" - what a disappointment! Toobin would have us believe that ideology and personality control virtually all Supreme Court decisions. The subtext is that there is a great conservative conspiracy. Much more fair and balanced is "Supreme Conflict" by Jan Crawford Greenburg. Toobin suggests that Justice O'Conner was more concerned with polling data than reasoned analysis (except, of course, for Stenberg v. Carhart, when she was "played" by Justice Breyer). The personal lives and opinions of the justices are interesting and even insightful. To think decisions are made in a vacuum is naïve. But to propose that ideology is the only consideration is shallow, even insulting. The internal inconsistencies and unsupported conclusions in this book are too many to mention. I confess, however, that Toobin has a good writing style, but so does John Grisham. They are equally instructive, but Grisham is more entertaining.

Overall this was a informative book. As most reviews here will attest, the author is plainly a liberal, but so what.

The essence of the book is that it describes how the Constitution is intrepreted according to the political leanings of the members of the court. The "law of the land" is in the hands of lifetime appointees to the highest court.

Regardless of who the President is and who controls Congress, the lifespans of the Supreme Court justices (or sometimes the health of their spouses) can determine the make-up of the court at any given time.

Should our rights be dictated by a series of 5-4 decisions by 9 justices who typically rule according to their political beliefs? Is THAT what the founding fathers intended?

Every one of Jeffery Toobin's books have been a "keeper" and this one is no exception. Toobin is an elegant writer who knows how to craft a story that defies you to put down the book. I always hate to reach the end, but always look forward to the next book. I have always enjoyed overall histories of the Court and the biographies of individual justices, and thought I knew most of what there was to know of these men and women. I should have known Jeff Toobin would reintroduce me to these important people in our lives and provide insights that let us know them and their motivations better. Toobin is incredibly gifted and his books are a treasure. Read this yourself, share it with others, buy it as a gift. It will show your good taste and its possession will educate, entertain and illuminate. It is one of those few books that I would take and stand in line to have signed. If it isn't clear, I really loved this book.

The Nine leans a bit to the left, but is nonetheless insightful in its history of significant cases and the lives of each Supreme Court justice. Toobin's crafting of prose from his many interviews and secondary sources result in a book that is a joy to read. The Nine covers events in our recent history such as Bush v Gore in 2000 to the failure of Harriet Myers to gain the support needed to win over true conservatives and the Senate confirmation to the end of the 2006-2007 Supreme Court term under Chief Justice Roberts. I have come to know Toobin from the current presidential campaign as part of CNN's "best political team on television" but this book sets him apart from his political contemporaries as a true journalist and modern historian.

I really enjoyed this book. In the interest of full disclosure, I will mention that I am currently a 3L in law school, so I might have had more perspective than someone not in the legal profession. I had read most of the cases mentioned in the book, but I was repeatedly struck at how amazing the author was at breaking down complicated fact patterns and decisions in way that could be easily understood by someone will absolutely no legal background. The book was very interesting and contained tons of information that helps to more easily understand why the Court so often acts as it does and why it is such a powerful institution. I also thought the book was very fair, and although those who are familiar with the author know his political leanings, I thought he did a magnificent job of being very evenhanded. He managed to protray those than I personally find highly distasteful in a way that made me at least respect them in certain aspects. A very well-written an intriguing book, and a definite must for anyone who wants to know more about the Rehnquist Court, the Supreme Court in general or who just wants to understand what a significant role the Court plays in our democracy.

Whether you lean to the right or to the left may determine your satisfaction in reading this book, but it shouldn't. Bias must be expected in most writing, particularly on a subject such as this. Recognizing this, the observant reader must take it with a grain of salt and move forward regardless, lest miss a good read. Toobin is not so reekingly blatant that his writing cannot be appreciated. Keep in mind that ideological divides in this country are more polarizing and politicized than any other issues including race and religion. The Supreme Court is not exempt. In fact, it is the major battleground for these ideological wars. Toobin recognizes this, and with clarity, builds a strong case to demonstrate some of the polarity. He successfully conveys to the reader the process in which, on these grounds, the Supreme Court Justice is greatly challenged and tactically politicized. Despite this, in my estimation, after reading Toobin's book I found that while the opinions of the Supreme Court Justices may vary ideologically, they remain generally logical and sensible. Likewise, final Court rulings are remarkably fair and balanced. However, Toobin would argue that the Gore vs. Bush ruling was an an exception to this.

