The best part of this book, in my opinion, was at the end: The Constitution of the U. S.; all ten sections, 7 Articles, 27 Amendments (newest in 1992) The first ten Amendments, in effect since 1791, make up the Bill of Rights.

One thing almost caused me to bypass a book written by Ken Starr, who'd been Supreme Court clerk for Chief Justice Warren Burger, was because of his harassment of Bill Clinton (when he was president) who wanted to use his office as chief executive "immunity" to postpone a controversial personal civil case until he had finished his term. Also, Starr seemed to be the main accuser in the Whitewater investigations as independent counsel.

This highest court in the land is composed of nine justices (guess that's why the committees and boards in Knoxville City government have only nine members), most of whom are remote from American society. They speak to the public through their written opinions. With this august group, you can't beat around the bush or stall for a better moment.

One critical issue in our last presidential election was who would choose the next person to sit on this important Supreme Court. He declares Sandra Day O'Conner, appointed by former President Reagan, as the most powerful and recognized of the present group. He calls Clarence Thomas its most original thinker. And, the most influential justice in the 20th century was Earl Warren. President Clinton appointed Ruth Bader Gingsberg in 1993.

In 1983, Ken Starr was appointed to the U. S. Court Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit, where he served more than five years. He gives a short history of this highly respectable and venerable group; created by the Constitution in 1789. At times, it has been referred to as a "revolutionary" court and upset a lot of people when the public schools could no longer allow students to say prayers or recite Bible verses, and insisted on a stricter separation of church and state.

Our Constitution which has governed laws and citizens' rights for 216 years also created the Congress and the presidency. Elections of the people decide who sits in Congress and occupies the White House. These nine justices, by contrast, are appointed by the president who is in office at the time of a vacancy, subject to Senate approval. The chief justice is answerable to the Senate.

The Court's 2000 decision in the presidential election litigation was criticized as exceeding its appropriate and legal authority by an "unelected" branch of government. It was regarded as activist by liberals and conservatives. Al Gore won that election but, because of a technicality decided on by the Supreme Court, he was not allowed to serve. These justices, most of whom were appointed by Republican presidents, overstepped the reason for their being -- to resolve legal issues, not policy-making.

Since 1986, William H. Rehnquist has been Chief Justice. During the Iran-Contra affair, his Court upheld the law through a balancing and weighing process. We may elect a president, but his Court can control him. The judiciary, not the two political branches, can weigh matters in the balance and then come to a judgment.

The Supreme Court's role as the authoritative, final voice in the framework of representative government (such as overturning affirmative action) makes it the 'first among equals.' Ken Starr teaches constitutional law at New York University and George Mason University. This book was a Main Selection of the Conservative Book Club.

Having read the other reviews, I have begun to wonder if we all read the same book!

Starr addresses the problems of the Supreme Court in dealing with the chasm between Common Law and Statutory Law... an area for which American attorneys are apparently poorly prepared by law school or subsequent training and work experience.

Starr obviously holds in high regard the legal approach of Justices Scalia and Thomas (who focus on the text of statutes in their interpretation), but does a poor job of explaining why THAT approach to judicial interpretation is fundamentally superior to the other approaches discussed.

While Starr speaks well of the other Justices, when addressing their personal traits or personality, he can hardly conceal his contempt for their judicial acumen when their opinions or decisions diverge from the "textual" approach of Justices Scalia and Thomas.

I bought the book in hopes of gaining insight into how the Court makes it decisions, and Starr's analysis was useful in some respects. But, that said, I came away wanting to find a more balanced perspective, as this book made me feel Starr's objectivity and value as a guide has been badly crippled by his partisanship.

The book was not what I had hoped it would be. Rather than a scholarly analysis, it was a polemic in scholarly trappings.

I do think I have a better understanding of Kenneth W. Starr's approach to the world.

Star's book attempts to provide the reader with an analysis of Supreme Court decisions that have been key in American histrory. Unfortunetly, his attempt simply turns into a one sided view. Generally speaking (in Star's eyes), any liberal decision made by the Supreme Court is an overt action of "Liberal Judges" making law rather than interpreting law.
Star's views are best illustrated by his praise for the "young" Rehnquist who believes that Miranda should be overturned. However Star then berates the Chief Justice Rehnquist for subsequently affirming Miranda. All in all, the book falls far short or critically analyzing decisions the court made or the theories onvolved. The book does a good job of lambasting "liberal" judges and sanctifying "conservative" judges. However, I will give Star merit for a well written book. I would skip this book and choose a more balanced book if you are interested in learning about the Supreme Court

To write a one-volume summary about the US Supreme Court and its major lines of jurisprudence over the last fifty years is no easy task. Yet, Judge Kenneth Starr is more than up to the task in "First Among Equals," recently released in paperback.

