michael w says

A Review From The Book Stand
THE NINE
Inside the Secret world of the Supreme Court
By Jeffrey Toobin

The Following is a review from Michael of The Book Stand club which is now forming. The guidelines are simple: We share a view point, a few quotes, a few questions and answers and conclude with with questions that you will learn when you read this book. The goal is to share what we learn and not just give an opinion. If you like this format, please join The Book Stand.

Viewpoint:
After the Bush Gore debacle of 2000 my confidence in the Justice Department hit an all time low. They intervened in a political way and our system was broken. Toobin does an excellent job to show the human side of these nine judges: How they agree and dissent. How their political views and ideologies shape their opinions.

Quotes:
· (Pg 103) Scalia talks about Clarence Thomas: “I’m an originalist but not a nut.”

· (pg 84) Justice Brennan (Irish Catholic appointed by Eisenhower) would ask his law clerks. What’s the most important law at the Supreme Court? The clerks would puzzle for time….Freedom of Speech, Separation of powers, Equal protection? The justice then raised his tiny hand and said, “Five….The Law of Five. With Five votes you can do anything around here?”

· (pg 101) Clarence Thomas: “I won’t hire clerks who have profound disagreement with me. It’s like trying to train a pig. It wastes our time and aggravates the pig.” Thomas hired one black clerk out of his first forty.

· David Souter is a solitary man. For years, many justices (including Sandra Day O’Connor) have tried to set him up with a date. One night, Souter went out on a date. After the date the women said it went quite well…..until the end. Souter took her home, told her what a good time he had and then added, “Let’s do this again next year.”

Questions:
1) Q: Name the two pillars of the Evangelical movement in the 1980s?
A: Prayer in schools, Right to Life

2) Q: In the1992 landmark case, Planned Parenthood v Casey, the Supreme Court challenges the constitutionality of several of Pennsylvania’s Abortion regulations. (Robert Casey was the Governor of Pennsylvania who signed the legislation regulating abortions). Who were the three conservative Supreme Court Justices known as the “Troika” who upheld Roe? ( A women’s right to choose)

A: Conservatives Souter, Kennedy and O’Connor voted with Stevens and Blackmun to uphold Roe.
They challenged all five provisions of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act as unconstitutional under Roe v Wade.
· The "informed consent" rule under the Act required doctors to provide women with information about the health risks and possible complications of having an abortion before one could be performed.
· The "spousal notification" rule required women to give prior notice to their husbands. This opinion was authored by Samual Alito and infuriated Sandra Day O’Connor who thought this was “paternalism at best and sexism at worst.” (pg 52). Ironically, Alito would be nominated to the Supreme Court to replace O’Conner’s seat.
· the "parental consent" rule required minors to receive consent from a parent or guardian prior to an abortion.
· The fourth provision imposed a 24-hour waiting period before obtaining an abortion.
· The fifth provision challenged in the case was the imposition of certain reporting requirements on facilities providing abortion services.

3) Q: What was was the outcome of the Ten Commandment Case in 2005?
Pg 304

A: The Ten Commandment Case actually involved two cases: The ACLU sued the Kentucky Courthouses for diplaying the 10 Commandmentsd on Courthouses and a homeless Lawyer sued the city of Austin, Texas for displaying the 10 commandments in a park near the State Courthouse.

The interesting point about these two cases, is that Justice Breyer was the swing vote in both cases. In the Kentucky Case, he voted to strike down the 10 commandments and have them removed from the public space. He sided with O’Connor, Souter, Ginsberg and Stevens. Breyer looked at the history of each case to determine the outcome. He states that “there is no mechanical formula that can accurately draw the constitutional line in every case.” In Kentucky, the 10 commandents were placed on the walls of small courthouses by local officials. In one case, the officials were accompanied by the local Christian Minister. The 10 Commandments were also designated “King James Version.” When the 10 commandments were posted, they became a hot topic for controversy. Breyer writes that the intent of the displays, “demonstrates the substantially religious objectives of those who mounted them.” In Texas, the history was just the opposite. The Ten Commandments were donated by primarily a private civic organization call the Fraternal Order of Eagles.

Breyer argues that for 40 years no one complained about the monument which was situated among sixteen other monuments. “Those 40 years suggest more strongly than can any set of formulaic tests that few individuals, whatever their system of beliefs, are likely to have understood the monument as a mounting in any significatly detrimental way, to a government effort to have a particular religious sect.”

