Depth: B
Style: C
Content: B
Research: A
Historical Impact: D

Woodward and Armstrong write a tale of 7 years and 14 Supreme Court judges. To actually write the book, and to access dozens of law clerks and judges, and to amass huge documentation is in itself the feat of the book. The Supreme Court has been the most sheltered of all public institutions with only trifles of coverage before. The book does portray the quirks of the judges, the key decisions of each year, the infighting and the peculiarities of an institution founded on politics yet delivering fundamental cultural dictates.

W and A fall down on two points - first, this is not a history book, but a retro-newspaper account. The two can't help but fall into the mode of journalists (which they tacitly state in the intro). This is not a book by Foote, Sandburg, Tuchman, or any other great historian.

Secondly, in style they go year by year, day by day practically, without developing any great over-arching themes, lessons, keys, or even predictions.

Toobin's recent book "The Nine" is actually sounder and more stylistic due to Toobin's political analysis and book writer's flair.

It is clear that the authors despise Warren Burger, and their portrayal of him is of a petty, manipulative man with little integrity. Other accounts will have to be checked to see if the man is actually so unredeemed.

all rights reserved - Scott Jones

I found The Brethren to be quite informative as well as entertaining as I was provided a glimpse of the personalities and quirks of Justices and the Politicians that interacted with them. Seeing behind the somber facades allowed the reader to consider each Justice as an individual with his own biases and beliefs that came into play when many of this country's landmark decisions were made.

We were forced to read this book my senior year in high school. I most certainly did NOT want to read a book about the stuffy ol' supreme court! But I did... because I had to... and it turns out that it's one of my favorite books of all time. Now, 15 years later, I'm an attorney and have read the book countless times over the years. It's so interesting to read about the inner workings of the country's highest court, complete with the politics, personalities, and just outright craziness.

Long, but worth the read. Although it was written many years ago, the issues remain the same. Abortion, war, obscenity, etc. Issues that every first year law student should be well versed in. Recommended read.

This is a great story about the inside of the supreme court. I read it years ago and it is a great companion piece to Jeffry Tobins recent NINE about more recent years.

I found the book to be fascinating.

The authors take a look at the Supreme Court and its decisions in a 6 year period but most importnatly, give us a look at the Justices that make up the court and their viewpoints both public and private.

It is so well-written that I didn't want it to end. It read like a gossip magazine at points as we were allowed to see what the Justices thought of each other.

Great stuff.

When this book first appeared I found it quite readable and interesting but hardly a great work. I recently encountered Renata Adler's take in the New York Times Book Review (reprinted in her collection `Canaries in the Mineshaft'). This review considers the shortcoming of journalists writing about judicial matters and is definitely worth looking up by anyone interested in this book.

In the Brethren, Woodward uses his insider credentials, and incredible set of sources to break the wall of silence that generally surrounds the inner working of the Supreme Court. Woodward can get just about anyone to talk to him, and that is never more clear than in this book. He's got direct quotes from meetings where there were only five people in attendance. It's amazing.

This book is focused on the Burger court, when a Nixon appointed judge was tried to stem the type of progressive judicial activism the Warren court was known for. This book is fascinating for any one interested in what was happening inside the court during those important years. This book is worth reading for the fascinating back story of how Roe v. Wade got decided, but on top of that it provides gives us fascinating portrayals of some of modern histories most important justices, including William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, and William Rhenquist.

This is a must read for anyone interested in the inner workings of the Supreme Court, or the controversies surrounding the death penalty and Roe v. Wade.

This book absolutely flew past. It could easily have been fiction. I read it during the summer before I started law school, and I find myself thinking of it with some regularity two years later. It includes small details of the workings of the court that are absolutely fascinating, and the historical time period is more relevant today than ever.

Here we have an unflattering, behind-the-scenes look at the U.S. Supreme Court. Discloses the intrigues, jealousies, ill humor, and combat between justices and describes the debates and tactics that produced many of the Court's major rulings between 1969 and 1976. I found the book easy to read and illuminating. Just goes to remind you that no matter what position you obtain, people cannot escape their own bias.

As a fellow in forensic psychiatry at the New York University School of Medicine, this book gave me a better outlook into the machineries of the court, as well as into the personalities of the individual Justices. Being aware of the maneuvers between the Justices that eventually led to their decisions was very intriguing. The engrossing way by which Woodward and Armstrong chronicled the recruitment of the Justices to their opinions led to my 15 year old son devouring the book in one week! Prior to this, his interest have been in the Harry Potter series.

As for me, a fellow in forensic psychiatry, the knowledge I gained from the book elevated my contributions in our Landmark Cases class. For example, there is an assumption that based on their similar judicial philosophy, [whatever Brennan does, Marshall follows]. However, in a landmark case Powell v Texas, which centered on the issue of intoxication in a public place and whether alcoholism is a disease, Justice Marshall wrote the opinion for the majority who ruled in favor of Texas. Justice Brennan was in the minority. I pointed out to the class that had Marshall `followed Brennan', as was frequent in The Brethren, the opinion would have tilted in favor of Powell. I believe that this book should be recommended for attendings and fellows in forensic psychiatry, as it will further improve their understandings of the reasoning behind the landmark cases that forms one of the essential pillars of the forensic psychiatry profession.

"The Brethren" makes a crucial period in Court history (transition from Warren to Burger) read like a novel; it's hard to set it aside. Wonderful detail and scrupulous research enrich the tale, and the personalities become familiar, but never boring. A reality-based drama.

I read this book about 15 years ago while in college and recently decided to read it again. This is probably the best book on the inner working of the US Supreme Court that anyone could read. Woodward does a fantastic job of examining the daily ins and outs of the Court, as well as describing the personalities that made up the bench at that time.



Many of us have our own views of what how the Supreme Court comes to their decisions on such a wide variety of cases. This book dispels many of the myths of appellate review.



This book is highly recommended to anyone who wants to really know how the Supreme Court decides the cases before it.

