It is understandable why Mr. Toobin's "The Nine" received so many kudos and vaulted onto numerous book critics' top-ten list for the year. Like three of his earlier works pertaining to the OJ Simpson trial, President Clinton's impeachment fiasco and the 2000 Florida recount catastrophe, the author has produced a knowledgable and engrossing book about the Supreme Court. I have always been perplexed and discouraged about the near total indifference by many voters when it comes to a potential President's effect on the makeup of the Court. Mr. Toobin has done a great service by fleshing out the individual Justices who reside in this important institution. The Justices are not depicted as static, one-dimensional beings, but individuals who continue to evolve during their tenures on the Court. Is the book opinionated? Absolutely. Is he a harsher critic of the more conservative Justices? Definitely. Is the book educational and worth reading? Without a doubt.

There are a lot of "facts" in this book which are better described as the author's liberal bias. Toobin had some direct access to individual justices, but not all, and often resorts to his opinions. If you like liberal interpretations, this is for you. Objectivity is non-existent.

The book arrived promptly in new condition as promised.

Excellent book. It's intersting, very informative, very readable, and a book everyone should read.
Ruth Jaffe

The theme of this book is that the Supreme Court is just another political branch, differing from Congress and the Executive only in the life tenure of its members, and their consequent shelter from elections. "Political" means that, in Toobin's view, the Justices decide cases in accordance with their partisan views.

Whether that is true or not is too large a question to settle here. We need only say that there is evidence on all sides of it, and he does not present all sides. Instead, he selects the most politically-charged cases, all on the frontiers of constitutional analysis, and hence a misleading sample.

The book is mostly narrative, describing the nominations and confirmations of the last 17 years, and a dozen or so of the Court's most controverial decisions. Toobin has the TV commentator's skill at rendering the complex clear. You can also see in his writing that faintly arrogant smirk that characterizes his TV commentaries. But it is good and attention-keeping reading.

Toobin himself is a political liberal and a "living Constitutionalist". Yet he is reasonably even-handed in his treatment.

The main disappointment is that, despite Toobin's claim of insider access, there is little not previously known. The most striking insider revelation is in Chief Justice Rehnquist's note to Justice Scalia after Scalia had circulated a disparaging dissent to an O'Connor draft: "Nino, you're pissing off Sandra again. Stop it."

i sent the book to a friend who is in prison and he received it promptly and is enjoyin it very much.

This is a reprise of Woodward's 1970s study of the Burger Court, including the use of law clerk interviews to ferret out interesting bits of gossip and inside information on the highly secretive workings of the Court. Woodward was a bit more skilled at getting better gossip, though Toobin's efforts are worthwhile.

Toobin's vignettes as to the personal styles and influence of O'Connor, Breyer, and Kennedy are quite interesting. Of more substance is the portrayal of Rehnquist's administrative skills and the era of consensus and good feeling he brought to the Court.

Toobin's thesis, though, is that this consensus is at war with the far right's struggle to take over the Court and to push it to reverse Roe v. Wade, cut back on national power vis a vis the States, and (somewhat inconsistently)strenghten the national executive power. He persuasively shows the efforts by the far right to groom and select predictably conservative judges.

I'm not entirely convinced that Chief Justice Roberts falls in this category, despite Toobin's arguments to the contrary. Roberts seems to promote consensus and seems to possess a great deal of intellectual curiousity and integrity, which would tend to defy any ability to ensure and predict his vote in any one particular case.

The chapter on Bush v. Gore is disappointing and buys into the popular dismissal of the ruling as the result of 5 purely partisan votes. Political partisanship on any court is, of course, a fact to be reckoned with, but I doubt that judges and lawyers who spend their lives in this profession would so wholeheartedly agree that law is merely "politics by other means". Toobin does not grapple with the cases in a way that shows that quite often cases are decided from a coherent body of neutral jurisprudential principles and less as a matter of blatant, naked partisanship.

The Bush v. Gore case was horribly written, but the result can be advocated on the basis of a legitimate jurisprudential philosophy that the Court should have done a better job of articulating. That philosophy had more to do with the justices' doubts about the ability of the judiciary to decide a political controversy (and the need to defer to the pro-Bush efforts of the Florida executive and legislature) and less to do with the partisanship of the 5 justices. For the reasons noted in Stevens' dissent, I think this philosophy was wrong, and the recount should have been allowed to proceed. It probably would not have changed the result from Bush to Gore, but the Court was out of line in making up a federal equal protection rationale to overrule what was really a matter of state law for the Flordia court to grapple with (and that may have, in the end, been overruled de facto by the Florida legislature and executive).

