Chief Justice Rehnquist is a great historian who focuses his history of the Supreme Court on the cases it has decided.
He takes the reader down the path of US history by telling the story fo the Court.
He ends the book with a brief few chapters on how the Court operates today, which is extremely insightful.
I was taking Con Law I at the time I read this book and it helped put the cases I was reading in a historical perspective.
Very good, a must read for the historian/Constitutional Law student!

I was pleasantly surprised by this introduction to the Supreme Court. It is written in accessible prose that covers the history of the Court and Rehnquist's own experiences as a law clerk for Justice Robert Jackson and as a judge on the Court. His own experiences illuminate the duties of the law clerk and the justices and how cases come to, and are decided by, the Supreme Court. The process of petitioning for a writ of certiorari to oral arguments and finally to conferences are brought to life by Rehnquist's accounts.



The book's history of the court is lucid, providing the historical context, the details of most important cases, and the ramifications of the decisions. Renqhist begins with the most important case, Marbury vs. Madison (during the Marshall Court), which established judicial review of the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress. What is made crystal clear is that the Court has evolved on many levels. The number of judges and their court rooms have change. The federal judiciary and the duties of the judges have changed. (Early on the judges had to travel and decided cases on the regional appeal circuit. Later Congress set-up the regional, federal appeals circuit courts, relieving the Supreme Court of the growing numbers of federal appeals cases.). The way cases reach the Supreme Court has changed and the influence of the Supreme Court has grown in importance. But what is also clear is that Supreme Court hasn't always gotten it right (the Dred Scott case) nor has it shied away from overturning precedent (Brown vs. the Board of Education). On the other hand, it often gets it right and is alive with relevance in the time decisions are made and through the careful work of the thoughtful men and women that make up the Court.



The book is non-ideological and Rehnquist stops his history after the Warren Court. As an act of respect and dignity he did not comment on the present Court members or their decisions.

I was pleasantly surprised by this introduction to the Supreme Court. It is written in accessible prose that covers the history of the Court and Rehnquist's own experiences as a law clerk for Justice Robert Jackson and as a judge on the Court. His own experiences illuminate the duties of the law clerk and the justices and how cases come to, and are decided by, the Supreme Court. The process of petitioning for a writ of certiorari to oral arguments and finally to conferences are brought to life by Rehnquist's accounts.

The book's history of the court is lucid, providing the historical context, the details of most important cases, and the ramifications of the decisions. Renqhist begins with the most important case, Marbury vs. Madison (during the Marshall Court), which established judicial review of the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress. What is made crystal clear is that the Court has evolved on many levels. The number of judges and their court rooms have change. The federal judiciary and the duties of the judges have changed. (Early on the judges had to travel and decided cases on the regional appeal circuit. Later Congress set-up the regional, federal appeals circuit courts, relieving the Supreme Court of the growing numbers of federal appeals cases.). The way cases reach the Supreme Court has changed and the influence of the Supreme Court has grown in importance. But what is also clear is that Supreme Court hasn't always gotten it right (the Dred Scott case) nor has it shied away from overturning precedent (Brown vs. the Board of Education). On the other hand, it often gets it right and is alive with relevance in the time decisions are made and through the careful work of the thoughtful men and women that make up the Court.

The book is non-ideological and Rehnquist stops his history after the Warren Court. As an act of respect and dignity he did not comment on the present Court members or their decisions.

This is a great book for those who want to learn about the workings and history of the U.S. Supreme Court. Former Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote brilliantly and in a way where any layperson could understand and gain further knowledge about the highest court in our land. For anyone who wants to learn more about the Supreme Court and understand its importance to our country, this book is a must.

Having served on the Supreme Court for over 33 years, William Rehnquist has an excellent vantage point to provide his readers with a very solid introduction to the nation's highest court. The first half of this book is a very readable and informative overview of the history of the court including Marbury v. Madison, the Dred Scott case, FDR's failed court packing plan, and the Steel Seizure case. Out of the many larger-than-life figures in this choronology, John Marshall stands pre-eminently as the most influential in the court's history (and one of the most underrated in the founding of our nation). The second half of the book deals with the administrative workings of the Supreme Court and is described in more detail and better than any outsider could.

It can be difficult to organize the history of any institution into clearly delineated sections and the Supreme Court is certainly no exception. Rehnquist chose to break down his history in chapters named after the most prominent judges (not always the Chief Justice). For the most part, this works well, but the introduction of new judges would always lead to digressions into their backgrounds which can be distracting and would probably have been best left to appendices for the more minor characters. Rehnquist's own personal observations are mostly very insightful, but there are a few (notably his conversation with his landlord and his delayed plane trip) did not add much value to the reader.