I read this book about 15 years ago while in college and recently decided to read it again. This is probably the best book on the inner working of the US Supreme Court that anyone could read. Woodward does a fantastic job of examining the daily ins and outs of the Court, as well as describing the personalities that made up the bench at that time.

Many of us have our own views of what how the Supreme Court comes to their decisions on such a wide variety of cases. This book dispels many of the myths of appellate review.

This book is highly recommended to anyone who wants to really know how the Supreme Court decides the cases before it.

I would not say I'm a reluctant John Grisham reader. I just haven't felt a dying urge to search out his novels. Maybe I'm just afraid of any sort of legal setting and try to avoid it in any medium it's presented in. Finally, I picked up a paperback of Grisham's novel, Runaway Jury and plodded through it. Certainly he can present some very intriguing characters and situations, and his mastery of plot intricacies and how it plays out demonstrated to me why he has garnered the bestselling status he has. And yet, halfway through the book, I realized that, though all the characters were interesting, I didn't connect personally with any of them. They all seemed to be despicable, corrupted characters going about and doing despicable, corrupted deeds. Well, it's hard for me to not finish a book I've started, so I plodded through anyways, not really caring about the result. Imagine my surprise when Grisham pulled it off. He had a slam bang plot twist at the end, plus, he completely redeemed my view of a couple of the characters. I loved Runaway Jury and became an instant Grisham fan. By saying that, I don't mean, of course, that I went out and actually read more of his stuff (I mean, let's not get too carried away here), but I sure did like his one book I read. Fast forward a couple years (or a ton, I guess I'm not getting any younger). With a few minutes on hand and desperate to keep myself from using those few minutes from actually thinking in any way, I picked up the nearest book at hand in my parent's house. John Grisham's, The Brethren. Once again, Grisham reeled me in with an interesting premise and intriguing characters. About halfway through the novel, once again, I began to complain to my wife that there was no redeemable character, no one to root for, nothing to ultimately care about. As I told her this, I realized that Grisham must be pulling another one-two on me. Brilliant. He's hiding one of his good characters again and there will be a carefully contrived twist at the end. Bravo! With this in mind, I read much more enthusiastically. I even thought I figured out which character would be redeemed. I had it all worked out in my mind and wondered how Grisham was going to pull it off to match. And how did he? ... well, to my frustration, he didn't. No character redemption. No twist. The story ended, and that was it. Why? Why would Grisham do that? He had the ability ... he even had a probable character with which to do it ... but he chose the anti-climax instead. I have several theories. He was bitter that they changed parts of Runaway Jury for the movie, so he ensured that he would make this story completely unfilmable. Take that, Hollywood! Or, he was planning on turning it all around at the end, but he never figured out how to do it, a deadline came, so he just finished it and turned it in. Those are two major possibilities, but I suspect it was something different. I suspect he came up with a cool plot idea, and then decided to play it out. Then, at the end, the pay off is that the guys get away with their scheme. Ehhhh. I suppose that is a semi-forgivable offense. Unfortunately, the only way that works is if the reader isn't fully aware of some aspect of the scheme and then it is all revealed at the end and we are wowed and like the story. Not in this case. The scheme is given away, pretty much in its entirety, right off the bat. Therefore, when they get away with it in the end, I thought ... well, yeah, that's what they had planned. What's the big deal? Besides that, their big heist was something they couldn't have planned for and stumbled into by sheer dumb luck. So what do we have at the end? Unsympathetic criminals deceiving unsympathetic victims in a predictable, non-climax ending. Well, my Grisham experience is 1-1. I'm not looking for a tiebreaker, but I have a funny feeling one will end up finding me someday anyway.

Though a bit dated, The Brethren is still required reading for any who would speak intelligently about U.S. public policy. Undergrads considering a PoliSci major or a pre-law track should get this read before fall classes start. Justice John Paul Stevens is 86 as of this writing so we can expect another nomination circus soon. Opinions will be loud and furious but few of those opinions will be informed or articulate. The reason is that the courts are the least understood of the three branches of the U.S. govt. Americans love court TV but their eyes glaze over at the merest hint at what legal professionals actually do.
Bob Woodward shows his considerable strengths in this collaborative work with Scott Armstrong. We see his uncanny ability to use the "background" style of interview to tease out a vivid picture of a generally inaccessible organization. We also see his ready willingness to place his own views alongside statements of alleged fact without the slightest pause for ethical implications. On p.378 of my hardbound copy, the authors describe an effort by one of the Court clerks to rally dissent against a Warren Burger opinion thusly: "The debate turned not on what the Chief had said or intended, but on what Klein and some other clerks said it might mean." How Woodward read, maybe even wrote that line with a straight face is beyond my comprehension. Woodward is notorious for quoting a person or conversation or describing events at length and ending the otherwise factual paragraph with a summary of his own that sometimes stretches or distorts the obvious meaning hilariously.
Such passages read about like this: The man walked into the courtroom. His body language seemed to say "I have contempt for this hallowed organization and shall devote my energies to its downfall in accordance with my extremist views mwahaha!" (do you see how I said the passages were LIKE this? Clever eh?) In the closing paragraphs of "The Brethren" the authors offer this from p. 444: Five separate Fourth Amendment cases were announced on July 6, the last day of the term. All five ruled against citizens' rights and in favor of the government." That is a pretty terse description of cases which have spilled barrels of ink and a false dichotomy besides (are citizen rights truly protected by a government which fails to protect them from crime?)
The storytelling is clearly slanted against the Burger court but the overall quality of the work makes the bias forgivable. We learn how the members of the Court see their mandate. We see the enormous role the clerks play in shaping the rulings of the Court. Hopefully, we see the imbecility of street demonstrations in front of the Court Building but probably not.

There have been decent books on the SCOTUS since The Brethren but Woodward and Armstrong's work captures a period of transition and evolution. We see the bitter and grudging resignation of William Douglas, one of the longest serving Justices in the history of the Court. We see the machinations behind Roe, busing and capital punishment.

The Brethren is a dense and fairly challenging read but well worth it.