In any event, Toobin is a bit too cynical in his appraisal of judicial partisanship and does not adequately portray some of the complexities of the workings of the Court.

This is a reprise of Woodward's 1970s study of the Burger Court, including the use of law clerk interviews to ferret out interesting bits of gossip and inside information on the highly secretive workings of the Court. Woodward was a bit more skilled at getting better gossip, though Toobin's efforts are worthwhile.

Toobin's vignettes as to the personal styles and influence of O'Connor, Breyer, and Kennedy are quite interesting. Of more substance is the portrayal of Rehnquist's administrative skills and the era of consensus and good feeling he brought to the Court.

Toobin's thesis, though, is that this consensus is at war with the far right's struggle to take over the Court and to push it to reverse Roe v. Wade, cut back on national power vis a vis the States, and (somewhat inconsistently)strenghten the national executive power. He persuasively shows the efforts by the far right to groom and select predictably conservative judges.

I'm not entirely convinced that Chief Justice Roberts falls in this category, despite Toobin's arguments to the contrary. Roberts seems to promote consensus and seems to possess a great deal of intellectual curiousity and integrity, which would tend to defy any ability to ensure and predict his vote in any one particular case.

The chapter on Bush v. Gore is disappointing and buys into the popular dismissal of the ruling as the result of 5 purely partisan votes. Political partisanship on any court is, of course, a fact to be reckoned with, but I doubt that judges and lawyers who spend their lives in this profession would so wholeheartedly agree that law is merely "politics by other means". Toobin is not a lawyer and does not grapple with the cases in a way that shows that quite often cases are decided from a coherent body of neutral jurisprudential principles and less as a matter of blatant, naked partisanship.

The Bush v. Gore case was horribly written, but the result can be advocated on the basis of a legitimate jurisprudential philosophy that the Court should have done a better job of articulating. That philosophy had more to do with the justices' doubts about the ability of the judiciary to decide a political controversy (and the need to defer to the pro-Bush efforts of the Florida executive and legislature) and less to do with the partisanship of the 5 justices. For the reasons noted in Stevens' dissent, I think this philosophy was wrong, and the recount should have been allowed to proceed. It probably would not have changed the result from Bush to Gore, but the Court was out of line in making up a federal equal protection rationale to overrule what was really a matter of state law for the Flordia court to grapple with (and that may have, in the end, been overruled de facto by the Florida legislature and executive).

In any event, Toobin is a bit too cynical in his appraisal of judicial partisanship and does not adequately portray some of the complexities of the workings of the Court.

Who the intended audience is is unclear. The gossipy, behind-the-scenes stuff is entertaining for awhile. But lawyers are already clear-eyed, if not cynical, about the judiciary, and the general public is smart enough to know that the Supreme Court is no less suffused with politics and personal biases than any other branch of public service. So the "Can-you-believe-Supreme-Court-justices-can-be-that-whimsical-and-prejudiced?" theme of the book won't shock anyone. Only a Supreme Court junkie would truly enjoy the synopses of the cases argued and decided. But the junkies would find Toobin's explanations - and the selection of the cases he chooses to explain - too facile. The general public would find them dull.

Toobin leans left, but no more or less than one would expect from a New Yorker magazine writer and CNN commentator. He wants to leave the impression that Armageddon is on the horizon with Roberts and Alito now on the bench, but he's not very convincing. Toobin favors justices like O'Connor and Breyer, who he believes are pragmatic in their decision making. Toobin's writing about O'Connor is over the top. Toobin goes so far as to say that the "undue burden standard" of abortion laws was the area in which O'Connor "singlehandedly remade the law in the most controversial area of Supreme Court jurisprudence... No other woman in United States history, and very few men, made such an enormous impact on their country." (P. 310.) Can sainthood be far behind?

This was an educational, yet easy and fun book to read about many interesting facts about the history and current issues of the court. To learn about the system that constantly changes, and is often subject to luck, human frailties, and personalities, and yet has manintained the balance most of the time is both frightening and comforting. In the end, I found all of the justices, and even the ones that I have never respected, quite remarkable in their own ways of doing their duties. The intellectual maturity and integrity of (some) justices to work collaboratively through their differences for the common good, certainly made me appreciate their services.

As only Jeffrey Toobin can do, he paints a deep and rich picture of the inner sanctum of the Supreme Court.

This is a book based on fine research, good judgment, and intelligent analysis. but it is not very exciting a read. And the fault is not Mr. Toobin's at all. It is just that supreme court judges, like many judges and lawyers, are just not very interesting people. The law is for intelligent but uninteresting people who are really not good company, not persons with whom you would want to have a beer.