4) Q: What “Fortuitous coincidence” sealed Robert’s nomination as Supreme Court Chief Justice?
A: On July 15th, 2005, the day of Roberts’ interview with Bush, John Roberts and the D.C. Cuircuit. ruled in support of Military Tribunals at the Navy Base at Gauntanamo Bay. Maintaining executive power was a priority for Cheney and Bush. This case is known as Hamdan V Rumsfeld. (pg 277)
Salim Ahmed Hamdan is a Yemeni , captured during the invasion of Afghanistann, and imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay. He admits to being Bin Laden’s personal driver and bodyguard, but he denies any role in the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.
The opinion (Roberts) says that Congress authorized the president to set up whatever military tribunal he deems appropriate when it authorized him to use "all necessary and appropriate force" to fight terrorism in response to 9/11. This decision would be reversed a year later as the Supreme court ruled that the president does not have the authority to try terrorist suspects by military tribunal because it violates the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Convention. Roberts could not vote in the 2006 case since he he was involved in the opinion in the 2005 ruling.

5 Q) (Pg 173) Equal Protection: Bush v Gore: Written by Justice Kennedy, what was the most notorious sentence in the Court’s final opinion on Bush v Gore?
A) Kennedy’s opinion on Bush v Gore could be said to extend the principle of one person, one vote from the question of how districts are apportioned before the election to the question of how votes are counted after the election. Counties had different rules about whether dimpled chads should be counted; individual counties sometimes changed the standard in the middle of a recount.

According to Kennedy, this was not a process with sufficient guarantees of equal treatment. Here was the problem for Renquist, Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas & O’Connor: no court, including the Supreme Court ever imposed any constitutional rule for uniformity in counting the ballots. Most states, including Florida, used different voting technologies in a single election. O’Connor caught this flaw and insisted that Kennedy’s opinion would not create a whole new set of rights and regulations for future elections. Kennedy responded by adding this notorious sentence that summed up so much of what was wrong with what the Court did. “Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances,… for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.” In other words, the court did not reflect any legal principle, rather the Court was acting to assist a single individual-- George W. Bush. Kennedy was right that the recount might have produced inconsistencies and anomalies. But he was wrong on this point: A recount would have been more accurate than the certified total. The Court’s opinion preserved and endorsed a less fair, and less accurate, count of the votes.

6) Q: What was the Krauthammer Solution?
A: Harriet Miers needed an Exit Strategy after Bush nominated her to the supreme court. His evangelical base was disatified with his choice and wanted her replaced with a judge who had a proven track record. Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer provided the exit strategy. (Washington Post: Excerpt: I googled this article and found it interesting.)
We need an exit strategy from this debacle. I have it.
“Sen. Lindsey Graham has been a staunch and public supporter of this nominee. Yet on Wednesday he joined Brownback in demanding privileged documents from Miers's White House tenure.
Finally, a way out: irreconcilable differences over documents.
For a nominee who, unlike John Roberts, has practically no record on constitutional issues, such documentation is essential for the Senate to judge her thinking and legal acumen. But there is no way that any president would release this kind of information -- "policy documents" and "legal analysis" -- from such a close confidante. It would forever undermine the ability of any president to get unguarded advice.
That creates a classic conflict, not of personality, not of competence, not of ideology, but of simple constitutional prerogatives: The Senate cannot confirm her unless it has this information. And the White House cannot allow release of this information lest it jeopardize executive privilege.
Hence the perfectly honorable way to solve the conundrum: Miers withdraws out of respect for both the Senate and the executive's prerogatives, the Senate expresses appreciation for this gracious acknowledgment of its needs and responsibilities, and the White House accepts her decision with the deepest regret and with gratitude for Miers's putting preservation of executive prerogative above personal ambition. Faces saved. And we start again.”

_______________________________________________________________________
Here are other questions that you can learn about when you read this book. Choose five questions below, answer them and email them back to the book club. Or, choose your own questions and answers.

· Explain Kennedy reasoning for striking down the death penalty for juvenile defenders and to overrule Scalia’s 15 year old opinion, holding otherwise. (196)
· In the Schiavo Case, O’Connor refers to the” threat to Judicial Independence.” What does she mean by this? (pg 250)
· What is the Federalist Society?
· What does Stare Decisis mean?
· Who is Jay Sekulow and how did he influence the courts?
· Who recommended Ruth Bader Ginsburg to President Clinton?
· In part, Breyer’s book, Active Liberty, was written to challenge which Justice’s doctrine of Originalism.
· They were known as the Rosy Cheek caucus? (306)
· In 1998, which conservative judge wrote the opinion that gay people could not be branded as criminals simply because of who they were?
· What is meant by the quote, “Gonzalez is Spanish for Souter.”

posted Friday, January 11 2008

kelly m says

The Nine is my #2 of 2007. I have long loved Toobin's writing - his OJ book and the book on 2000 election are two of my all time favorites. The Nine joins them. I love his look ebhind the shrouded secrecy of the court. I learned a lot. And fear for our future.

posted Sunday, December 30 2007

fatherofhollywood says

Jeffrey Toobin has written a fast paced, fascinating, well sourced, insiders look at the Supreme Court.

posted Wednesday, October 24 2007

fatherofhollywood says

This was a good read, however the information was presented with a "left-leaning" slant. I would have preferred reading facts without a political slant in order to get a more unbiased read.

posted Friday, October 19 2007