One issue to take note of is that the author deliberately ends his history with the conclusion of the Warren Court in order note to comment on any of the cases he has been directly involved in. This leaves the reader with gap of over 30 years from the end of the history to the present day.

Having served on the Supreme Court for over 33 years, William Rehnquist has an excellent vantage point to provide his readers with a very solid introduction to the nation's highest court. The first half of this book is a very readable and informative overview of the history of the court including Marbury v. Madison, the Dred Scott case, FDR's failed court packing plan, and the Steel Seizure case. Out of the many larger-than-life figures in this choronology, John Marshall stands pre-eminently as the most influential in the court's history (and one of the most underrated in the founding of our nation). The second half of the book deals with the administrative workings of the Supreme Court and is described in more detail and better than any outsider could.

It can be difficult to organize the history of any institution into clearly delineated sections and the Supreme Court is certainly no exception. Rehnquist chose to break down his history in chapters named after the most prominent judges (not always the Chief Justice). For the most part, this works well, but the introduction of new judges would always lead to digressions into their backgrounds which can be distracting and would probably have been best left to appendices for the more minor characters. Rehnquist's own personal observations are mostly very insightful, but there are a few (notably his conversation with his landlord and his delayed plane trip) did not add much value to the reader.

One issue to take note of is that the author deliberately ends his history with the conclusion of the Warren Court in order note to comment on any of the cases he has been directly involved in. This leaves the reader with gap of over 30 years from the end of the history to the present day.

The highlight of this book for me were those chapters that dealt directly with the author's personal experience. At the age of twenty-seven he drove a heaterless Studebaker from his home in Milwaukee, Wisconsin in midwinter to start his first job in the legal profession, clerking for Supreme Court Associate Justice Jackson. He describes his initial experiences as a clerk and his impressions of the justices who served at that time, especially Frankfurter and Douglas. One case that made a particularly strong impression upon him concerned Truman's seizure of steel mills during the Korean War. The concern about abuse of Presidential power, seen at close range here, is extended in the book to a chapter devoted to FDR's attempt to pack the Court. He does not go into lengthy detail about his particular experiences as an Associate Justice and then as Chief Justice, but the three chapters on how cases are chosen, oral arguments presented, and cases decided are very interesting. He lists what he views as the different types of lawyers who present oral arguments, and blends his own experience in mentioning what a memorable and pressure-cooker situation it can be for those doing the presenting.

The problem with the historical part of the book is that it is very selectively focused and somewhat wanting in broadly addressing the issues involved. He provides helpful background concerning the railroad monopolies and the struggles of farmers to lessen the control of middle men, but in other instances of the laissez-faire economics of the industrial revolution, I have to question whether he is telling the full story. For a very long time, the balance between the monopoly power of the few at the expense of the welfare of the community was weighing heavily toward the few. When the New Deal came along, it may have shifted the balance too far the other way, but coming on the heels of the Great Depression, it did finally provide for worker's rights which could only be of positive benefit to the community. The Court packing chapter was interesting and FDR certainly sounds like he overstepped his bounds, but at the same time there were other things going on in the Court that were of historical significance and it is notable that people at that time faced many hardships. In the same vein, he could have written more about Brown vs. Board of Education, especially since he was a clerk at the Court at least part of the time during which the case was considered: In particular, the story of the rather remarkable feat that resulted in an unanimous decision, and also the events leading up to that decision, especially those efforts to right wrongs after the Civil War. He may have made good points about the Radical Republicans overstepping their bounds but there were also other things going on at the time.

Whatever side of the ideological fence you may be on, I think that Bernard Schwartz's book HISTORY OF THE SUPREME COURT gives a broader and easier to grasp view of Supreme Court history that includes more about constitutional trends and is less bogged down in dry detail even though it no doubt offers more.

