A number of aspects of this book make it very readable. Certainly, the four watershed cases, each presented with some detail and background, are good reading, and each highlights an important chapter in American history. The author' s critical opinions of the personalities and accomplishments of the Justices lend a sharp focus to each of the Courts. Then, the reasonable brevity of the book gives the reader a good opportunity to reflect over both the evolution of the Supreme Court and how it relates to the development of the United States as a whole.



Looking back over the history of the Supreme Court, it is clear, as the author notes, that the work of the Court is a dynamic process. A great deal has changed since the Constitution was first composed. The world has become considerably more crowded and complex, and anyone who has observed this change over time, from the original thirteen states on the edge of a largely unexplored and unknown continent to the urbanized and highly organized society with electronic technology, can appreciate the unavoidable growth of regulation and the increasing role of law. The Founders, of course, could never have anticipated such changes. What they did lay down was a basis of stability. The original Constitution contains a basis that goes as far as setting up a framework of checks and balances and providing a Bill of Rights. When the Founders departed from generalities, such as in assigning the authority to "coin money" with no apparent authority to print money, it soon became hopelessly out of date.



The watershed cases mark long histories of injustice that involve a great deal of struggle. The ruling in the Dred Scott case, in which it was decided that black slaves were not anything more than property, created an uproar that in large part was responsible for plunging the country into a civil war. In the aftermath of Reconstruction, after amendments were passed that henceforth allowed citizenship, the problem of inequality took a different turn toward the evils of segregation, and was not resolved for a long time afterward, not until 1953, when the Warren Court decided Brown v. Broad of Education. In a similar vein, the Lochner case showed how far the Court of the time was willing to use ideology, a theory of economics, in promoting the survival of the fittest. For a very long time, throughout the industrial revolution, the Court struck down statutes that sought to protect workers and children from unfair labor practices. It was not until 1937 that the tide was finally turned.

A number of aspects of this book make it very readable. Certainly, the four watershed cases, each presented with some detail and background, are good reading, and each highlights an important chapter in American history. The author' s critical opinions of the personalities and accomplishments of the Justices lend a sharp focus to each of the Courts. Then, the reasonable brevity of the book gives the reader a good opportunity to reflect over both the evolution of the Supreme Court and how it relates to the development of the United States as a whole.

Looking back over the history of the Supreme Court, it is clear, as the author notes, that the work of the Court is a dynamic process. A great deal has changed since the Constitution was first composed. The world has become considerably more crowded and complex, and anyone who has observed this change over time, from the original thirteen states on the edge of a largely unexplored and unknown continent to the urbanized and highly organized society with electronic technology, can appreciate the unavoidable growth of regulation and the increasing role of law. The Founders, of course, could never have anticipated such changes. What they did lay down was a basis of stability. The original Constitution contains a basis that goes as far as setting up a framework of checks and balances and providing a Bill of Rights. When the Founders departed from generalities, such as in assigning the authority to "coin money" with no apparent authority to print money, it soon became hopelessly out of date.

The watershed cases mark long histories of injustice that involve a great deal of struggle. The ruling in the Dred Scott case, in which it was decided that black slaves were not anything more than property, created an uproar that in large part was responsible for plunging the country into a civil war. In the aftermath of Reconstruction, after amendments were passed that henceforth allowed citizenship, the problem of inequality took a different turn toward the evils of segregation, and was not resolved for a long time afterward, not until 1953, when the Warren Court decided Brown v. Broad of Education. In a similar vein, the Lochner case showed how far the Court of the time was willing to use ideology, a theory of economics, in promoting the survival of the fittest. For a very long time, throughout the industrial revolution, the Court struck down statutes that sought to protect workers and children from unfair labor practices. It was not until 1937 that the tide was finally turned.

I give five stars for three reasons. First, unlike many other legal histories it has few Latin phrases and most legal terms are explained. Second, the competition is multivolume tombs, most of which are very out dated, so this is by default the best book out there. Third, arguably, every major justice and case that shaped the philosophy of Constitutional Law is covered. It is remarkable that such long history can be meaningfully condensed into one book. It is an excellent reference to look up subjects that appear in books, news and current events. It is essential for understanding Constitutional Law.

