I have much respect to Sandra Day O'connor for not only being the first woman to sit in the United States Supreme Court and for breaking lot of barriers for women all over the world, regardless of whether you are in a law industry or not. I had high expectation for this book and was really looking forward to reading about her life and the court. I anticipated this book to be biography of her life, her decisions, and her life in the court; however, it is more like a history of the Supreme Court and the Constitution. It is quite informative, but poorly written. Organization structure is very confusing and she goes from one topic to another in a poor manner. Hard to follow and read. I was very disappointed.

This is a good overview of a very broad topic. It never becomes steeped in legalese, and yet communicates a great deal of information. In addition to details, the book also provides a insight into the overall thought patterns involved in the court's deliberations. While the book does deal with the subject of women in the law, it is more even-handed than might be expected.

The law is a deep subject , this book is geared for the average American. Some anecdotes are provide of Justice O'connor's career path, an explanation of the lifestyle of a Supreme Sourt justice, a little history of the law and the United States. The latter part of the book explains the Amendments, The author comes into her own on womens rights.
I generally would not read a law book, but the style of explaining the constitution and law did not put me off. Giving a little historical background for each amendment, appealed to me. I found the book very rewarding for the information it contained, rewarding as a quick summary of an area I would not otherwise have read about.

The law is a deep subject , this book is geared for the average American. Some anecdotes are provide of Justice O'connor's career path, an explanation of the lifestyle of a Supreme Sourt justice, a little history of the law and the United States. The latter part of the book explains the Amendments, The author comes into her own on womens rights.
I generally would not read a law book, but the style of explaining the constitution and law did not put me off. Giving a little historical background for each amendment, appealed to me. I found the book very rewarding for the information it contained, rewarding as a quick summary of an area I would not otherwise have read about.

Much interesting contenet about the history of the Supreme Court, how it functions as a group, it's purpose under the constitution. Also well wriiten section about the history of women's voting rights.

Ocassonally a bit repetative.

I learned and enjoyed.

Much interesting contenet about the history of the Supreme Court, how it functions as a group, it's purpose under the constitution. Also well wriiten section about the history of women's voting rights.

Ocassonally a bit repetative.

I learned and enjoyed.

I read a lot of biography and I have tremendous respect for Sandra Day O'Connor. I thought, for sure, this was a win-win combination for this book. Sadly, I only made it three quarters through before I donated it to the local library. It is well written but dry.

I read a lot of biography and I have tremendous respect for Sandra Day O'Connor. I thought, for sure, this was a win-win combination for this book. Sadly, I only made it three quarters through before I donated it to the local library. It is well written but dry.

It is part memoir, part civics lesson, and part history book. But in the end it really is none of these. It was a pleasant enough read, but not very enlightening. The best part of the books were Justiuce O'Connor's
presentation of woman's history (I wish I knew more about this) and her reminisces of Thurgood Marshall.

Justice O'Connor is a class act...PERIOD. Although the few reviews posted are generally positive, the posting by "A READER," clearly was written by an individual with a total lack of understanding of the law in general, the courts, and of the barriers women have overcome to reach higher positions in the legal field.
Justice O'Connor is a woman among women; a great legal mind, a fine jurist, a great mom and grandmother, and a devoted wife.

This book is a treasure trove of information for those who love the law and its rich history in the United States.

Justice O'Connor is a class act...PERIOD. Although the few reviews posted are generally positive, the posting by "A READER," clearly was written by an individual with a total lack of understanding of the law in general, the courts, and of the barriers women have overcome to reach higher positions in the legal field.
Justice O'Connor is a woman among women; a great legal mind, a fine jurist, a great mom and grandmother, and a devoted wife.

This book is a treasure trove of information for those who love the law and its rich history in the United States.

If I ever teach an introductory-level course on the American judicial system, I plan to assign this book as required reading. For one thing, it was written by one of the foremost jurists of our time -- a true insider, who is intimately familiar with the inner workings of the US Supreme Court -- and someone who is respected and admired by conservatives and liberals alike for her moderate, pragmatic, non-ideological approach to the law. But the main reason I would recommend this book for students of the American legal system is that it is well written, easy to understand, highly informative, and filled with insights that are not found in most legal texts. It's a short, highly readable book; divided into short, easy-to-digest chapters (many of which are reprints of papers that O'Connor had written for various law journals).

The book begins with an inside look at how the Supreme Court operates. It then turns to an examination of the history of American law. Then it profiles some of the most important Supreme Court Justices of the past (including a few of O'Connor's former colleagues on the Court). After that, it looks at the history of women and the law in the United States (including an excellent overview of the women's suffrage movement, and an examination of the history of women in the legal profession). Then it turns to an overview of the structure of the US court system, an examination of the legal profession in the United States, and some suggestions for how our legal system can be improved. The book concludes with a defense of the core principles of constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the role of the courts in safeguarding our civil liberties.