Starr is a brilliant legal mind and has had a stellar career in the law, whatever venomous nonsense you may have heard from James Carville. He brings his insight and experience into this book, writing a short introduction to some of the landmark cases during the tenure of the Great Chief Justice John Marshall, followed by short biographical sketches of the Court's current roster. Starr then provides sharp and succinct analysis of constitutional case law concerning a variety of issues, such as affirmative action, the rights of criminal defendants, the powers of the President, and federalism. The concluding chapter is devoted entirely to Bush v. Gore (2000).

Much of Starr's analysis describes the cases and views of the justices in light of the two competing judicial philosophies adhered to the respective members of the court: textualism and common-law constitutionalism. As Starr notes, Justice Antonin Scalia has been a champion of textualism, an approach to statutory and constitutional interpretation that requires a jurist to discern the meaning of the text, according to its structure, history, logic and original understanding. Textualism is often wrongly confused with "strict constructionism" or an attempt to discover what law was "intended" to mean in the minds of those who made the law, rather than the search for the meaning of the words actually adopted.

This judicial philosophy stands in contrast to that of common-law constitutionalism, in which constitutional law is created through judicial decision-making by judges in individual cases, with the constitution's text and its original understanding holding a less prominent position. This judicial philosophy is all but synonymous with the "living Constitution" concept, which holds that our "understanding" of the Constitution's meaning "evolves" over time as our society continues to "evolve." The values that underlie Constitution are to be expounded by the judges based upon the ideals of the contemporary age.

Starr spends a great deal of time in the First Amendment realm. ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.) There is obviously much room to work with here, and Starr ably describes recent developments in the areas of free speech and religious establishment jurisprudence.

One important development is the increasing role of "viewpoint neutrality" in the context of religious speech. This simply means that speech involving religious perspectives is to be treated on an equal footing with secular viewpoints. He also delves into the Court's modern Establishment Clause jurisprudence, which began with Everson v. Board of Education (1947). It was there that the Court held that the First Amendment's Establishment Clause applied to the states as well as the federal government, that the Amendment erected a "wall of separation" between church and state, and that both are to be entirely neutral towards religion and irreligion. On its face, this may seem entirely acceptable and consistent with the recent developments in "viewpoint discrimination" cases, but a number of cases decided in Everson's wake tell another story, in which those with religious viewpoints have been subjected to much discrimination, with providing an approving nod.

Starr hoped that the Court would reverse itself in this area, when as Solicitor General he argued the case of Lee v. Weisman (1992). The Court did not see things his way. Indeed, in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000), it was held unconstitutional for student-led and student initiated prayers before a high-school football tame. In a biting dissent, Chief Justice William Rehnquist opined that "the majority opinion bristles with hostility to all things religious in public life."

Starr also focuses upon the issue of campaign finance reform. He served as Chief Justice Burger's clerk when the Court decided Buckley v. Valeo (1976). In that case, the Court dealt with a campaign finance reform bill passed by Congress that regulated the amount of money that could be contributed to and spent by political campaigns. The Court upheld contribution limits, per candidate, per election cycle, as well as public financing of campaigns, but it struck down provisions limiting how much money campaigns could expend. How are limits on contributions legal while limits on expenditures illegal? As Starr poignantly asks: "Isn't an expenditure the flip side of a contribution? Shouldn't they rise and fall together?" The Court upheld a similar state statute in Nixon v. Shrink Missouri PAC (2000), with the majority asserting a policy judgment that such laws protect the integrity of the process. Starr does not hide his disdain for campaign finance laws, and happened to be involved in a recent case before the Supreme Court on the so-called McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that was decided since his book went to press.

Starr's book provides a solid and easy-to-read primer on the Supreme Court and some important decisions for the last half-century.

First, who the author is should not be an issue to a reviewer or potential reader. Those liberals that loathe Starr would be well-served to read this book if they want to understand how a judicial conservative thinks. Those liberals wanting mindless rhetorical support of their judicial philosophy, look elsewhere.

But for what it's worth, Starr has been discribed as a "moderate" by the legal titan Judge Posner. As the title of my review indicates, if one wants to understand judicial conservatism, then this is a great start--for the liberal or conservative or indepedent.

Starr draws on a lifetime of experiences--Supreme Court Clerk, Federal Judge, Solicitor General, Indepedent Counsel, and private attorney--to write this highly informative and illuminating work.

This book is a perfect primer for someone who wants to understand judicial conservatism--liberal or conservative alike. While Starr is certainly a judicial conservative, there is no attempt to cloak his bias as objective fact. It's clear at every point when Starr criticizes a decision why he thinks it's wrong. One is free to critique his analysis on their own.