The highlight of this book for me were those chapters that dealt directly with the author's personal experience. At the age of twenty-seven he drove a heaterless Studebaker from his home in Milwaukee, Wisconsin in midwinter to start his first job in the legal profession, clerking for Supreme Court Associate Justice Jackson. He describes his initial experiences as a clerk and his impressions of the justices who served at that time, especially Frankfurter and Douglas. One case that made a particularly strong impression upon him concerned Truman's seizure of steel mills during the Korean War. The concern about abuse of Presidential power, seen at close range here, is extended in the book to a chapter devoted to FDR's attempt to pack the Court. He does not go into lengthy detail about his particular experiences as an Associate Justice and then as Chief Justice, but the three chapters on how cases are chosen, oral arguments presented, and cases decided are very interesting. He lists what he views as the different types of lawyers who present oral arguments, and blends his own experience in mentioning what a memorable and pressure-cooker situation it can be for those doing the presenting.

The problem with the historical part of the book is that it is very selectively focused and somewhat wanting in broadly addressing the issues involved. He provides helpful background concerning the railroad monopolies and the struggles of farmers to lessen the control of middle men, but in other instances of the laissez-faire economics of the industrial revolution, I have to question whether he is telling the full story. For a very long time, the balance between the monopoly power of the few at the expense of the welfare of the community was weighing heavily toward the few. When the New Deal came along, it may have shifted the balance too far the other way, but coming on the heels of the Great Depression, it did finally provide for worker's rights which could only be of positive benefit to the community. The Court packing chapter was interesting and FDR certainly sounds like he overstepped his bounds, but at the same time there were other things going on in the Court that were of historical significance and it is notable that people at that time faced many hardships. In the same vein, he could have written more about Brown vs. Board of Education, especially since he was a clerk at the Court at least part of the time during which the case was considered: In particular, the story of the rather remarkable feat that resulted in an unanimous decision, and also the events leading up to that decision, especially those efforts to right wrongs after the Civil War. He may have made good points about the Radical Republicans overstepping their bounds but there were also other things going on at the time.

Whatever side of the ideological fence you may be on, I think that Bernard Schwartz's book HISTORY OF THE SUPREME COURT gives a broader and easier to grasp view of Supreme Court history that includes more about constitutional trends and is less bogged down in dry detail even though it no doubt offers more.

The highlight of this book for me were those chapters that dealt directly with the author's personal experience. At the age of twenty-seven he drove a heaterless Studebaker from his home in Milwaukee, Wisconsin in midwinter to start his first job in the legal profession, clerking for Supreme Court Associate Justice Jackson. He describes his initial experiences as a clerk and his impressions of the justices who served at that time, especially Frankfurter and Douglas. One case that made a particularly strong impression upon him concerned Truman's seizure of steel mills during the Korean War. The concern about abuse of Presidential power, seen at close range here, is extended in the book to a chapter devoted to FDR's attempt to pack the Court. He does not go into lengthy detail about his particular experiences as an Associate Justice and then as Chief Justice, but the three chapters on how cases are chosen, oral arguments presented, and cases decided are very interesting. He lists what he views as the different types of lawyers who present oral arguments, and blends his own experience in mentioning what a memorable and pressure-cooker situation it can be for those doing the presenting.

The problem with the historical part of the book is that it is very selectively focused and somewhat wanting in broadly addressing the issues involved. He provides helpful background concerning the railroad monopolies and the struggles of farmers to lessen the control of middle men, but in other instances of the laissez-faire economics of the industrial revolution, I have to question whether he is telling the full story. For a very long time, the balance between the monopoly power of the few at the expense of the welfare of the community was weighing heavily toward the few. When the New Deal came along, it may have shifted the balance too far the other way, but coming on the heels of the Great Depression, it did finally provide for worker's rights which could only be of positive benefit to the community. The Court packing chapter was interesting and FDR certainly sounds like he overstepped his bounds, but at the same time there were other things going on in the Court that were historical and people at that time faced many hardships. In the same vein, he could have written more about Brown vs. Board of Education, especially since he was a clerk at the Court at least part of the time during which the case was considered: In particular, the story of the rather remarkable feat that resulted in an unanimous decision, and also the events leading up to that decision, especially those efforts to right wrongs after the Civil War. He may have made good points about the Radical Republicans overstepping their bounds but there were also other things going on at the time.

Whatever side of the ideological fence you may be on, I think that Bernard Schwartz's book HISTORY OF THE SUPREME COURT gives a broader and easier to grasp view of Supreme Court history that includes more about constitutional trends and is less bogged down in dry detail even though it no doubt offers more.

The late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist provides a wonderful and lucid historical look at the Court's continual fight to maintain its standing as a co-equal, independent partner in government.

In easy to read langauge, Rehnquist provides a great analysis of important cases and thier background. It's vivid history pops off the page and grabs you as you travel through time with the Court. History buffs will really enjoy this book.

