So often the most important events in history come in to play in the courtroom. "A Good Quarrel: America's Top Legal Reporters Share Stories from Inside the Supreme Court" discusses these monumental court cases and the participants who have fervently argued their beliefs. Designed to be read alongside clips on the internet of these speeches, "A Good Quarrel" is a top pick for readers who want an inside look at the cases that have shaped America.

I believe this will prove to be a valuable resource not only for seasoned Supreme Court watchers, familiar with the Court's sometimes quaint procedures, but for the general reader who is curious about how oral argument operates and its significance. The book is a collection of some eleven essays plus a helpful introduction by the two editors, both veteran political scientist observers of the Court and themselves authors of important studies in the field. The introduction, "The role of oral argument in the Supreme Court," well sets the stage for the essays that follow. The essays themselves are written by veteran journalists (such as Fred Graham, Lyle Denniston, Nina Totenberg, and Charles Bierbauer) with extensive experience covering the Court. So the authors have excellent backgrounds, but also are used to writing for the general reader and do so very well. Each author was asked to pick and write on one oral argument that they believed illustrated important aspects of how this unique procedure operates. The authors, therefore, write on arguments that they themselves covered.

There are several additional interesting facets to the book. The first essay, by Dahlia Litwick, discusses the "Ten Commandments of Oral Arguments." Anyone with an upcoming oral argument at the Court should staple this essay to their lapel--it also holds true for Court of Appeals arguments as well. Moreover, the most unique aspect of the book, and one that I hope others will emulate, is that every so often a symbol appears in the text which indicates that the reader can go to a webpage established by the editors and actualy hear that portion of the oral argument. Peter Irons first started this approach some years ago, by providing tapes and written transcripts of the arguments he was discussing. This is much easier. Some of the cases are famous ("Bush v. Gore, e.g.), and others are ones I had not heard of before. The point is that this is not a dry text on con law, but the cases are selected for what they illustrate about the techniques and importance of oral argument. Even Richard Nixon pops up arguing the "Time, Inc. v. Hill" case, in his own unique style. The essays are fairly concise, with the whole book running only 190 pages. There also is a short bibliography included. Oral argument is a strange animal, but those who read this fine collection will have a solid grasp of what it is all about.

Lawyers who follow American law and the US Supreme Court will be familiar with the cases covered in this short book. They may, however, find that the little gems and snippets of exchanges between counsel and the justices of the Supreme Court too brief and inadequate. The editors can't be faulted for this because it appeared that the objective of the book was to provide an insight into how the Supreme Court functions when it sits. This cannot be achieved if substantial coverage is given to each case. It was very well edited. My only complaint is that the book is a trifle short. I'm hoping that the editors will produce an expanded second edition. If you want to know what lawyers talk about when they talk to judges in the Supreme Court, this book will interest you.