This book covers the big Warren Era decisions and why many conservatives were concerned and dismayed with many of the Court's rulings during (and after) that era. Perhaps more important than the judgments themselves is the methodology the Warren Court employed. That is, the Court seemed unwilling to put the Constitution itself in the foreground, instead preferring to implement their political whims and specific social agenda. Mapp v. Ohio. Miranda v. Arizona. And, of course, Roe v. Wade are discussed.

Starr then goes on to discuss how the Court has changed--to a distinctly more catious, deliberative, lawylerly, and scholarly direction. He discusses the individual justices as well, which are the most influential, etc. One gets a feel on how each justice approaches constitutional interpretation.

The Rehnquist Court and its jurisprudence are discussed in detail, and the author's many personal experiences during this era (Judge, Solicitor General) provide many useful tidbits of information. Speaking not of what he read heard, but what he personally experienced makes this book more readable than many others in the same category.

Recent Rehnquist Court decisions on Affirmative Action, abortion, criminal procedure, gerrymandering, First Amendment rights, and much more are discussed. Starr probes the central question: how is the Rehnguist Court different than the Warren and Burger Courts? He provides many useful insights and analysis on this question.

First Among Equals is light on meaningless rhetoric and heavy on facts and analysis, but always eminently readable. Strongly recommended.

Ken Starr may best be known for his role in the attempt to end Bill Clinton's presidency through impeachment, but to this book he brings a real expert's background because of his experience in the office of the Solicitor General (the chief lawyer for the U. S. Government) and on the Circuit Court for the D. C. Circuit (the level just below the Supreme Court), both of which gave him a reason to interact directly with the Justices of the Supreme Court.

While Starr goes back to the beginning, especially the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, where the Supreme Court first asserted its right to make the ultimate decision as to what is constitutionally permitted and what is not, his primary focus is on the recent history of the Court, after the death of Earl Warren. He goes into what the Court has decided in the Burger and Rehnquist years, and even more importantly, the judicial philosophies of the Justices who have served in these years, and how those philosophies caused them to decide cases the way they have.

The book ends with the 2000 election and the Bush v. Gore decision, which overruled what many feel was an unjustified Florida Supreme Court decision and paved the way for George W. Bush's inauguration as President. This part of the book may be controversial to some, but it certainly shows that Bush v. Gore was well within the envelope of the kind of decision the Court has made in the past, despite protests by Gore partisans that the Court was acting politically.

I recommend this book to anyone interested in how the Supreme Court functions today.

"First Among Equals" is an interesting book about the U.S. Supreme Court authored by an experienced legal practitioner - Kenneth Starr, who needs no introduction.

This book is intended for the lay person; it has no legal jargon and is very readable. It is organized around a set of constitutional issues as illustrated by what might be called some of the landmark cases pertaining to those issues. Starr manages to lay out highly legalistic issues in simple terms without diluting their significance, and in the process walks the reader through the history of the Court since the New Deal Court, all the way to the most recent Rehnquist Court decisions. The Court's history, as such, in large measure reflects the Nation's history as seen through the litigation of some of the most controversial issues - abortion, free speech, church and state, criminal justice, affirmative action, federalism, etc.

In telling his story, Starr puts great emphasis on the background and judicial philosophy of the individual justices, which puts a human dimension to an otherwise academic subject.

"First Among Equals" is a worthwhile effort that bridges a gap between the highly legalistic arguments and the ordinary people, whose life are profoundly affected by the decisions of the Court. For anyone who is interested in rendering after-dinner opinions on events in the political, social and legal landscapes, this book is an invaluable backgrounder.

Maybe it was just me, but this book held my attention like a good novel does. Of course, I have an interest in the supreme court. Starr certainly has the experience to know what he is talking about, and he successfully wrote it in easy to read and understand language.

Mr. Starr's work offers an engaging and inspiring view into the nuances of the Court and the constitutional debates defining today's US society. Mr. Starr surgical overview of Roe has placed me in the uncomfortable position of having to examine my believes. The discussion about the Court's decision to engage into the Gore vs. Bush debate and the role it ended up playing, brings to light the main element that distinguishes us from most of the nations on Earth, we are governed by our laws. The book is so good, I'm reading it again!

I bought this book after seeing Starr on T.V. in a speach/question and answer forum about the book. In the forum, he spoke of how his editor kept sending the manuscript back to him insisting he remove the legal jargin that the general public would not understand. It was a success. As a non-student of law or courts, I got a huge education from this book. It was very readable and useful to understanding the Supreme Court and it's decisions for the last half of the century. He brings it all together showing how a series of decisions throughout the years led to the court taking the Bush Gore case and asserting itself as the most powerful branch of government as "first among equals."

Note: this is not a history of Starr or his involvement in the Clinton years. But he does draw on his experience as a law clerk, soliciter general, and appelate court judge to show his personal insight into the court.

I personally couldn't put it down until I was done reading it.