The late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist provides a wonderful and lucid historical look at the Court's continual fight to maintain its standing as a co-equal, independent partner in government.

In easy to read langauge, Rehnquist provides a great analysis of important cases and thier background. It's vivid history pops off the page and grabs you as you travel through time with the Court. History buffs will really enjoy this book.

Bill Rehnquist (1924-2005) has written an amazing history of the Court. Starting out with his clerkship for Robert Jackson (1941-54) Rehnquist describes the major events in the history of the Court. At under 300 pages, it is a perfect read for a non-lawyer who wants to know more about the history of the Court.

Bill Rehnquist (1924-2005) has written an amazing history of the Court. Starting out with his clerkship for Robert Jackson (1941-54) Rehnquist describes the major events in the history of the Court. At under 300 pages, it is a perfect read for a non-lawyer who wants to know more about the history of the Court.

The Supreme Court by William H. Rehnquist is a stunning book. It does not tell the reader about the evolution of the Supreme Court, but instead shows the reader through historical accounts, personal anecdotes, and valuable conclusions. Former Chief Justice Rehnquist opens up the doors of the Supreme Court for the reader, revealing the inner workings of the Supreme Court and more importantly, how and why the Court itself is so powerful, and can hold its own among the other branches of government in the United States. Rehnquist makes it clear that the Supreme Court is made up of individuals, and because of this the Supreme Court is not only susceptible to human need, but inevitably to human error as well. This book does not examine the Court decisions that shape our society, but explains what lead to these decisions, and the blood sweat and tears that were put into them.

The Supreme Court by William H. Rehnquist is a stunning book. It does not tell the reader about the evolution of the Supreme Court, but instead shows the reader through historical accounts, personal anecdotes, and valuable conclusions. Former Chief Justice Rehnquist opens up the doors of the Supreme Court for the reader, revealing the inner workings of the Supreme Court and more importantly, how and why the Court itself is so powerful, and can hold its own among the other branches of government in the United States. Rehnquist makes it clear that the Supreme Court is made up of individuals, and because of this the Supreme Court is not only susceptible to human need, but inevitably to human error as well. This book does not examine the Court decisions that shape our society, but explains what lead to these decisions, and the blood sweat and tears that were put into them.

This concise history of the Supreme Court will make you a competent student of the Court in an easy weekend read. No, you won't understand all of the fine points of the U.S. Constitution. Instead, you'll get a 2-century history of the key developments in the history of the Court, and its most famous decisions, from the perspective of one of its keenest observers - the late Chief Justice himself.
Chief Justice Rehnquist writes in a style which surprised me. This is not the tedious logical construction found in so many of the Court's opinions - rather, this book reads like a good novel, that occasionally will detour into a detailed explanation of a key point.
Rehnquist betrays his own fine sense of the political and social context underlying the Court's decisions - he frankly discusses the cases and the great social issues of the day that are reflected many of the opinions. Although sometimes dismissed by his own political opponents as an ideologue, Rehnquist demonstrates that he has a deft touch in pragmatism - at least when it comes to observing the functioning of the Court prior to his own service. Even if Rehnquist would be more of an originalist, he betrays an appreciation and admiration for the significant jurists, such as Marshall and Taney, who took the Court down its path away from the founders' expressed intent, while pointing out the consequences of the tough choices made by the Court's leaders.
The writing is approachable without being condescending. It would make a good companion book to any study of the Constitution and the Court, particularly for non-lawyers looking for a book that doesn't rely on too much legal jargon. However, for those of you who already know both Madison and Marbury, which Buckley sued Valeo, and why sick chickens matter to the Constitution, this book will delight you. However, I suspect you have already found it before I did.

In purchasing this book, I noted that the index covered some major cases and I anticipated a review of the court as perceived through the writings of it major decisions. And although the book starts out this way, it changes to more to a memoir of the Chief Justice, his time working clerking on the court and arguing in front of it. The book's final chapters focuses on the procedures within the court. How they oral arguments occur, how they discuss decisions behind chambers, etc. This part was indeed fascinating, but again, not really what I had imagined when I purchased the book. Overall, the Chief Justice does a good job of reviewing some major cases, and identifying the tone and procedures inside the most important arm of government that few people really know.

If a person is looking for a treatise on Constitutional law, this is not the book. However, for the layman looking for information on the history and workings of the court, it is a great read. At less than 300 pages, it is not exhaustive, by any means. However, it is full of interesting stories about the personalities, the cases, and the functioning of the court in the last 2+ centuries.