For a faster read try skimming through some of the drier (or less well written) biographical descriptions, which are relatively easy to weed out. Schwartz covers some of the most interesting aspects of the early court when the Justices also served on the federal circuit court, spending as much as six months of the year traveling cross country under the most brutal conditions. Schwartz describes the evolution of Constitutional Law involving the struggle between the federal and state governments leading up to and after the Civil War. His coverage of Holmes during the development of the modern system of federal government is very good, although sometimes biased with Schwartz's liberal views. Schwartz goes into special detail for Civil Rights with chapters on Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade. Roe not only concerns abortion, it also establishes for the first time the Constitutionality of autonomy: the right to choose medical treatment, raise a family when and how you wish, as well as a right to shape your intellect and personality - and that is a fascinating read. While at times Schwartz carries on for a few pages about quarrels and politics that reveal little, he does get to the point, which is often worth the wait.

Criticism
As much as this book puts all the pieces together, it makes a lot more sense if you know some of the pieces first. If you have a special interest on a time period; Revolutionary period, Jacksonian Era, labor movement, Civil Rights or Constitutional Law, there are sections that are waiting for you.

While Schwartz does include surrounding events, he concentrates on the philosophy, particularly the development of liberal ideals in Constitutional Law. He even goes out of his way to criticize Richard Posner, a Federal Circuit Court Judge from the "Chicago-school" (economic law as part of curriculum) and prolific writer who has views every bit as conservative as Schwartz's views are liberal. An absence of political commentary would have made for a better history (not that I prefer Posner).

His history does reveal the undertones of political tug-of-war between Congress or the Executive against the Court, but he occasionally attributes events in history to the genus of certain justices rather than as a product of a complex process. This is particularly true with his description of Holmes, who is one of his heroes (and rightly so). In a period when there was little clarity in how to apply the Constitution to a giant expanding and industrializing country, the members of the court had to rely on their own personal experience and ethics for many decisions. While Holmes would make glorious arguments about the Constitutionality of his decisions, ultimately his conscience, and not the law, was his guide - a criticism that he had of his opponents.

The philosophy of the law, through a history of men and their deeds, is covered quite extensively, which makes this an important history of the Supreme Court despite my criticisms. This book is much less philosophical or convoluted than Morton H. Horwitz's The Transformation of American Law: 1870-1960 (not to be confused with the first volume, 1780-1860, which I highly recommend). I don't want Schwartz to have written a better book (well maybe a little better organized), what I want is for a modern legal historian to write a history of the Supreme Court using contemporary scholarship - a companion to Lawrence Friedman's A History of American Law 3rd edition. Besides, a lot has happened since 1993 and it is time for an update.

Readability rating: 6
Out of 10, two points off for vocabulary, two points off for excessive pontificating.
Most historical accounts written by lawyers are illegible to the layperson because of the spattering of French and Latin terminology, a frustration for anyone who did not spend a year in college learning legalese. Schwartz explains most of the legal terminology he use, but I still had to look things up, starting on page 6 with "general writ of assistance (its on the web)." And, Schwartz never uses one word when he can use two and he often seems to be quoting just for the sake of using a reference. He even quotes a review of one of his earlier works to support his argument, which is simply bad scholarship (p 269 n. 24). But, don't let this stop you, I rarely give any book more than an 8 unless it is a fantastic read -- and if I disliked it I would have given it a lower score.

Research Rating - moderate
Schwartz likes to write a lot before getting to the point, and sometimes the point is expressed in very long complex sentences. This makes hard to find good quotes. .
Footnotes are numerous but arranged in a the older Chicago Style. For instance, on page 437, "80. 112 S. Ct. at 2813-2814" refers to "Planned Parenthood v Casey, 1992", but you must carefully read three pages of notes figure this out. Also, notes are listed by chapter number, not chapter title or page, making it harder to find the note. .
The bibliography and index are excellent, and there is a separate case index.
While the book is packed with good and well researched information, much of it from original or primary sources, it is not always presented effectively or without bias.

Bernard Schwartz's "A History of the Supreme Court" is a readable if dry narrative of the 200 years of the Supreme Court between John Jay and William Rhenquist. The story of the supreme court is a complicated one, and for the most part, Schwartz tells it well. If his book is short on analysis and long on description, it is probably more due to the nature of the subject then to the qualities of the author.

Schwartz focuses on two main themes in the narrative. The first one, addressed in the Prologue and in the first few chapters, deal with the practice of Judicial Review in Anglo-Saxon common law, and especially in the early US, where under Chief Justice Marshall, the supreme court has been established as SUPREME - that is, in position to pass judgment on State legislators, State courts, and even the US Congress.

