Review: Five Chiefs
Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2013 9:44 am
John Paul Stevens served as a Supreme Court Justice from 1975 to 2010, the 3rd longest tenure of any Supreme Court Justice. From his days a clerk, to practicing law and being an associate justice, he shares his impressions of five Supreme Court Justices: Fred Vinson, Earl Warren, Warren Burger, William Rehnquist and John Roberts.
When you consider that only been 17 men have been 'First Among Equals' on the Court, Steven's recollections span nearly a third of our Chief Justices.
Stevens writes in a dry, clear, concise style, honed by decades of crafting legal opinions. A clue to the character of Stevens is shown by the bow tie he sports on the cover: Traditional but stubbornly iconoclastic.
The book not only discusses his recollection of the Chiefs, but the opinions shaped by them and other Justices. This is where the book really shines. Stevens sheds insight into how the Constitution is interpreted, and the differences in interpretation that have defined out history.
We tend to think of decisions as being 'written in stone', but the minds of the Justices are malleable. Sometimes a Justice will join a dissenting or affirming opinion, and in the course of writing their reasons, change their minds and join the other side. When you think of how many 5-4 decisions there are, it makes you realize how little is 'written in stone'.
Stevens is quite candid about discussing cases and precedents that he thinks were wrongly decided. He does so without anger or malice, to 'disagree without being disagreeable'. For me the biggest take away from the book is that even 'decided' law can be subject to interpretation.
Although some may find it a bit dry, if you would like a look inside the minds that have shaped the history of this country, I recommend it.
When you consider that only been 17 men have been 'First Among Equals' on the Court, Steven's recollections span nearly a third of our Chief Justices.
Stevens writes in a dry, clear, concise style, honed by decades of crafting legal opinions. A clue to the character of Stevens is shown by the bow tie he sports on the cover: Traditional but stubbornly iconoclastic.
The book not only discusses his recollection of the Chiefs, but the opinions shaped by them and other Justices. This is where the book really shines. Stevens sheds insight into how the Constitution is interpreted, and the differences in interpretation that have defined out history.
We tend to think of decisions as being 'written in stone', but the minds of the Justices are malleable. Sometimes a Justice will join a dissenting or affirming opinion, and in the course of writing their reasons, change their minds and join the other side. When you think of how many 5-4 decisions there are, it makes you realize how little is 'written in stone'.
Stevens is quite candid about discussing cases and precedents that he thinks were wrongly decided. He does so without anger or malice, to 'disagree without being disagreeable'. For me the biggest take away from the book is that even 'decided' law can be subject to interpretation.
Although some may find it a bit dry, if you would like a look inside the minds that have shaped the history of this country, I recommend it.