Though a bit dated, The Brethren is still required reading for any who would speak intelligently about U.S. public policy. Undergrads considering a PoliSci major or a pre-law track should get this read before fall classes start. Justice John Paul Stevens is 86 as of this writing so we can expect another nomination circus soon. Opinions will be loud and furious but few of those opinions will be informed or articulate. The reason is that the courts are the least understood of the three branches of the U.S. govt. Americans love court TV but their eyes glaze over at the merest hint at what legal professionals actually do.
Bob Woodward shows his considerable strengths in this collaborative work with Scott Armstrong. We see his uncanny ability to use the "background" style of interview to tease out a vivid picture of a generally inaccessible organization. We also see his ready willingness to place his own views alongside statements of alleged fact without the slightest pause for ethical implications. On p.378 of my hardbound copy, the authors describe an effort by one of the Court clerks to rally dissent against a Warren Burger opinion thusly: "The debate turned not on what the Chief had said or intended, but on what Klein and some other clerks said it might mean." How Woodward read, maybe even wrote that line with a straight face is beyond my comprehension. Woodward is notorious for quoting a person or conversation or describing events at length and ending the otherwise factual paragraph with a summary of his own that sometimes stretches or distorts the obvious meaning hilariously.
Such passages read about like this: The man walked into the courtroom. His body language seemed to say "I have contempt for this hallowed organization and shall devote my energies to its downfall in accordance with my extremist views mwahaha!" (do you see how I said the passages were LIKE this? Clever eh?) In the closing paragraphs of "The Brethren" the authors offer this from p. 444: Five separate Fourth Amendment cases were announced on July 6, the last day of the term. All five ruled against citizens' rights and in favor of the government." That is a pretty terse description of cases which have spilled barrels of ink and a false dichotomy besides (are citizen rights truly protected by a government which fails to protect them from crime?)
The storytelling is clearly slanted against the Burger court but the overall quality of the work makes the bias forgivable. We learn how the members of the Court see their mandate. We see the enormous role the clerks play in shaping the rulings of the Court. Hopefully, we see the imbecility of street demonstrations in front of the Court Building but probably not.

There have been decent books on the SCOTUS since The Brethren but Woodward and Armstrong's work captures a period of transition and evolution. We see the bitter and grudging resignation of William Douglas, one of the longest serving Justices in the history of the Court. We see the machinations behind Roe, busing and capital punishment.

The Brethren is a dense and fairly challenging read but well worth it.

Though a bit dated, The Brethren is still required reading for any who would speak intelligently about U.S. public policy. Undergrads considering a PoliSci major or a pre-law track should get this read before fall classes start. Justice John Paul Stevens is 86 as of this writing so we can expect another nomination circus soon. Opinions will be loud and furious but few of those opinions will be informed or articulate. The reason is that the courts are the least understood of the three branches of the U.S. govt. Americans love court TV but their eyes glaze over at the merest hint at what legal professionals actually do.
Bob Woodward shows his considerable strengths in this collaborative work with Scott Armstrong. We see his uncanny ability to use the "background" style of interview to tease out a vivid picture of a generally inaccessible organization. We also see his ready willingness to place his own views alongside statements of alleged fact without the slightest pause for ethical implications. On p.378 of my hardbound copy, the authors describe an effort by one of the Court clerks to rally dissent against a Warren Burger opinion thusly: "The debate turned not on what the Chief had said or intended, but on what Klein and some other clerks said it might mean." How Woodward read, maybe even wrote that line with a straight face is beyond my comprehension. Woodward is notorious for quoting a person or conversation or describing events at length and ending the paragraph with a summary of his own that sometimes stretches or distorts the obvious meaning hilariously.
Such passages read about like this: The man walked into the courtroom. His body language seemed to say "I have contempt for this hallowed organization and shall devote my energies to its downfall in accordance with my extremist views mwahaha!" (do you see how I said the passages were LIKE this? Clever eh?) In the closing paragraphs of "The Brethren" the authors offer this from p. 444: Five separate Fourth Amendment cases were announced on July 6, the last day of the term. All five ruled against citizens' rights and in favor of the government." That is a pretty terse description of cases which have spilled barrels of ink and a false dichotomy besides (are citizen rights truly protected by a government which fails to protect them from crime?)
The storytelling is clearly slanted against the Burger court but the overall quality of the work makes the bias forgivable. We learn how the members of the Court see their mandate. We see the enormous role the clerks play in shaping the rulings of the Court. Hopefully, we see the imbecility of street demonstrations in front of the Court Building but probably not.

There have been decent books on the SCOTUS since The Brethren but Woodward and Armstrong's work captures a period of transition and evolution. We see the bitter and grudging resignation of William Douglas, one of the longest serving Justices in the history of the Court. We see the machinations behind Roe, busing and capital punishment.

The Brethren is a dense and fairly challenging read but well worth it.

Though a bit dated, The Brethren is still required reading for any who would speak intelligently about U.S. public policy. Undergrads considering a PoliSci major or a pre-law track should get this read before fall classes start. Justice John Paul Stevens is 86 as of this writing so we can expect another nomination circus soon. Opinions will be loud and furious but few of those opinions will be informed or articulate. The reason is that the courts are the least understood of the three branches of the U.S. govt. Americans love court TV but their eyes glaze over at the merest hint at what legal professionals actually do.
Bob Woodward shows his considerable strengths in this collaborative work with Scott Armstrong. We see his uncanny ability to use the "background" style of interview to tease out a vivid picture of a generally inaccessible organization. We also see his ready willingness to place his own views alongside statements of alleged fact without the slightest pause for ethical implications. On p.378 of my hardbound copy, the authors describe an effort by one of the Court clerks to rally dissent against a Warren Burger opinion thusly: "The debate turned not on what the Chief had said or intended, but on what Klein and some other clerks said it might mean." How Woodward read, maybe even wrote that line with a straight face is beyond my comprehension. Woodward is notorious for quoting a person or conversation or describing events at length and ending the paragraph with a summary of his own that sometimes stretches or distorts the obvious meaning hilariously.
Such passages read about like this: The man walked into the courtroom. His body language seemed to say "I have contempt for this hallowed organization and shall devote my energies to its downfall in accordance with my extremist views mwahaha!" (do you see how I said the passages were LIKE this? Clever eh?)
The storytelling is clearly slanted against the Burger court but the quality of the work makes the bias forgivable. We learn how the members of the Court see their mandate. We see the enormous role the clerks play in shaping the rulings of the Court. Hopefully, we see the futility of street demonstrations in front of the Court Building but probably not.