The lawyer and New Yorker contributor Jeffrey Toobin's main argument in his informative and insightful "The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court" is that for two decades Sandra Day O'Connor has been the most influential member of the Rehnquist Supreme Court. And that's good for the American people because Justice O'Connor, even though appointed by Ronald Reagan and a stalwart of the Republican Party, has sought in her long and storied career to best reflect and represent the interests and opinions of the American people. Without her and her benevolent influence over the otherwise mercurial and bombastic Anthony Kennedy the Supreme Court would have long struck down Roe v. Wade and affirmative action.

In Toobin's analysis the Supreme Court can be divided into three main factions. There is the liberal faction as best represented by John Paul Stevens, who seeks to interpret the "spirit of the law" to maintain America's dynamic democracy. Then there is the conservative faction best represented by Antonio Scalia who emphasizes the original intention of the Founding Fathers and the actual words of the Constitution. This liberal-conservative ideological breach is primarily the result of Roe v. Wade, and Justice Harry Blackmun's decision. In his decision Justice Blackmun permitted the right to abortion based on the "right to privacy," and although the Constitution does not mention once "privacy" he makes the contorted and controversial argument that the right is implied in different parts of the sacred document. Roe v. Wade represents to conservative lawyers a liberal activist court (the Warren Supreme Court) that instead of interpreting law makes law.

Then there are the three justices who have come to dominate the Supreme Court with their swing votes: Sandra Day O'Connor, David Souter, and Anthony Kennedy. O'Connor tries to best represent popular opinion in her decisions, Souter believes in the wisdom of the law and thus rely on precedent for his decisions, and although Kennedy doesn't have a theory of the law he believes judges are like King Solomon. Together the three, although appointed by Republican Presidents, have mostly believed in the power of precedent and preserved the Warren Court decisions. And as the Republican Party has become more conservative and thus more hostile they have gradually swung to the left, marginalizing Justice Scalia, Justice Clarence Thomas, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist on the right. As Mr. Toobin noted poignantly, the American public would forever hold these three "swing vote" justices in high esteem if it were not their decision -- against all they've stood for and fought for -- to participate in the 2000 Presidential Election, and thus send George W. Bush to the White House. And, as was usually the case, Justice O'Connor made the final decisive vote.

It would be a decision she would come to regret. O'Connor had a particular fondness for George W. Bush, seeing his ideology of "compassionate conservatism" akin to her own. But the way that President Bush conducted the "war on terror" horrified her, and the Supreme Court worked hard to limit what Bush saw as his executive prerogative. As well, to appease his conservative base, Bush made sure to put two solid conservatives on the bench, conservatives that would vote according to doctrine and ideology as opposed to O'Connor's moderate pragmatism. With John Roberts and Samuel Alito the Supreme Court suddenly swung hard right.

Anthony Kennedy is now the "swing vote," a position he relishes -- and without O'Connor to influence him Kennedy now is free to pursue his own agenda, even if no one is sure what that is. In the Roberts Court Justice Kennedy has usually sided with the conservatives but he has at times also sided against them. But the real issue isn't what the Court does now but what it promises to do. Three of the four liberal judges -- Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg -- will all retire soon, and if the Republicans can put one more conservative on the bench then they'll have an unbreakable majority, and the conservative agenda of reversing the Warren Court will finally be reality. It all depends on who the next President is.

That's the main reason why Mr. Toobin's book is such compelling reading. At the very end he reminds us that the nine justices are not there to just interpret the Constitution -- they're also there to represent the ideology of the President who put them there, and that's why in a roundabout way the American people also elect the Supreme Court. His book incisively and insightfully shows us why the 2008 election is so important.

There are two main problems with this book, and both stem from the fact that Mr. Toobin is a lawyer. The first is diction. He's usually a clear writer but now and then he chooses to burden his writing with legal jargon. The second is organization. On one hand Mr. Toobin is a lawyer, and so he writes what comes what is naturally to him: a lawyer's brief on the nine justices. On the other hand Mr. Toobin chooses to tell the story chronologically. And while there aren't any obvious contradictions and redundancies thanks to Mr. Toobin's meticulous editing the book nevertheless does feel disorganized and scrambled.

The reading wasn't pleasurable but it was certainly worthwhile.

The Nine was a behind the scenes look at the members of the Supreme Court, with comments on their personalities and decisions. The background research was fascinating with regard to the cases. Mr. Toobin was much too biased in his presentation, and it showed in the distinct adjectives he used to describe those decisions that did not fit his political paradigm, or to describe the personalities who did not vote the way he deemed they should. Too bad about that. Otherwise, it was quite informative.