This is a must read for anyone interested in American jurisprudence.

This book starts off in a dull way: the history of constitutional law and the judges who helped shape it. Later on Judge O'Connor talks about her perspective of the people she worked with, which makes it well-worth reading. I plan to read her other book: her life growing up on a Texas ranch.

Indeed that there are very few books like this one for which you feel that every minute you spend reading is well spent.

She writes in plain and simple English and every sentence has content, logic and weight. She also writes in a tight and balanced structure, so you can always unfailingly find each of her opinion illustrated and evidenced fully and succinctly. Therefore, even just by the writing style, it is an enjoyable book. Much more than that, it is an inspiring book for anyone interested in the impact of institutions, because it points out many interesting aspects about the government institution that worth attention and deliberation. Just to give an example, she notes in her book that many countries have something similar to Constitution or Bill of Rights that intends to uphold liberty and democracy, but many fail to enforce it nearly as well as United States, a country that enshrines "the right of its unelected Supreme Court to use the Bill of Rights to declare illegal the actions of the democratically elected legislature or executive". The book does not attempt to give a theory about how institutions influence development or how institutions itself evolve, but it shows that these are very interesting and potentially very important questions to answer.

For someone out of the legal profession, this book also provides the very necessary basic knowledge in balanced width and depth. (However, I can understand if a person well acquainted with law may find it too elementary.)

Justice O'Connor provides an inside view of Supreme Court basics, background on the key origins of our laws, perspectives on other justices (especially those she has known personally who are no longer with us), and some recommendations. It is not intended to be a scholarly work - simply to provide a layman's overview.

Justices maintain an atmosphere of collegiality - reinforced by each one shaking hands with all the others on any day that they work together (eg. hearing oral arguments). Support from at least four justices is required to hear an appeal - less than 100/year are heard out of about 7,000 requests. Criminal cases comprise about 15% of those heard, and federal tax cases about 4 per year. Newly legislated areas (eg. environment) contribute a disproportionate number, until those areas get worked through. Decisions about who writes various opinions are made by the senior justice within each position.

Much of the foundation of U.S. law comes from the Magna Carta (1297) - eg. protection against arbitrary action (due process), requiring legislative approval of taxation, religious freedom, speedy criminal trials, and an independent judiciary.

O'Connor then reviews the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, and the evolution of our Bill of Rights. Contributions of several justices are then summarized, including O'Connor contemporaries Thurgood Marshall, Warren Berger, and Lewis Powell. Major milestones in U.S. womens' rights follows - with obtaining the right to vote being one.

Finally, Justice O'Connor leaves us with her concerns in several areas, the most important probably being jury selection. She is concerned with the possible unfairness afforded the side with the most money selecting desirable jury demographics - acerbated by peremptory challenges. She points out that England did away with peremptory challenges in 1988. O'Connor also believes jurors should be allowed to take notes, given key points of law prior to the case beginning, and copies of the judge's instructions given prior to deliberating. Improved education is another concern - especially when, as she points out, a recent poll found that 37% believe a defendant most prove his/her innocence.

This book is not an easy read but worth the study, especially on the parts dealing with women and the law and with the jury selection process. Emphasis on the constitution and bill of rights in supreme court deliberations has been consistently changing throughout the court's history. Citizens' participation in bringing about change is also noted.

So the founders didn't reference the Bible in establishing law in this nation? How about talk about the 2nd amendement, 10th etc.. she dissaproves of traditional roles, advocates a touchy feely stance on foreign laws and says we have much to learn (ie adopt) from them. States rights? Laws from God? How about talking on these points? Not worth reading.

This is a highly revealing portrait of a truly dreadful smugly self-satisfied individual. (Only Ginger Roger's autobiography is more offputting.) If you're expecting embarrassing revelations about her colleagues, don't. As for as O'Conner is concerned, "Everything is beautiful at the ballet, where every swam must have a handsome prince."

While occasionally suffering from a rose colored view of the world this is an immensely enjoyable and informative book.

Broken up into several different sections this book ranges from a look at the progress of women in society in general, within the law in specific as well as an overview of several areas of jurisprudence. I must admit that I wasn't expecting too much from this book after reading the initial chapter. Thanks to a teacher who I very much respected, Professor Kobylka, I received an excellent in-depth look into several areas of Con Law so I didn't think that this would offer much to it - but I was wrong! While I really enjoyed those classes there is much that could be gained from getting wide view of everything in it's contact in addition to having had those areas of in depth study.

O'Conner, in her unique position as the first female justice on the supreme court, also provides great insight into the position of women in the law today. While personally I prefer the jurisprudence of Ginsburg in this area to that of O'Connor's I was still able to get new insight into those areas which I as a man am so often unaware of.