Whether you lean to the right or to the left may determine your satisfaction in reading this book, but it shouldn't. Bias must be expected in most writing, particularly on a subject such as this. The observant reader must recognize this, take it with a grain of salt, and move forward regardless. Toobin is not so reekingly blatant that his writing cannot be appreciated. Keep in mind that ideological divides in this country are more polarizing and politicized than any other issues including race and religion. The Supreme Court is not exempt. In fact, it is the major battleground for these ideological wars. Toobin recognizes this, and with clarity, builds a strong case to support this. He successfully conveys to the reader the process in which, on these grounds, the Supreme Court Justice is greatly challenged and tactically politicized. Despite this, in my estimation, after reading Toobin's book I find that while the opinions of the Supreme Court Justices may vary ideologically, they remain generally logical and sensible. Likewise, final Court rulings are remarkably fair and balanced. However, Toobin would argue that the Gore vs. Bush ruling was an an exception to this.

It is very impressive that the author was able to get access to so many, if not all, of the justices. And his organization and writing style make the book easy to read. The book might have been better if it had been divided into a behind the scenes section and a "the disenchantment of O'Connor" section, rather than raising the O'Connor theme here and there, but only once with the detail and analysis it deserved. The O'Connor/Bush story probably could stand on its own as a book. I think the author gives O'Connor too much praise for political intuition, but agree that she has it and demonstrated that she has it. It's one thing to speculate about how the swing justices have and use power, quite another to read of actual cases, and rules of law, that were shaped by them doing so. The author does a very good job at showing how the center can shift from issue to issue, and, for the most part, and excepting presidential election disputes, how thoughtful the justices are in advocating for their views. Amusingly, it looks like the square if not prissy ways that were chronicled in "The Brethren" 30 years ago live on in the 21st century.

...would be "How Conservative Republicans Have Attempted To Destroy Justice in America". Toobin is another lefty who longs for a return of the Warren Court. At least 50 % of the book is taken up with direct attacks on Justices Thomas, Scalia, Alioto, and Roberts. Toobin's opinions in this book are written as facts being conveyed by one who is much more learned than any of the seated justices. I'm sure in his own mind he would make the perfect Chief Justice.

Don't waste your time or money on this liberal manifesto!

When you complete this book, you will realize that the ongoing legacy of the fiasco called the Bush presidency will be the Roberts Court.

Other than the author's devotion to Sandra O'Conner, this book is an excellent read about the Court and it's disgraceful conduct over the past years. One does not have to read to far to realize the lack of quality and character that sits on the court today.

One can only hope that the next president will have the opportunity to pick judges of integrity and principle. This group has little of either.

I was very disappointed by Toobin's effort. I had wanted a good, balanced, non-partisan look into the workings of the Supreme Court. This is not it.

Toobin adheres to the left's talking points throughout: Anita Hill told the truth, Thomas is an idiot Uncle Tom, the Supreme Court elected Bush and this was the lowest point in Supreme Court history, etc, etc.

The liberal justices are granted near sainthood, while the conservative justices are treated as greatly flawed because they are conservative. Efforts by conservatives to achieve a conservative majority (achieving a majority is a noble and perfectly proper effort for either side) is spoken of pejoratively, while the liberals' horror at such attempts is treated sympathetically.

This book could hardly be a look at "the Secret World of the Supreme Court" since there is nothing "secret" revealed here: we have heard it all over and over and over again, ad nauseum, from every liberal pundit.

This book is nothing more than a polemic, worth reading only if you list significantly to the left.