The theme is very prominent in the early history of the Court, where the Supreme Court fulfilled its Hamiltonian role as the final authority on the constitutionality of law. Very early, US Justices have proved that they were every bit the politicians as the Jurists - Chief Marshall successfully established Judicial Review in his Marbury vs. Madison decision, while Roger B Taney catastrophically endangered it in his attempt to end the political crisis of the Union via his Dred Scott Decision.

Later in the book, Schwartz still devotes time to the question of Judicial Review, but then in a new disguise - that of Judicial restraint, which Schwartz first sees in the actions of Roger B Taney, but which were only manifested plainly in the dissents of Oliver Wendell Holmes, most famously in the Lochner vs. New York case (1905), where the majority judges, led by Rufus W. Peckham, substituted its judgement to that of the legislative branch, and ruled a law restricting working hours unconstitutional. Under Judicial Restraints, the Supreme Court was only to overrule laws which no reasonable person could say were constitutional.

The other major theme in Schwartz's narrative is the switch from the primacy of property rights in the 19th century, to the supremacy of personal rights in the 20th. As the US came to allow much more government intervention in the economy, Schwartz argues, the rights of the private citizen, and especially the rights guaranteed in the bill of rights and the right of privacy had to be privileged. This tendency reached its climax in the Warren court, and particularly in the Brown vs. Board of Education decision. Surprisingly, though, the subsequent Burger court did not overthrow the trend. Rather, important personal rights judgements (such as Miranda) were affirmed, and even the right to abortion was guaranteed, as a right included within the right of privacy. The Rhenquist Court, though even more conservative then the Berger Court, has yet to turn the tables on Warren's revolution; indeed, the recent judgement against anti-Homosexual laws in Texas is another landmark civil rights decision.

Schwartz's book is interesting and thorough, but is not without flaws. The writing is somewhat crude, and Schwartz quotes other historians much too much. Schwartz has also an irritating tendency to use the same quote several times, and one quote from judge Frankfurter appears four times at least. The book also has the annoying tendency to assume all the readers are Americans.

Worse, sometimes Schwartz's scholarship is lacking. In the case of Dred Scott vs. Sandford, for example, Schwartz's makes no reference to the classic study by Don E. Fehernbacher (The Dred Scott Case: Its Significance in American Law and Politics), either in the text or in the bibliography. As a consequence, several of Schwartz's conclusion are somewhat distorted, and sometimes his views come out of the blue entirely. Thus Schwartz calls Stephen Douglas "the chief political victim of the Dred Scott Decision" [p.124] which is inaccurate and highly misleading. In the short run, Douglas's popularity in the South did not diminish after the Dred Scot decision, and when it did, it was due to his opposition to Lecomptonnot to Dred Scott. In any event, Schwartz completely ignores the sectional split within the Democratic Party, a split that was indeed seemingly worsened by the Dred Scott decision, which abandoned ambiguity in favour of an endorsement of the Southern view.

Ultimately, Schwartz's book is both instructive and readable. If it is does not quite warrant a general endorsement, it is a good primer for those interested in American legal history.

Bernard Schwartz's "A History of the Supreme Court" is a readable if dry narrative of the 200 years of the Supreme Court between John Jay and William Rhenquist. The story of the supreme court is a complicated one, and for the most part, Schwartz tells it well. If his book is short on analysis and long on description, it is probably more due to the nature of the subject then to the qualities of the author.

Schwartz focuses on two main themes in the narrative. The first one, addressed in the Prologue and in the first few chapters, deal with the practice of Judicial Review in Anglo-Saxon common law, and especially in the early US, where under Chief Justice Marshall, the supreme court has been established as SUPREME - that is, in position to pass judgment on State legislators, State courts, and even the US Congress.

The theme is very prominent in the early history of the Court, where the Supreme Court fulfilled its Hamiltonian role as the final authority on the constitutionality of law. Very early, US Justices have proved that they were every bit the politicians as the Jurists - Chief Marshall successfully established Judicial Review in his Marbury vs. Madison decision, while Roger B Taney catastrophically endangered it in his attempt to end the political crisis of the Union via his Dred Scott Decision.