There have been decent books on the SCOTUS since The Brethren but Woodward and Armstrong's work captures a period of transition and evolution. We see the bitter and grudging resignation of William Douglas, one of the longest serving Justices in the history of the Court. We see the machinations behind Roe, busing and capital punishment.

The Brethren is a dense and fairly challenging read but well worth it.

I was very much looking forward to reading this book. But I must say that from the first chapter I was disappointted with the writing. The book reads like a string of unrelated newspaper articles or diary entries. There is no underling arc that ties all of the little stories together.

However, despite this shortcoming, "The Brethen" is very interesting. Woodward and Armstrong provide a unique take on the inner-workings of the first few years of the Burger court.

I would suggest that anyone considering reading "The Brethen" instead consider "Closed Chambers: The Rise, Fall, and Future of the Modern Supreme Court" by Edward Lazarus.

I was very much looking forward to reading this book. But I must say that from the first chapter I was disappointted with the writing. The book reads like a string of unrelated newspaper articles or diary entries. There is no underling arc that ties all of the little stories together.

However, despite this shortcoming, "The Brethen" is very interesting. Woodward and Armstrong provide a unique take on the inner-workings of the first few years of the Burger court.

I would suggest that anyone considering reading "The Brethen" instead consider "Closed Chambers: The Rise, Fall, and Future of the Modern Supreme Court" by Edward Lazarus.

This may possibly be the best book ever written in regards to the US Supreme Court. Opening with the end of the Warren Court, Woodward and Armstrong go on to describe the Burger Court from 1969-1975. Talking at length about Abortion, the Nixon case, and the Death Penalty, as well as giving great insight into the minds of the 9 men who interpret the nation's constitution. An amazing book, everyone should read it.

This may possibly be the best book ever written in regards to the US Supreme Court. Opening with the end of the Warren Court, Woodward and Armstrong go on to describe the Burger Court from 1969-1975. Talking at length about Abortion, the Nixon case, and the Death Penalty, as well as giving great insight into the minds of the 9 men who interpret the nation's constitution. An amazing book, everyone should read it.

I have just re-read this book, which I first enjoyed while I was taking Con Law in law school in the late 1970s. It is a little dated, but still a fun and well-written insider's story of the workings of the U.S. Supreme Court. Woodward and Armstrong write with an "inside the beltway" politically-correct perspective which may seem a little dated today. That's one feature that stands out. When it was originally released, Jimmy Carter was just being elected President, and the Congress was 2/3 Democratic. The political battlegrounds have changed in a generation. However, judicially, not as much as you might expect. Many key issues - abortion, free expression, and the role and limits of government, e.g., - continued through Rehnquist's term as Chief and still face the Roberts court. While today's Court line-up is more conservative, the process of internal court politics is certainly similar, so this book remains useful in attempting to understand both the history of the Court when it issued so many of those decisions that still drive politicians mad today, and how the often convoluted opinions on divisive issues are formed.
It also provides a little nostalgia in remembering Justices such as Potter Stewart and Thurgood Marshall. The authors capture a famous incident involving these two. When the Court of the 1970's considered an obscenity case, the Justices would retire, often en masse, to a basement screening room to take in the offending film. This was a world without home videos. Justice Stewart was infamous for his statement in an earlier case that, while he couldn't define obscenity, "I know it when I see it." Apparently, at the crucial moment (you know the word I'm avoiding) of the film, Justice Marshall would turn to Justice Stewart and proclaim: "That's it - I know it, I see it!"
Anyone interested in Constitutional Law and the Supreme Court should read this book.

Frankly, I thought for sure this would be a 5-star. It's thick, "complete." And maybe that's its shortcoming.

Many a reviewer has commented on how the details of the politics of the Supreme Court were examined in this volume. The problem I had with it is that (1) the authors' biases were evident and (2) I don't know how the authors could know so well what's going on in the minds of the justices.

Regarding the first, I have pretty much the same biases as the authors. I would have admired the Warren Court more than that of Warren Berger. But they judged Berger harshly from the beginning. Methinks that, had they done the same at the beginning of the Warren Court, they may have been surprised.

As to the second, there was quite a bit that reminded me of what a former boss pointed out about a Halberstram book. I can't remember the details, but he asked, "How could the guy know what was going on in the minds of those in such and such a board room? That was speculative." I found just enough of that in this book to be a little annoying.

I was part of a discussion group over the book and some of the group members were amazed by (1) how hard William O. Douglas, the one whom we've looked to for liberal guidance, was on his clerks and (2) that Thurgood Marshall appeared, frankly, to be kind of lazy! I just thought I'd add that for a little color to the review.

If there is any one benefit of the book it's that it reveals that the justices are, alas, human. That sounds naive perhaps. But I've often wondered if the Supreme Court is almost like a temple, with the priests going into their chambers of intellectual superiority, way beyond us mere mortals. You may get the picture. But they are very political...and they vary substantially, according to the authors, in their intellectual abilities. That revelation makes the book worth reading. But it is a little cumbersome at times, and you must take some of the authors' words for what they're worth.

Woodward and Armstrong have given us a revealing look at the U.S. Supreme Court during a six-year period (1969-1975) of transition away from liberalism. Taking over as chief justice from Earl Warren in 1969, Warren Burger was fixated on reversing the court's liberal direction and establishing himself as an important historical figure. According to the authors (and others) Burger wasn't entirely up to it. The authors provide us with an intimate look at the other justices, some of whom earned their respect (William Brennan, William Rehnquist), some who fell a bit short (Byron White, Thurgood Marshall), and one who's former brilliance had evaporated due to poor health (William Douglas). The authors also give readers a look at the internal politics of the court, which included political motivations, deal making, and even outright hypocrisy. There is also much focus on important court cases dealing with controversial issues such as busing, abortion, Watergate, etc.