"The worst offense that can be committed by a polemic is to stigmatize those who hold a contrary opinion as bad and immoral men." [John Stuart Mill, 1806-73]

This account of the recent transformation of the Supreme Court was a surprising page-turner. Toobin balances historical perspective of the court and its justices with clear, methodical explanation of how the court's current configuration came to be. I was surprised by his claims of the court prior to "W's" appointments as being the "O'Connor court" in which her swing vote, her disillusionment with the Republican party, and her independence managed to drive the court's closest decisions for more than a decade. If you are looking for a book that looks deeply into the workings of the court and its decision-making processes, this is the book for you. As a person who enjoys writing about politics, history, and current issues, I found it fascinating and riveting.

This is a well written easy read that avoids legal jargon. It is not intended to, and does not, present either detailed legal analysis of a variety of important Supreme Court decisions over the last 15 years or a detailed description of the mechanics of the Supreme Court. Instead through a discussion of various cases, the author provides insight into the personalities and interaction of the justices, and confirms what every lawyer and many other people know, namely, that cases are not decided on abstract legal principles, but in political contexts that are shaped by the own judicial philosophies of each justice. For the most part (though not always) the author refrains from interjecting his own political views, but instead lets the dynamics of the justices' interaction and resulting decisions speak for themselves.

The strong point of this book lies in focusing on the justices as people, who like everyone else, have been shaped by different backgrounds and events in their lives, and how that impacts their decision making. The book also provides interesting personal tales, such as the families of Justices Scalia and Ginsburg celebrating New Years Eve together on a regular basis (even though on the Court their views are often diametrically opposed).

If you want to read an interesting book about a group of people whose decision making affects our everyday lives in dramatic ways, you will enjoy this book.

This book is one the current bestsellers for the Amazon Kindle, which I own and on which I read this book.

A truly well written book. Easy to read and a book that once you begin is not easy to put down. The book gives a suprisingly insight into the workings of the court and all the little personal situations between the Justices and their egos. Mr.Toobin did an excellent job of showing a "secretive" group that they too are normal human beings with personal prejudices and goals. This is a book that everyone should read.

Outstanding! A non-fiction book that is a real page turner. Toobin shows detailed knowledge of the justices personalities and interactions on the court as well as their impact on the U.S. political scene. I'm 3/4 through the book and loving it. A definite positive. I'm learning a lot.

Great, quick read. I was surprised that I could not put the book down. Mr. Toobin did a terrific job of writing in almost a novel style prose while still staying true to the facts. As a lawyer it was a great glimpse into the Ivory Tower and I can't wait to go and visit the Supreme Court, now that I have my "inside" knowledge.

I very much enjoyed reading Jeffrey Toobin's book The Nine. I believe that the value of the book is significant for its elucidation of the characters of the studied justices and not primarily as a study or legal contextualization of their issued opinions.

I have only a few criticisms and they are:

(1) Toobin is so fluid a writer that some of his broader statements might be ceded more authority than they deserve. To me the most serious stumbling block in this vein is on p. 24: "The history of the Court abounds with long tenures, but even three decades does not guarantee that a justice will leave much of a legacy. Forgotten justices like ... Robert Greer (twenty-four) illustrate that longevity and obscurity can coexist." Lest we forget, it was on March 20, 1863, that Justice Greer of the Taney Court handed down a 5-4 decision in the famous Prize Cases. Had the Court, had Greer for example, gone the other way, there would have been "a judicial calamity from which the Union might not have recovered." I am quoting the words of James Simon from his wonderful book "Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney." It seems to me quite possible that this one decision may have been among only a handful of all Supreme Court decisions that acted to preserve and protect the Union.

(2) The voting in Florida in Bush/Gore was indeed close but on p. 144 Toobin engages in what seems hyperbole backed up by questionable arithmetic. He claims Bush's margin was "0.00000056 percent." I believe he divided where he should have multiplied and that the correct answer is 0.0056 percent. So it goes.

You know that guy you used to hang out with who was a lot of fun to be around and always had interesting things to say? At least until he went through... that breakup (or any other manner of personal crisis). After that, every conversation was tinged with bitterness, sarcasm, and a general negativity that found a way to bring everybody down - until you just stopped talking to him.