Later in the book, Schwartz still devotes time to the question of Judicial Review, but then in a new disguise - that of Judicial restraint, which Schwartz first sees in the actions of Roger B Taney, but which were only manifested plainly in the dissents of Oliver Wendell Holmes, most famously in the Lochner vs. New York case (1905), where the majority judges, led by Rufus W. Peckham, substituted its judgement to that of the legislative branch, and ruled a law restricting working hours unconstitutional. Under Judicial Restraints, the Supreme Court was only to overrule laws which no reasonable person could say were constitutional.

The other major theme in Schwartz's narrative is the switch from the primacy of property rights in the 19th century, to the supremacy of personal rights in the 20th. As the US came to allow much more government intervention in the economy, Schwartz argues, the rights of the private citizen, and especially the rights guaranteed in the bill of rights and the right of privacy had to be privileged. This tendency reached its climax in the Warren court, and particularly in the Brown vs. Board of Education decision. Surprisingly, though, the subsequent Burger court did not overthrow the trend. Rather, important personal rights judgements (such as Miranda) were affirmed, and even the right to abortion was guaranteed, as a right included within the right of privacy. The Rhenquist Court, though even more conservative then the Berger Court, has yet to turn the tables on Warren's revolution; indeed, the recent judgement against anti-Homosexual laws in Texas is another landmark civil rights decision.

Schwartz's book is interesting and thorough, but is not without flaws. The writing is somewhat crude, and Schwartz quotes other historians much too much. Schwartz has also an irritating tendency to use the same quote several times, and one quote from judge Frankfurter appears four times at least. The book also has the annoying tendency to assume all the readers are Americans.

Worse, sometimes Schwartz's scholarship is lacking. In the case of Dred Scott vs. Sandford, for example, Schwartz's makes no reference to the classic study by Don E. Fehernbacher, either in the text or in the bibliography. As a consequence, several of Schwartz's conclusion are somewhat distorted, and sometimes his views come out of the blue entirely. Thus Schwartz calls Stephen Douglas "the chief political victim of the Dred Scott Decision" [p.124] which is inaccurate and highly misleading. In the short run, Douglas's popularity in the South did not diminish after the Dred Scot decision, and when it did, it was due to his opposition to Lexington, not to Dred Scott. In any event, Schwartz completely ignores the sectional split within the Democratic Party, a split that was indeed seemingly worsened by the Dred Scott decision, which abandoned ambiguity in favour of an endorsement of the Southern view.

Ultimately, Schwartz's book is both instructive and readable. If it is does not quite warrant a general endorsement, it is a good primer for those interested in American legal history.

Supreme Court history books are ridiculously difficult to find. In part, it's because the Supreme Court is notoriously secretive about its inner workings; in part, it's because to outline a history of the Supreme Court is by necessity to cover law as it applies to the Constitution, which can be pretty dry stuff.

I was vigilant, however. And in Bernard Schwartz's 1993 _A History of the Supreme Court_, I found almost the perfect book for what I was looking for: a non-lawyer's history of the Supreme Court.

Schwartz begins with a quick history of judicial review, the founding principle of the Supreme Court. He also goes into some detail as to the Judiciary Acts and how they affected the Court over the years. I admit: I found this section dry. However, once Schwartz began covering the specific Justices (organized by era according to the Chief Justice that presided over time), things pick up, and I really began to feel like I was learning something useful.

Schwartz also covers four of what he considers to be "watershed" cases, and goes into some detail as to the reason why the cases were accepted, deliberations, and how each justice reacted in deciding the cases. The four cases -- Dred Scott v. Sandford, Lochner v. New York, Brown v. Board of Education, and Roe v. Wade -- are certainly landmark cases, and really provide a good deal of continuity from one era to the next of the Supreme Court.

I would have liked for Schwartz to have been slightly less even handed with his commentary; he acts as an apologist for both Taney and Burger, and I have little sympathy for the two men even after reading about them from a fairly sympathetic point of view. I would also have liked to have had slightly more biographical history on some judges, especially the ones that he tantalizingly mentions in a poor light, and then moves on after merely a sentence. Schwartz's book is remarkably optimistic for such a scholarly presentation.

Particularly, I enjoyed Schwartz's treatment of Holmes, Jackson, Frankfurter, and Warren; I would very much have liked to learn more about Hughes, Brennan, Douglas, Black, Harlan, and a host of other judges. However, I didn't purchase a copy of _A History of the Supreme Court Justices_, I purchased a copy of _A History of the Supreme Court_, and that's what Schwartz delivers.