After an introduction in which Mr. Rehnquist describes his arrival at the court in the 1950's as a law clerk for Robert Jackson, the book provides a brief (under 200 pages) history of the court, with a focus on a few major cases (Marbury v. Madison, Dred Scott, etc.), historical trends in the court, and the personalities of the respective chief justices and many of the associate justices. Four additional chapters provide an overview of various practical aspects of the court's functioning: presidential appointments, the process for granting certioraris, the preparation for and experience of oral arguments, and the method for arriving at and writing decisions. A final chapter provides a glimpse into Mr. Rehnquist's own judicial philosophy.

In the chapter on presidential appointments, the chief justice broaches the question of why many Presidents end up disappointed in their efforts to change the direction of the court, using the appointments by Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt as prime examples.

When Abraham Lincoln was preparing to fill a vacancy on the court, he remarked, "We cannot ask a man what he will do, and if we should, and he should answer us, we should despise him for it. Therefore, we must take a man whose opinions are known." Thus, he chose Salmon Chase, the architect of the government finance legislation that Mr. Lincoln wished to have upheld. Ironically, Chief Justice Chase wrote the court's opinion ruling the legislation unconstitutional. Mr. Rehnquist suggests that lawyers and judges ask different questions than administrators, so a change in direction is neither unprincipled nor unexpected. Mr. Rehnquist additionally points out that justices are frequently called upon to address questions in later years that are very different than those in mind at the time of their appointments. This was true in the case of FDR's appointments, who united in support of his government expansion, but later divided bitterly over a range of civil rights issues.

These considerations would seem to give support to the idea that it is more important to determine a judicial nominee's philosophy and judicial temperament than to try to foresee how he/she would rule on a given issue.

For anyone who is not already an expert, this book is a terrific read.

I would recommend this book to anyone who is interested in the United States Supreme Court. Chief Justice Renhquist has given us an excellent history of the United State as view through the eyes of the court. I was expecting a book written by a lawyer for a lawyer. What I got was a wonderful history of the court written in a style that any layman can enjoy.

Greg Puttmann

Rehnquist begins his book with his own experience in serving as clerk to Justice Jackson of the Court in the early 1950s. From there he proceeds to describe the major decisions and complexion of the Court in their historical context, examining details or events where applicable that might have made the Court decide as it did. In very few places Rehnquist adds his own opinion but he keeps these very short and vague (as if not willing to downcast a fellow Justice). After reaching the 1970s with his history, Rehnquist describes the actual processses of certiorari, the conferences leading to a Supreme Court decision, how the advocates before the Court should argue their cases, and finally how the opinions are finally written and how shared among the justices before being "handed down." He essentially finishes with a few canons regarding how the Supreme Court should function and praise regarding how it has discharged its function for two centuries. For many unfamiliar with a general history of the United States, this book about the judicial branch of our government is a good source of information. For lawyers interested in how the Supreme Court actually does its work, the final chapters should be of interest. Rehnquist does not re-examine facts or laws in most cases, but at times he suggests that the Court's behavior was not as rational as it might have been. In sum, Rehnquists shows himself to be an able story-teller, fairly lucid in his arguments, devoted to his subject (the history and everyday workings of the Court), and credible as a historian.

This book is a survey of the history and internal functioning of the U.S. Supreme Court. It's clearly written, tells some interesting history, and has a nice autobiographical section on Rehnquist's Supreme Court clerkship. I liked it. However, it's not a perfect introduction to the Court.

The main shortcoming is Rehnquist's failure to discuss the drafting or structure of the Constitution, or to analyze constitutional doctrine. Instead, he focuses on politics and biography, not on the legal technicalities. This may be fine for non-lawyer readers, but even they should know that his historical coverage is spotty: Dred Scott gets six pages, but Brown v. Board of Education only one; the Civil War civil liberties cases are discussed, but not the WWI cases; the Steel Seizure case gets two full chapters (!), more than any other in the book; the rise of railroads in the 19th century gets a longer treatment than the Great Depression; and Jefferson's assault on the judiciary gets only a few pages, whereas FDR's court-packing scheme gets an entire chapter. It wasn't clear to me how Rehnquist picked topics to emphasize.