This lengthy narrative has the readable feel of a journalistic expose - which it pretty much is. The book is now dated, but remains a superbly revealing look inside the highest court of justice.

Frankly, I thought for sure this would be a 5-star. It's thick, "complete." And maybe that's its shortcoming.

Many a reviewer has commented on how the details of the politics of the Supreme Court were examined in this volume. The problem I had with it is that (1) the authors' biases were evident and (2) I don't know how the authors could know so well what's going on in the minds of the justices.

Regarding the first, I have pretty much the same biases as the authors. I would have admired the Warren Court more than that of Warren Berger. But they judged Berger harshly from the beginning. Methinks that, had they done the same at the beginning of the Warren Court, they may have been surprised.

As to the second, there was quite a bit that reminded me of what a former boss pointed out about a Halberstram book. I can't remember the details, but he asked, "How could the guy know what was going on in the minds of those in such and such a board room? That was speculative." I found just enough of that in this book to be a little annoying.

I was part of a discussion group over the book and some of the group members were amazed by (1) how hard William O. Douglas, the one whom we've looked to for liberal guidance, was on his clerks and (2) that Thurgood Marshall appeared, frankly, to be kind of lazy! I just thought I'd add that for a little color to the review.

If there is any one benefit of the book it's that it reveals that the justices are, alas, human. That sounds naive perhaps. But I've often wondered if the Supreme Court is almost like a temple, with the priests going into their chambers of intellectual superiority, way beyond us mere mortals. You may get the picture. But they are very political...and they vary substantially, according to the authors, in their intellectual abilities. That revelation makes the book worth reading. But it is a little cumbersome at times, and you must take some of the authors' words for what they're worth.

Woodward and Armstrong have given us a revealing look at the U.S. Supreme Court during a six-year period (1969-1975) of transition away from liberalism. Taking over as chief justice from Earl Warren in 1969, Warren Burger was fixated on reversing the court's liberal direction and establishing himself as an important historical figure. According to the authors (and others) Burger wasn't entirely up to it. The authors provide us with an intimate look at the other justices, some of whom earned their respect (William Brennan, William Rehnquist), some who fell a bit short (Byron White, Thurgood Marshall), and one who's former brilliance had evaporated due to poor health (William Douglas). The authors also give readers a look at the internal politics of the court, which included political motivations, deal making, and even outright hypocrisy. There is also much focus on important court cases dealing with controversial issues such as busing, abortion, Watergate, etc.

This lengthy narrative has the readable feel of a journalistic expose - which it pretty much is. The book is now dated, but remains a superbly revealing look inside the highest court of justice.

This book might seem dated: it describes the machinations of the court from 1969 to 1976, which included, among other things, Roe v. Wade and the Watergate tapes case. However, it is far from obsolete. The Brethren is a still-unprecedented look into the Supreme Court, the most secretive top-level branch of government. Although the faces (save one) and the cases are different, the way in which cases are decided by this body has likely not, plus it is a look at a tumultous time in ours as well as the Court's history.

The focus of the story is Chief Justice Warren Earl Burger, who replaces Earl Warren after his retirement. The irony of the names is unexplored, but it is appropriate, because Burger becomes progressively preoccupied with trying to match Warren's legacy. Unlike Warren, though, he allows political concerns and vanity to influence his judgment and, bit by bit, erode the confidence of his colleagues, to the point where the late William Rehnquist, then a young conservative on the Court, makes fun of him behind his back. Although this book is unflattering to some of the justices, such as Thurgood Marshall, who is noted as lazy and uninvolved and Byron White, who is noted to be unlikeable, Burger is the biggest loser here. The book was published in the early 80s, only a few years before Burger left the court, and the image of him as a pompous, preening, intellectually deficient and generally clueless politician cost him, big time. In spite of the landmark rulings his Court made, he was unable to reverse the Warren Court's liberal activism (as he had hoped to do). His "Minnesota Twin", Harry Blackmun, would drift further away from him, both politically and personally, until finally becoming the most liberal justice after the departure of Thurgood Marshall in 1991. Burger's Macchiavellian strategizing to assign opinions caused such a backlash that, at one point, William Brennan decides to vote for whatever side of a case puts him in the minority so that Burger won't be able to assign him another crappy oppinion.

Ultimately, Burger had good intentions, but his blunders dominate the book. He is a fascinating character, almost as bad a manager and as delusional as David Brent from the recent BBC TV Series The Office. Some of the principals come out looking good: Potter Stewart, for example, and Brennan also. But Rehnquist comes out best, in spite of some scheming and obfuscation. Burger, though, is front and center, and he's a reminder of how we're to seriously we all should take the business of the Court.

The 'Introduction' says the Supreme Court is the highest court and final forum. It operates in absolute secrecy, only revealing its judgments in formal written opinions. Their decision making has been kept secret from the people who are affected. This book tells about the inner workings of the Burger Court from 1969 to 1976. The Supreme Court can reinterpret laws, the Constitution, and prior cases. Numerous confidential sources provided information. It tells how 'LIFE' magazine was used to discredit Abe Fortas to force his resignation (pp.18-19). Page 21 gives the political reasons for Burger's selection. Page 24 suggests the fix was in: the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously recommended Burger. The next seven chapters cover the years 1969 to 1975; each Supreme Court term coves one year from October to June or early July.

Do you know that newspapers manipulate the news (p.31)? [You can see this if your area has more than one newspaper.] One of Burger's first actions was against the rigorous code of ethics proposed for federal judges by Earl Warren (p.32). Next he restricted the normal intercommunication between the law clerks (pp.34-35). Was Burger "petty, unpleasant, and dishonest" (p.71)? Page 85 tells how Burger tried to change the rules to benefit a monopoly. This was a violation of judicial restraint and strict constructionism! Burger then backed down from Douglas' proposed dissent. While the emphasis is on Warren Earl Burger, the personalities and characters of the other Judges are displayed. Many cases were undecided because the Court was deadlocked 4 to 4. Blackmun would provide the deciding vote on these and future cases. This ended Burger's first term as Chief Justice. This book seems slow-paced in covering many details about the Justices. After 25 years, this then important story has faded into the background of history. But its important to understand that the Justices are politicians who do not need popular approval. This book does not go into much detail as to why a specific judge was picked.