Readable, informative, even handed and filled with details both mundane and anecdotal, this book gives much insight into the inner workings of the Supreme Court. Fascinating conclusions drawn from the study of the various personalities and character traits as well as conclusions drawn from effects of various world events make it hard to set aside. One wants to know more and more about these endlessly interesting choices and the paths that brought them to their powerful positions.

Jeffery Toobin's inside look of today's Supreme Court is as compelling, immediate and intimate a look at the Court since The Brethren. His detailed accounts of several landmark cases provides an intimate look at how each justice operates and how the court of public opinion shapes the Opinions of the Court.

Jeffrey Toobin delivers a very fast-paced and readable synopsis of the past 30+ years of the Supreme Court. This book moves very fast but covers the highlights of the Court that we know today.

The best part of the book is his biographical sketches of the Justices. Toobin really makes them come to life and has some very interesting behind-the-scenes vignettes of them. Especially interesting is his analysis of the Clinton and Bush II nominees - especially the Harriet Miers debacle and the John Roberts nomination.

The book sometimes wanders when it discusses the actual cases and his analysis of Bush v. Gore is too partisan for my tastes (and I am a Democrat). But for someone who didn't take Constitutional Law in law school, this will be a good summary of the most important recent decisions.

The only main criticism I have is the structure. Toobin never gives a roadmap as to what he is going to cover and the chapter headings don't allow the reader to know what the chapter is going to be about (e.g. "Just Deserts" or "Question Presented"). He was being too cute here and took me a while to figure out where the book was heading (it's fairly chronological after the first 50 pages).

In all, I found myself tearing through this book and for a topic that could be potentially very boring, I will tip my hat to Toobin.

Jeffrey Toobin does an amazing job analyzing the Supreme Court's major decisions and he brings the Justice's mindset out into the public. A great work of literature, useful for any scholarly study of the Supreme Court.

Toobin's book covers the history of the US Supreme Court from the summer of 1991 through the spring of 2007. Throughout his work, he provides biographical information of the Nine (Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer), plus the most recent two (Roberts & Alito). Toobin interviewed all 11 justices, as well as a number of former law clerks, journalists and numerous others involved in the courts and politics. The two major themes that run throughout the 340 pages are (1) the push and pull between the conservatives and the liberals on the court and (2) the evolution of the jurisprudence of a number of the justices (especially O'Connor and Kennedy).

After a stinging defeat in Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (a Pennsylvania law which attempted to restrict abortions) in 1985, the Reagan Administration and conservatives had an epiphany: "they didn't need better arguments; they just needed new justices" (17).

Christian conservatives began to increase their power within the GOP in the 1980's (led by men like James Dobson, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson). By 1990, their stated goals included the following: "Reverse Roe. Expand executive power. Speed executions. Welcome religion into the public sphere. Return the Constitution from its exile since the New Deal" (272).

Clarence Thomas was nominated to replace Thurgood Marshall during the summer of 1991. Even though George H.W. Bush and Thomas expressed their opposition to affirmative action, Thomas clearly was the beneficiary of it. Marshall's negative view of Thomas is captured vividly in chapter 2, as is the battle between Anita Hill and Thomas during his confirmation hearings in October, 1991.

Rehnquist ran the court very differently than Burger. This is how he ran the court's conferences: (1) he would summarize the case and state his position; (2) justices would do the same in order of seniority; (3) no one spoke twice until everyone spoke once; (4) no one received a writing assignment until he/she had finished the previous one; (5) every justice had an assignment before someone was given a second; and (6) the senior justice on the majority gave the assignment, as did the senior justice on the minority.

Despite being a popular and efficient Chief Justice, even Rehnquist knew that the court truly belonged to Sandra Day O'Connor. In the 1992 abortion case Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Robert P. Casey, O'Connor wrote that state restrictions on abortion procedures could be upheld as long as they don't cause an undue burden. Her term of "undue burden" would redefine Roe and helped guarantee women's autonomy and health (58-59).

Toobin devotes over 40 pages to Bush v. Gore and the problems with the votes in Florida. The roles of the Florida legislature, the Florida Supreme Court and the Supreme Court (all three appeared to be biased) are detailed and contrasted against each other.

We learn about Stephen Breyer's increasing influence on the court (128) and Anthony Kennedy's movement to the left based on his contact with judges and legal scholars from around the world (182). Kennedy gave the majority opinion in the Lawrence vs. Texas (2003) case, which struck down laws that seek to inhibit homosexual relations between two consenting adults within their home (189-190).

The Michigan Cases in 2003 about race and admissions in college and law school are described in chapters 16 and 17. The court's ruling against the Bush administration about Gitmo is dealt with in chapters 18 and 19.