On the other hand, his book does have many virtues -- in particular, an absence of cant. Rehnquist doesn't put the Supreme Court on a pedestal or pretend that legal reasoning yields indisputable results. He acknowledges that decisions like Dred Scott or Lochner were politically-driven and had serious negative consequences for the country. He also concedes that constitutional adjudication is not an exact science with certain methods for deciding cases correctly. This may seem obvious to anyone familiar with the Court's history, but it is uncommon wisdom for an age when conservatives act as if "Original Intent" were an apolitical algorithm for interpreting the Constitution.

My favorite sections of the book are those where judges are caught in the act of judging: some stick to text and precedents, others consult legal philosophy or weigh policy consequences, while still others act from class and political bias. Most judges probably blend all of these elements when adjudicating a constitutional case. This messy reality explains why all Presidents -- from John Adams to George Bush -- have pushed to put their political soulmates on the Court: it improves the odds of getting the "right" decisions.

It may also explain why Rehnquist chose to focus on the political nature of the Supreme Court. Reading his obituaries (he died the day before I finished the book), I was struck by his youthful segregationism, his years of service as a Republican activist, and his connections to Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon. Rehnquist knew what he was writing about.

As the candid historical reflections of a brilliant sitting Justice, his book is fascinating. I enjoyed reading it very much. However, laymen looking for a primer can do better. I'd recommend Archibald Cox's "Court and the Constitution," in spite of its age.

For the interested layman. Interesting chapters on the inner workings of the Court. Reviews of important cases going back to Marbury v. Madison. Fascinating discussion of the interaction of politics with the judicial process focusing on the Steel Seizure case.

I was surprised to read that some readers found this book a dry read. On the contrary, I would propose that Chief Justice Rehnquist is a wonderful writer who provides a short masterpiece on the history of the Court.

Two perspectives on the history of the Court create the primary structure of the book:
1) Rehnquist reviews specific cases in chronological order that have created the most imporant body of law used by the Supreme Court and required to be followed by the lower courts as they conduct their appellate work. He weaves in the personalities of the Court and sometimes of the Presidents who impact the Court, along with the historical perspective driving these issues by using a narrative structure. We are told stories rather than being forced to review lists of dates and people. This portion of the book also describes how the Court accepts cases through the eyes of a young court clerk, William Rehnquist himself.
2) There are a couple of chapters in the back of the book that explains how the court conducts its work, such as oral argument and how the court decides cases and delegates the writing of rulings and opinions. While interesting to read Rehnquist's perspecive, Bob Woodward's "The Brethern: Inside the Supreme Court" provides a more complete picture of the inner-workings of the Court.

Justice Rehnquist surprised me with the lack of ideology contained in this book. As opposed to Mr. Gingrich's new book that is basically a propaganda tract rife with deceptions, Rehnquist provides a mostly honest and fair assessment of not only the perspective of conservatives like him, but also the liberal side. Rehnquist, like Kenneth Starr's "First Among Equals", can be counted on to provide an accurate protrayal of the issues worked out by previous courts.

Mr. Rehnquist also surprised me with his writing talent, while his opinions have always been first rate reading, they are those of an advocate for a certain position which filter-out competing positions. This book is truly a well-written, honest look at the history of the court; Rehnquist provides respectful commentary of competing positions. This book is one of my primary resources I've continuously used over the years when I require some insight into a past case, court, or justice.

I thought Chief Justice Rehnquist book was very insightful. This
was on my reading list for law school. It was frank and to the point.

This able jurist takes the reader into the heart and history of the nation's high court, beginning with his own beginnings there as a clerk to one of the Justices.

His flair for the historical setting and the surrounding circumstances makes for easy reading. He does not assume that his readership is well versed in technical legal jargon so is careful to define and explain as he goes, which this reviewer found very helpful. Even when I thought I knew what he was referring to, his clarity and succinctness helped immensely in the experience.

For much of our country who harbors wrong thinking about the Supreme Court, how they operate and what they are to do Constituionally this is just the book to give the needed correction. Essentially this book serves that purpose well: to provide the chronolical history of the court's developments including profiles of the justices, its changing legal posture, its historic, landmark cases and Chief Justice Rehnquist's running commentary on such.

It is lucid, well structured and thus easy to follow and insightful. Especially was his valuable contributions on just how the court has functioned, now functions on selecting cases to hear. I was intrigued especially by the government's seizure of the steel industry and Montgomery Ward's Chicago headquarters during WWII.

Just a great read from beginning to end which will and should span a wide breath of readers. Worthy to become classic on the topic. Glad that he didn't write this as memoirs on his court term. That likely will to come, or be published posthumously.