That's Jeffrey Toobin in this book.

I was really interested in the subject matter and had heard so much about the book that I was excited to see what "The Nine" had in store.

I was... disappointed.

Don't get me wrong. I found the subject matter of the book and the overall writing style, very entertaining. It's just... Toobin definitely has an opinion about "the way things should be" and he seems to delight in ensuring his readers know it. Through unnecessary prose and barbed descriptions, his writing fairly exudes contempt for those 'characters' in his story who hold any opinion that varies from his own. I was trying to be entertained by the fascinating story of America's highest court, but I kept getting hijacked into Toobin's personal crusade.

If I could give this book 2.5 stars, I would, because it did have a great deal of merit. Unfortunately, the rancorous tone really distracted me from enjoying what should easily have been a 4 or 5 star book.

Highly recommended to a wide audience; even close watchers of the court. The Nine is a highly readable and enjoyable profile of the current nine justices along with their recent predecessors.

The Nine is not about the current collective state of jurisprudence and what we should expect to see change under the Robert's court as much as it is a character profile of each justice Toobin was able to effectively probe.

The criticism of other reviewers that Toobin was unable to secure access to some of the justices, most evidently Scalia, Ginsburg, Alito and Souter, is valid. But what author has been able to achieve pervasive access of all the justices comprising a sitting court? None that I know about, including Woodward's seminal The Brethern: Inside the Supreme Court which relied heavily on clerks as well. I would argue that our expectations should be modest on any book revealing each individual justice's private thoughts of the court given the historical and strongly held culture of the court to optimally reveal itself only through its written opinions and occasional memoir.

Toobin is to be commended for the access he was able to secure since it contributes to our collecting understanding of the court, which I predict will play a major role in our immediate future every bit as radical as the New Deal court if a Republican wins the '08 election.

Toobin's book is also highly recommended over a competing profile of the current justices, Jan Crawford Greenburg's Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court . While Greenburg's perspective seems to based on the shallow understanding and perspective of media pundits, especially the conservative media, Toobin is much more capable of framing his observations based on the history of SCOTUS jurisprudence and the perspective of the judges and clerks themselves.

I do take exception to Toobin framing conservative political objectives through the rhetoric conservatives use, which grossly mischaracterizes the constitutional issues at play. For example, on pg. 3 Toobin claims conservatives want more religion in the "public sphere" when the real issue is that drives conflict in this area is that conservatives want to use the power of government to promote their particular religious beliefs even if it violates the equal protection rights of individuals who do not share their beliefs. I can provide many more examples in the comments section if asked.

Toobin also allows Scalia and Thomas to get away with their repeated claims of being originalists who merely want to rule based on the original meaning and/or intent of the Constitution rather than allegedly following the example by their ideological opponents who they claim use the Constitution to meet liberal or temporal political objectives. We have ample evidence, statistically significant to be exact, that both of these justices are happily willing to contradict the original meaning of the Constitution if required to meet a current conservative political objective and are statistically much more inclined to than the moderates and liberals of the court (see Yale study on activism and book on Thomas I link to below).

In fact, one weakness of the book is that Toobin ignores how Stevens is able to write better originalist opinions than either Thomas or Scalia, an example of this in play would have provided a more accurate picture of the hypocrisy of the claimed originalists, especially Scalia, and especially to the general audience reading this book given that constitutional experts are already well aware of this phenomena, with especially Scalia now that he's in the majority.

See Scalia's A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law (The University Center for Human Values Series) and First Principles: The Jurisprudence of Clarence Thomas for evidence of earlier "activist" (their use of the word, not mine) rulings by them and especially the Thomas book on a statistical survey of Thomas' votes.

So while Toobin didn't cover Ginsburg, Souter, and Stevens as well as I would have liked. He does an excellent job on O'Connor and Kennedy while we have plenty of material to get to know Scalia, Thomas, and Breyer, just not in this book. Because it adds to our knowledge base, especially the elusive Souter, it's worth the read.

Not just for the law professionals, and those interested in politics ... This is a real book for everyone.