The "Constitutional Journal" by Jeffrey St. John was written as a journalistic summary of the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Article III Section 1 defined the Court system. They left further changes to Congress. There is nothing in Section 1 that mandates life-tenure, except by default. Congress could specify a term for a fixed number of years, or an age limit. There are examples from history for an age limit. There were six Justices in Washington's era, seven for Jefferson, and nine for Jackson. About one Justice for every two states. If this example was followed we could have had twenty-one Justices by FDR's era. This could allow more work to be done more quickly.

This is still a must-read for people seriously interested in the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, some of my fellow reviewers had to read this for class or were not interested in the topic, which is really too bad, but these individuals should not be the last word on the issue. I would also like to respond to some of the more outrageous comments from other reviewers:

"It is not an easy reading."


To those who do not have trouble reading the newspaper, it will be extremely easy reading. In fact, it is written in such a clear style, with short, to-the-point sentences, as to be among the easiest books I have ever read.


"The secretive world of the court would be difficult for any journalist to penetrate, and here Woodward and his cohort Armstrong prove themselves not to be up to the task."


Whoever wrote this obviously had not come of age when the book was published. The publication of "The Brethren" ranks as probably the most scandalous moment in the history of the Supreme Court, because no one to that date had even come close to gaining the insider access that Woodward and Armstrong did-- and no journalist has gotten this close to the Court since. This is an utterly glib and untrue comment. As close as is humanly possible, Woodward and Armstrong penetrated the Court.

"'The Brethren' is, more than any book I've ever read, a product of its times. It reflects the anti-war, anti-establishment, anti-Nixon, pro-activist, and downright revolutionary times of the early 1970s. If you choose to read "The Brethren," you should understand that it takes positions as being either right or wrong. And with political powder kegs (abortion, busing, the Watergate tapes, the death penalty, etc.), that is an intellectually risky proposition."

Funny, because when I read it I had the exact opposite reaction-- I was upset by the excesses of that period. However, I should note that "The Brethren"'s presentation of the issues is absolutely non-judgmental. It notes with honesty what each justice's view was, in such simple language that it often sounds reductionist. People who have read Woodward's other books know that he is not a partisan hack.

Again, people who are really interested in the Supreme Court should definitely hunt this down.

Despite being a bit dated, The Brethren, by Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong, remains one of the most illuminating looks at the inner workings of the Supermen Court. And certainly it will remain a very interesting historical look at the court it examines.

The Brethren attempts to present the reader with what "really" goes on in the Supreme Court. It describes the conferences, the personality of justices, and how justice's feel toward each other, items which are generally hidden from the public. Covering the terms from 1969-1975, Woodward and Armstrong gives us a look at the fourteen justices and how they dealt with the major issues facing the court. The book describes how Burger changed his conference votes so he could assign the majority opinion of the court, angering William Douglas and William Brennen. He also describes how Thurgood Marshall greeted Burger "Hey chiefy baby", getting a kick out of making him feel uncomfortable. The reader sees how Harry Blackmun agonized at being considered Burger's "boy" which eventually led to his breaking away from the conservative wing of the court. Woodward also tells of the lack of respect the justices had for the abilities of Chief Justice Burger, who wrote poorly reasoned opinions that embarrassed some members of the court.

The main thesis of the book is how the moderates control the opinions of the court. A majority opinion must have the vote of at least five members of the court, therefore the opinion becomes a compromise between the author of the opinion and his joining brethren. Even when an ideologue writes an opinion, his opinion must be amended to maintain the votes of his brethren. Therefore, the majority opinions of the court usually reflect a somewhat moderate solution, as compared to the ideological make-up of the court.

The Brethren also relates how politics play a key role in the decisions of the court. Justices have predispositions to every case they decide, and most have an ideology that influences their decisions. The role of the moderates on the court is also an example of how politics effects the decisions of the court. If a president is able to appoint enough justices of his political persuasion, the court's ideological make-up will change, as will the direction of the court's decisions. Justices on the court do worry about the effect of new appointments to the Supreme Court. When President Gerald Ford appointed Justice John Paul Stevens to the court to replace Justice Douglas, Brennen and Marshall worried about the future of abortion and busing, fearing a new conservative justice might vote to overturn or limit the scope of decisions in these areas. These are a few examples of the role of politics in the Supreme Court.

The strengths of this book include its in-depth view of court personalities, antidotes, and relationships between the justices. These are aspects of the court normally not made public. Another strength of the book is its description of how cases are decided, and how a court is "built" (a majority opinion). Further, the reader gets an understanding of the factors that influence a court's opinions such as ideology, compromise, persuasive arguments, and even interaction with the clerks.

The major weakness of the book is the lack of documentation. There is absolutely no documentation for the material presented in the book. Woodward's disclaimer is he got the information on background and deep background, meaning the sources go unnamed. He also claims he read memos, unpublished and rough draft opinions, and other unpublished written material generated by the court. Despite the lack of documentation The Brethren remains a must read for students interested in law and politics.

I read The Brethren because I have an interest in constitutional law and knew Woodward would do exhaustive research about the Supreme Court before writing this story. This book did not disappoint in its discussion of the constitutional issues debated in the court during the first 6 years of the Burger Court and it was a fascinating expose of the behind-the-scenes activites at the court and the personalities of the justices. Woodward does an excellent job presenting the cases in layman terms, perhaps because he began the project with no legal training himself, and it makes everything very clear for the reader. The most unsettling revelation in the book is how critical constitutional decisions often come down to compromises ("I'll side with you on this case if you side with me on that case") and personality clashes, though it is important to understand that the justices are people and their determinations are often subject to human passions. I think this book is an excellent history of the court in the early 70s and a cautionary tale for the future and I would highly recommend it to people interested in the Court and/or people interested in practicing law. I would also recommend it for people interested in politics in general, because the court is obviously very political whether it tried to remain independent or not.