The only real time that I felt something was really left out of the legal history provided here was that Ex Parte McCardle was left out of the discussion of habeas corpus jurisprudence.

While one shouldn't go into this work with the expectation that it is a scholarly piece it is both enjoyable and informative and whereas other works are better suited to academic purposes getting to read the thoughts of an actually justice is highly valuable.

I got this abridged audio CD from the library. I found the book interesting and enlightening. It covers topics from the history of the constitution, musings on certain supreme court Justices including Thurgood Marshall, a brief history of the women's rights movement, and problems with the law today and jury issues. Sandra read the book herself on the CD, an her voice sounds friendly but crackles a bit with age. It inspired me to want to serve on a jury someday, though with trepidation. I don't feel like I was missing much by listening to the abridged version. Of course, if you want real depth on one of the topics she discusses, look for another book. This just covers the topics, and makes everyone feel good. There is not much she says that you can argue with. I kept wondering if she wrote this to ameliorate the population ruffled at the Supreme Court's arbitrary handling of the Florida recount upset in 2000.

Like other books from Supreme Court Justices, this one is informative and interesting. It is very easy to read, probably more so than some of the others. The sections on law and history are very interesting. The section on women was not quite as interesting, but that was to be expected (focusing on a special interest as opposed to the broader scope of the court). The explanations of how the Court works is very good and something about which the public is often wrong. Overall, a good Supreme Court book.

I'm not sure what _The Majesty of the Law_ is really about. It's partly a recap of the writing of the U.S. Constitution and a few important people and decisions in the Supreme Court's history. It's partly a history of the women's movement. It's partly Justice O'Connor's personal recollections about people she's worked with.

What she writes is basically okay, but there is nothing particularly interesting or challenging about it. Most of the ideas presented are civics class platitudes--people should be treated equally regardless of race or gender, and that sort of thing. Nothing much wrong with it, but it is not as intellectually stimulating as some other judges' and justices' books.

Perhaps it is best compared to a junior high social studies book, which happens to be written by someone who has spent a couple of decades on the United States Supreme Court. And that's part of what makes it so frustrating: anyone could have given us this kind of runthrough of the material she covers, even without being a Supreme Court justice. Surely Justice O'Connor has more to offer than this.

It's not quite a bad book. It might be useful to introduce a 12-year-old to the material, and if that is what she was aiming for, she has done well. But well read adults who have heard it all before are likely to be bored.

As other reviewers have noted, this book is not an in-depth analysis of legal issues. Rather it's an attempt to provide an informal, backstage glimpse into life on the Supreme Court from the perspective of the first woman justice.

Some of her points will loom large with women who, like me, were "firsts" on a much smaller scale. For instance, she notes the significance of changing the nameplates from "Mr. Justice..." to simply "Justice..."

As we might expect from a down-home woman who was brought up riding horses in Arizona, O'Connor remains modest and matter-of-fact. She recognizes her role and the respect she deserves. She describes the difficulties of women in the law, frankly and without self-pity, and acknowledges the preference for sharing experiences with other women in law.

And her behind-the-scenes glimpses reflect her perspective as a woman who cares about people as well as principles. She shares wonderful anecdotes about Thurgood Marshall. And she says absolutely nothing about Clarence Thomas, even when discussing the process of confirmation to the Court.

In my favorite chapter, Justice O'Connor raises strong, provocative questions about jury duty. Established 900 years ago, she says, the concept remains sound but the implementation is due for an overhaul. Why shouldn't jurors take notes? Why should they be subjected to long waits in uncomfortable rooms? And jurors surely deserve better compensation, she says.

O'Connor compares US juries with those of other English-speaking countries -- England, Canada, and Australia. She notes that other countries do not send civil cases to juries as frequently, so jurors do not have to sit through days and weeks of complex testimony that leaves them so bewildered they may as well flip a coin. (Actually a coin flip would be fairer than trying to sort through half-remembered facts!) And lawyers spend so much time psyching out jurors they want to challenge that jury selection can take weeks. In Europe, says O'Connor, juries are selected in minutes!

If anything, Justice O'Connor doesn't go far enough. Paying for jury service won't help a self-employed or sales person who could lose an account worth thousands of dollars. And jurors often experience serious emotional symptoms following a difficult case.

However, it is refreshing to hear such honesty from a distinguished member of the legal profession. O'Connor even recalls the New Yorker cartoon where a jury foreman tells the judge, "We find the defendant guilty and sentence him to jury duty." So true! I'm told that some juries begin to identify with criminal defendants -- they're treated in more or less the same way!

If you know someone who's called for jury duty, buy him or her this book -- good reading for the interminable, senseless waiting time.