Part Four of the book focuses on the nominations of Roberts and Alito. Special attention is devoted to the savaging of Alberto Gonzalez (who was only rumored to be a potential nominee) and Harriet Miers (who was nominated in the summer of 2005) by Christian Conservatives, who believed that neither Gonzalez nor Miers were ideologically strong enough to merit a seat on the court (it is eerily reminiscent of some scenes from 1984).

The book finishes with Breyer's role in two religious cases in 2005
(regarding public displays of religious works in government buildings) and Ginsburg's scathing dissent (a rarity) regarding the 2007 Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (the ruling stated that a woman must file within 180 days of being discriminated against in the workplace in regards to pay - Ginsburg stated that it might be years before a woman realized that she had been the victim of an unfair system).

It is an exceptionally well-written book and a joy to read.

this is one of the best bookd that I have ever read in my life. it was elegant, detailed and very moving.
Toobin portrayed each judges as fair as you can be.
I agree with all the positive comments sofar.
this is a must read for every student in colleges and law schools, and probably for every american who loves and cares about this country

Of the three branches of government, far less is known about the inner-workings of the judiciary-and most specifically the Supreme Court-than the other two branches. Much of this is due to traditions that have developed over the years, but much is innate in the supposedly impartial, non-partisan and independent nature of the judiciary as envisioned by our founding fathers.

Jeffrey Toobin, CNN legal analyst and prize-winning author, has written an insightful, balanced and extremely readable "tell-all" on the modern Supreme Court, based largely upon thousands of interviews with past and present Supreme Court clerks. But this "tell-all" is not of the scandalous, scurrilous and titillating variety that has become derigueur of modern political reporting. This instead is a fascinating tale of the major political and historical events of the past 20 years as seen with the additional insight of its impact by and upon the Supreme Court and its justices.

With the possible exceptions of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court has been seen as largely anonymous individuals making occasionally significant decisions. Toobin not only gives a brief biography of each justice, but he also provides vital information that gives us insight into the background, personality and legal philosophy of these highly disparate individuals.

Toobin, although discussing sometimes complex legal arguments, is always able to examine the topic in such a manner that a layman can understand. This is true whether he is discussing the complexities of Roe v. Wade, affirmative action, Gore v. Bush (the 2000 presidential election), Guantanamo or gun control. The author spends considerable time discussing the important role of Sandra Day O'Connor and later Anthony Kennedy as the swing vote on the Supreme Court. All of these issues and more are described with their overlaying political and legal justifications and ramifications.

What we end up with is a fascinating story of people who can be alternately egotistical and compassionate, prejudiced and sympathetic, inflexible and caring-that is, undeniably human.

Toobin leaves us with the critical dilemma of choosing the next President that will most assuredly determine many closely called social and political decisions for generations to come.

Armchair Interviews says: Toobin gives us a clear picture of the Supreme Court and Judicial Branch.

The Supreme Court is a fascinating subject to me - everything from Time discussing Roberts and how the current court is working, to the interview with Scalia on 60 Minutes and I loved this book.

The discussions of some of the major cases and interaction amongst the justices brings these things to life.

Though you may agree or disagree with some of the justices opinions, or how they look at the law, it is worthwhile to see more about the individuals behind the decsions. To find out Scalia and Ginsburg are friends (which was also in the 60 Minutes Interview) is eye-opening and adds an extra dimension to the people who may in fact be the most powerful people in the country.

Well written and well worth it.

I found this book very enlightening. Prior to reading this book, I never really followed in detail the movements and history of the Supreme Court. I am not a lawyer but found the book fairly easy to follow and found the politics behind the members surprisingly interesting.

The founding fathers would not like to read this book. It is well researched and presents a factual case to show that the highest court in the land is devoid of constitutional fortitude and is quite manipulative in its own manner. Not really what most americans expect.

The writing covering the elements of the key cases is quite interesting. Sections in between that show the games in the selection process were very chewey and not worth the shoe leather.

The writings giving insight to the lives of the justices and the relations between them are quite well done. It may not have been the point of the author,but he proved there are nuts on the court.

One reason the lay reader should pick up this book is to realize that the rule of law is a mere extension of the rule of politic. The lay man, common man, average joe may think he is protected by a constitution, but Mr. Toobin will show that it no longer exists. Depending on which way the wind is blowing, the court will move from one 'analysis' of law to the other to fit personal opinions rather than concept of the constitution. Rationalization, justification, twistification and plain old 'because I said so' are what really drives the process behind the black robes.

And if you never knew it before, this book will show you why lawyers are better than the rest of us.

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.