This book is a bona fide classic exposý of how the most important court in the country worked in the late '60s and early '70s. It is incredibly relevant today, both as a reminder of liberty past and as a hint of what may be being covered up by our ultraparanoid and hyperclandestine government today.

It deserves a full-bore reissue with all the bells and whistles.

Although "The Brethren" was written a quarter of a century ago and it covers the Supreme Court sessions from 1969 to 1975, there are two reasons to hunt down a used copy of this book and read it today. The first is its examination of the important Court decisions of Warren Burger's early years, all of which still reverberate with their controversy and implications. The second is to learn how, in spite of its famously left-of-center decisions, the Court began taking a sharp turn to the ideological right, spurred by the appointment of Burger and by the ascent of the young William Rehnquist.

"The Brethren" gave the Burger Court a reputation from which it never quite recovered. Although the Supreme Court has historically had its share of in-fighting, incompetence, and inanity, its internal meltdowns in the 1970s were occasionally beyond the pale. Woodward and Armstrong portray Burger as a well-meaning but ultimately misguided man obsessed by the legacy of Earl Warren, concerned far more with image than with principle, unskilled in management techniques that would have helped bring the Court to a consensus, and unashamed of his repeated attempts to assign the Court's decisions in a fashion insured to thwart the will of the majority. Even today, most historians, regardless of ideological bent, view the Burger years as a mediocre and often inconsistent transition between the liberal Warren Court and the conservative Rehnquist Court.

It's not a perfect book, by any means. Woodward and Armstrong are at their page-turning best when they examine in detail some of the more famous decisions and controversies faced by the Court (busing, obscenity, abortion, the death penalty, and--especially--Watergate). And the account is surprisingly balanced: anyone expecting a "liberal" flogging of an increasingly conservative court will be surprised, on the one hand, by the authors' depictions of the increasingly unfit and ornery Douglas and the unsophisticated yet affable Marshall and, on the other hand, by their open admiration of Rehnquist, who comes across as (by far) the most likeable and amiable of the justices. Nevertheless, their account is a bit too heavy on office gossip. True--this journalistic style brings the fourteen justices who served during these years to life, but what's lacking is the necessary detailed legal background that would make sense of the Court's day-to-day work rather than its scandalous backbiting and personality conflicts. Overall, though, it's an admirable piece of journalism that makes the Court seem as human as it really is.

I read this book at fifteen, and it convinced me to become a lawyer.

That was foolish, because I should have paid more attention to the undercurrent. The book is a cautionary tale, and was explaining the direction of the Supreme Court, and the beginning of the end of its civil libertarian bent. By the time I was out of law school, the damage had been done, and the court that I fell in love with in this book was long gone.

And when I say the court I fell in love with, I don't just mean the individual justices, which this book explores with depth and care, but the institution it used to be.

This is a book to own and to remember. My copy has been thumbed to tatters.

Woodward and Armstrong's "The Brethren" is one of those rare books that you may not like or agree with but you can't absolutely say it is a bad book.

Examining the Court from 1969 to 1975, "The Brethren" is an engaging account of how each Justice moved toward a judgement in the biggest cases of that era and how some of the Justices recruited others to form majorities in these cases. The surprising aspect of the book is that persuading other Justices was not so much recruiting as it was threatening, deceiving, placating, or other forms of work place politics.

This is all shocking until one realizes where the tension originates. These years are portrayed as a struggle between the noble and almost mythic Justices left over from the previous era - the Warren Court - and the new Justices, a.k.a. the Nixon appointees. Inevitably in the book, your appreciation will depend on your political leanings. "The Brethren" is, more than any book I've ever read, a product of its times. It reflects the anti-war, anti-establishment, anti-Nixon, pro-activist, and downright revolutionary times of the early 1970s. If you choose to read "The Brethren," you should understand that it takes positions as being either right or wrong. And with political powder kegs (abortion, busing, the Watergate tapes, the death penalty, etc.), that is an intellectually risky proposition.

Worth mentioning are also some lighter moments. Anything relating to the Justices and the obscenity/pornography cases of that time will have you telling your friends about this book. Those parts are filled with priceless humor. My final opinion, however, is that I'm glad I read it (really) but I wouldn't strongly recommend it.

For a remarkable, journalistic view of the workings of the Supreme Court, this is an excellent book detailing the political ebb and flow that is not covered on the outside. However, the best remains Edward Lazarus' expose of his term as a Supreme Court Clerk, Behind Closed Doors. Lazarus is almost encyclopedic in his treatment of three major cases and the political background to each, making his book a preferable read for anyone seriously interested in learning about the workings of the Court.

Most problematic are the portraits of the psychological reasoning of the justices. While Woodward/Armstrong no doubt interviewed a handful of them, they accept too often the simple dismissals and mental evaluations. How on earth could they step inside Justice Stewart's mind to learn that he was the one justice "most desirous of confrontation and most committed to compromise"? (p. 328) Which clerk(s) told them that?

Read it for presenting snapshots of justices that connect them to their human natures, rather than their legal positions. The inept machinations of Justice Burger, the decline of the Warren legacy, the courageous battle of Justice Douglas against conservativism and his own mortality: the Brethren shines when it addresses such episodes, humanizing what has for so long been kept hidden.

But the problem with 'humanizing' the Court is that the mistaken belief that one comprehends it as a political body fails when trying to understand the Court's role as a legal institution. Reduced to political gambits by contrasting parties, the legal doctrines that moved these judges lose their luster (and comprehensibility).

When law becomes a game of 'who appointed whom' and what they had for breakfast, it becomes a game that any journalist may play, and outsiders may keep score on the decisions.

Which is a misfortune of this book.