Schartz's near-Panglossian view of the Court -- practically that each Chief Justice, save perhaps Vinson and White, were there at the precise time they were needed -- rankles a bit from time to time, but as a relatively quick, non-legal history of the Supreme Court, I can highly recommend this book.

Schwatz's history is easily accesible and not bogged down with too much technical jargin. This book is best for non-students of the Court for it offers little more than an overview without a great deal of significant analysis. The exception being the fairly good case studies of Dred Scott, Lochner, Brown, and Roe. Though the book offers little to the historical debate concerning the Court, it wasn't really supposed to. Schwartz wanted to write a relatively short, accesible, single volume history of the Supreme Court. He succeded. I recomend it for anyone interested in the basics of the Court and it's history.

Schwatz's history is easily accesible and not bogged down with too much technical jargin. This book is best for non-students of the Court for it offers little more than an overview without a great deal of significant analysis. The exception being the fairly good case studies of Dred Scott, Lochner, Brown, and Roe. Though the book offers little to the historical debate concerning the Court, it wasn't really supposed to. Schwartz wanted to write a relatively short, accesible, single volume history of the Supreme Court. He succeded. I recomend it for anyone interested in the basics of the Court and it's history.

One is shocked at the frequency with which the same stories crop up over and over again in this book. If you read it over a weekend, you'll notice that many times the same sentences appear in different chapters. Some stories appear three and four times! In short, the author gravely needed an editor.

Typically of Supreme Court historians, this one adopted a very "Whiggish" view of history: the Supreme Court's story was one of the advancement of goodness and truth, and any retrograde movement was only temporary. Didn't this Hegelian stuff go out with the fall of the Berlin Wall (if not with the opening of World War I)? Can anyone really believe this stuff?

Readers who do not share Schwartz's apparent conviction that bigger government is always better will have yet another reason to regret having read this book. How can one answer the assertions that the whole New Deal alphabet soup was worthwhile, especially now that most of that expensive mess has been abolished years ago? Just take his word for its goodness, I guess; it must have been constitutional, or else the Supreme Court (in its benificent omniscience) would never have held it constitutional! (never mind that it at first held it unconstitutional).

Charles Warren's old history remains superior, although its age obviously indicates that someone needs to write a new history of the Supreme Court. This is not it.

My interest is in American history in general, not the Supreme Court or American law in particular, and I found this book very good in its treatment of the issues, the personalities, and the times in which decisions were made. Although the first 50 pages were slow-going, once into the direction that Schwartz was leading me, I found the book moved nicely and quickly with a solid narrative. The four case studies, Dred Scott, Lochner, Brown vs. Board of Education, and Roe v. Wade, brought the larger times into view. I thoroughly enjoyed the small details of individual judges, such as Rehnquist having been a clerk at the court decades before he was a justice there, that help shape and explain seemingly contradictory actions by individual jurists. Emminently readable, it is excellent history.

Prof. Schwartz' book is the best I have read on the subject to date, and as a Judge, I have a particular interest in the Supreme Court. Schwartz' writing flows, and his knowledge is second to none. I recommend this book to anyone even casually interested in the Supreme Court. He really brings this subject to life.

As a University of Tulsa College of Law Alum, I was fortunate enough to have been instructed in Constitutional Law by Professor Schwartz. His lucid, anecdotal style of teaching inspired me(yes, I did say inspire) to read A History of the Supreme Court. I found it to be the most entertaining and informative one volume treatise available on this venerable institution. I can honestly say that this book is a must for anyone, laymen or lawyer, who would like to know more about the branch of government that shapes the laws that shape our lives.

This summer I took a CTY course that was on U.S. history and Constitutional law and how the two work together. We had a lot of reading in a book by Stanley Kutler. We used Schwartz to help us understand what Kutler was saying. Schwartz helped me a lot by explaining a lot of what was going on at diffrent times in the Supreme Court. This book is also filled with a lot of intresting facts like how at the beginning of the Supreme Court Cheif Justice Jay was going to wear a wig, like British Judges, and how the court got to its present attire.Schwartz is definitly a good book to have handy when researching the Supreme Court

Author succeeds in packing sufficient detail into a one volume work without getting into overload and, more importantly, while keeping it readable. The chapters on ROE and BROWN are worth the read in itself. Read this instead of THE BRETHREN. Also check out Gunther's bio on Judge Hand