You will never find a book that will give you a better insight into the Supreme Court. This book explains many of the rulings that have come out of the Supreme Court as well. You will also gain better insight into the personalities of some of the Justices of the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is also given excellent coverage as well. The functions of the judicial body as a whole are very well explained by this book. This book could be used to teach a course about the functions of the Supreme Court. Read this book if you can You will gain a better understanding of the Judicial body.

One cannot over estimate the complexity and dynamism that occurs in a Supreme Court. For most people, this is as close as they will get. In 1989, I had the honor of working for one of the greatest statesmen that the Philippines ever produced: Chief Justice Marcelo B. Fernan - a man of integrity and a mind that was as expansive as it was agile. Lucky for me, his library included this timeless classic and I am certain that it influenced him. I asked to borrow it. From page 1, I had a difficult time putting it down. The Brethren makes you aware of the impact a decision makes on society. What an awesome responsibility this collection of men (and which now includes women) have. Take as an example the case of Brown vs. Board of Education. In this marquis case, the Supreme Court single-handedly changed years of history. Sure there is politics, where there are humans there will always be politics. With age comes two things: experience and deterioration. We hope that we can extract from wise elders come bright legal minds the best they can offer the court while in service. That this is a boring book, no way! I guess you have to like this sort of thing. I know I do. I give Woodward and Armstrong 5 stars.

After the riveting "All the President's Men," one would expect that when Bob Woodward sharpened his journalistic pencil to take after the Supreme Court that more fun would follow. Alas, it is not to be. "The Brethren" is a fairly conventional by-the-numbers account of the Nixon-Ford era Supreme Court that tries to drum up tension from such incidents as the movement to impeach the aged Justice William O. Douglas, but ultimately fails. The secretive world of the court would be difficult for any journalist to penetrate, and here Woodward and his cohort Armstrong prove themselves not to be up to the task.

A word about this book's availability. I frequent a lot of used book stores and I've come across it on a regular basis.

The U.S. Supreme Court is one of the most insular bodies of government to ever exist. But it's power is immense. Woodward does an excellent job of teaching us what it's like on the inside. I highly recommend this book for anyone who is interested in knowing more about this powerful, but least understood branch of government.

Gives an amazing insight into what went on in the Supreme Court in the past few decades, particularly the interaction between the law and the individual judges' quirks and personal opinions. The Justices are portrayed in all their flaws, and it's amazing to watch the seemingly haphazard process produce results, as much through personal politics as through actual legal decisions! A must read.

This book is as much a snap-shot view of the Supreme Court as it is a detailed view of the characters serving the Court during that period. Often the latter material provides the entertainment insofar as the time period provides the circumstances. A thoroughly enjoyable read!

A wonderful look at what goes on behind the scenes. The justices are seen in a new light. Its one of a kind.

Although the book shows a little bias from woodward, the story is great

Few nonfiction books combine intimate details, startling information, and humor as well as this one. In The Brethren, the reader will make discoveries about the Supreme Court that he will never have fathomed: the Justices are fallible; there is bickering, politics, and lobbying when making decisions; they joke about pornography; the clerks have a secret society, etc. It is guaranteed to open the reader's eyes to a world that he never could have imagined existed. And I reccomend the book even to those who have a slight interest in the law. Additionally, there are guaranteed laughs (and I mean HUGE laughs) from both the subtle and not so subtle humor that is sprinkled throughout.

The Brethren, co-authored by Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong, is an in-depth documentary of the United States Supreme Court from 1969 to 1975, under the leadership of Warren Burger. Woodward and Armstrong present, in detail, all aspects of the court and of it's members. Major issues faced by the court during these years included abortion, racial integration, censorship, and the relationships between the justices. This book is comparable to a lengthy newspaper article. Written more as a source of information than of entertainment, The Brethren is the brutal truth, but not boring. The book was interesting for me, because prior to reading it I did not know much about the Supreme Court. I wanted to finish the book so I could find out what the ruling would be on a particular case, and whether certain justices would retire or not. A feature that helped me get through this book was a chart included in it. The chart listed the justices, the President who appointed them, and the years they had served on the court. It seems that the authors of this book had access to information that all members of the court did not. Gossip was a major part of this book. William Douglas privately referred to Thurgood Marshall as a "spaghetti spine," and very few members of the court wielded a great deal of respect for Chief justice Burger. When Lewis Powell first arrived on the court in 1971, Potter Stewart informed him that "The leadership was not Burger. He was Chief Justice in name only." The justices who actually controlled the court's decisions were the swing votes, the justices in the center. If anyone ever asks me why the United States judicial system is so inefficient, I will tell them to read The Brethren. In the supreme court, no case is an easy case, and no decision ever comes quickly. Some issues, such as abortion, were not settled in the Burger court, and are still not settled today. The decisions made by the court are too difficult to be made by nine men. There is too m! uch work to be done on a single case, and many times the clerks contributed more to an opinion that the justices themselves. The clerks and secretaries were often mistreated by their superiors, but they worked hard and thought like their bosses hoping for advancements in the future. The Brethren is very well written and was worth reading. It taught me more than I ever wanted to know about the judicial process and the Supreme Court. If I ever need information regarding one of the court cases from this time period I will go back to this book. It could be used as a textbook for a course on the Supreme Court. Trust in the political system was both strengthened and weakened by this book. I was impressed by how difficult it is to confirm an appointment to the supreme court. Not just anyone can become a Supreme Court justice, but selection is limited to political insiders who don't always know what America is all about. A book like this keeps Washington on it's toes. It reminds politicians that someone is always watching, and even the closest colleague may be willing to talk. The average American probably wouldn't read this book. If they did, they would only pay attention to cases that could possibly pertain to them. It could definitely make some readers angry and confused, causing them to question the whole political system.

Woodward made the most of a mistake by Chief Justice Burger in allowing him the privvy to the inner working of the highest court in the land. This highly readable book brings to life the circumstances that led to opinions on Civil Rights, Abortion, Desegregation etc. The personal accounts in many ways take away the luster of the Court; but also bring comfort to the fact that these fallible men achieved and triumphed in spite of themselves. Perhaps because of its brutal veracity, the Court has not and will never again allow its secrets to be shared in print