This book provides a fascinating glimpse behind the curtain at the Supreme Court during the transition from the Rehnquist to the Roberts era. Toobin's extraordinary access and journalistic skills allow him to present a captivating portrait of the legal, political, and interpersonal dynamics at the court during this important time of transition and high drama. It's not quite The Brethren, but it's very good stuff--and it makes me hope that Justice Breyer will live forever.

We seem to have a view that the most interesting things to read about are those that are kept secret. As a result we have the Woodward industry which periodically tells us the inside story of work of people who are in the political limelight. Nine is such a book and has all the assets and liabilities of these sorts of books.

The main asset is that a great story is told, Whether is be the development of abortion jurisprudence or Bush v. Gore we see in the inside story. Toobin is an engaging writer so the story is well told and may even as reported.

The second asset is the portraits of the Justices. They tend to be brief but we see the justices as personalities. Each has their own quirks which make them interesting. I enjoyed the stories about Thomas and Breyer passing notes. Also the friendship between Scalia and Ginsburg shows that you can be agreeable even when you disagree.

Also the story of the concerted effort by conservatives to capture the court is fascinating, especially the role of groups who brought cases.

Now the liabilities. First and foremost because the book is based primarily on interviews one really does not know who is telling the story. Justice O'Connor who seems to be the strongest character in the book may well have given the insights herself. Without giving the source one has to be a bit concerned. After all often the history is written by the winner or in this case by the most available. In comparing this book to Linda Greenhouse's extraordinary biography of Justice Blackmum,which is fully documented, the difference is clear.

Second the book is light on understanding the legal developments. This is understandable as it is not the purpose of the book.

As a final point I suggest anyone interested Justice Thomas who I think is the most interesting person on the Court to read Supreme Discomfort which gives insights into his character. ( As I am writing this Thomas' autobiography is being published which may shed more light on him.)

Although proud to be what's known in the political vernacular as an extreme right-winger, I respectfully disagree with my fellow traditionalists who have reviewed "The Nine" negatively, claiming that it's hopelessly biased. The author, Jeffrey Toobin, does indeed lean left (which he's entitled to do), but he's not a Maher or a Franken -- i.e., an intellectual and moral bankrupt -- and is therefore undeserving of our opprobrium.

I've always been fascinated by the Supreme Court, perhaps because such a minuscule body of people has had (and continues to have) such a profound influence (for both good and ill) on the lives of some 300 million of us. This, combined with the fact that (as Mr. Toobin correctly points out) the Court's decisions are so driven by ideology and personality. A salient example is "Roe v. Wade". Justice Blackmun (as well as six other justices) was committed to establishing a legal right to abortion, regardless of the fact that the Constitution doesn't even remotely address this issue (as even several pro-abortion constitutional scholars have observed). For the past half century or so, the Constitution has been reduced to little more than a fig leaf; it's the justices' ideological agenda that has been the driving force.

Mr. Toobin had done a very good job in cosetting my interest in this extraordinary institution. His book is well researched, well written, and well organized -- but certainly not flawless. Mr. Toobin can be overly dramatic on occasion. In writing, for example, about "Lawrence v. Texas" (the egregious decision that legalized homosexual conduct and facilitated the demands of homosexual activists for the legalization of -- oxymoron non pareil -- homosexual marriage), he tells us how these activists were crying tears of joy upon learning that the Supreme Court had bestowed its imprimatur upon their disgusting and deadly habits. Oh, please. I expected music to swell. Or at least my stomach to churn -- it did.

Still, I do indeed recommend "The Nine". I must say, however, that Greenburg's "Supreme Conflict" is superior. If you intend to read only one current book on the Supreme Court, it should be Greenburg's.

Toobin's book provides insight into the Supreme Court - our third branch of government. Readers learn that, for most justices, their work involves more than simply literally interpreting laws and the Constitution, and how a conservative backlash has built up since Roe v. Wade. Their agenda is to reverse Roe v. Wade, expand executive power, end racial preferences, speed executions, and welcome religion into the public sphere (eg. prayer in the schools).

Toobin is convinced that abortion rights is the central issue in today's Court - that there are two kinds of cases, abortion rights, and all others. Certainly this topic has become a litmus test for those considered as justices. "The Nine" takes us through several important decisions (Bush v. Gore, efforts to refine/trim Roe v. Wade, the University of Michigan's approach to giving minority preferences, etc.) as well as providing background on each of the justices. Given that O'Connor became the swing vote in many cases, presentations were often shaped to specifically appeal to her.

Finally, another topic given close review in "The Nine" is the thinking that went into selecting (and sometimes rejecting) various nominees for a seat on the Court.

The last several years have delivered a rich harvest of outstanding studies of the Supreme Court. In addition to some highly technical works by political scientists, journalists have contributed studies of remarkable value and insight. I am thinking here of Greenburg's incisive "Supreme Conflict"; Greenhouse's biography of Justice Blackmun; and Biskupic's perceptive study of Justice O'Connor to name a few (not to mention Jeffrey Rosen -- who is a George Washington law professor but who also writes for the popular press and presents PBS programs as well). The good fortune of we "Court watchers" continues in this exceptionally discerning study by Jeffrey Toobin who writes for the "New Yorker" among other publications.

Toobin covers roughtly the period of 1992 through the 2006-07 term of the Court. His focus is similar to that of Jan Crawford Greenburg in "Supreme Conflict": the frustration of conservatives at their inability to secure a Court that would implement their agenda on abortion, public support of religion, and diminution of federalism despite a conservative majority on the Court. But as both books so well explain, all that changed with the coming of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito--as some recent decisions which Toobin discusses in his final chapters indicate. What is interesting is that the same members made up the Court between 1994 and 2005; yet the dynamics of decisionmaking changed dramatically.

To trace this evolution, Toobin discusses the Federalist Society; the Thomas nomination; the pragmatism of Justice O'Connor; Jay Sekulow and his "American Center for Law and Justice";and the perplexing Clinton White House nominations of Justices Ginsburg and Breyer. Toobin uses an effective technique of discussing each Justice in detail not all at the beginning of the book, but at the point in the narrative when that Justice is the central actor. Is is obvious that the author has had the assistance of several of the Justices (in this regard, the book reminds one a bit of "The Brethren") including I would surmise: O'Connor (extensively), Breyer, Souter, and possibly Stevens and even Kennedy. He also interviewed more than 75 law clerks. Hence, the reader is privy to some rather remarkable views of the Justices as seen by their fellows--a major strength of the book. Strangely enough, Chief Justice Rehnquist, whom one would assume would be a central character in this drama, earns relatively little attention. In fact, one of Toobin's most interesting assertions (along with the contention that Souter was close to resigning after Bush v. Gore) is that in the later years of his tenure, Rehnquist really lost his fire to remake law and became content to masterfully administer the Supreme and lower courts.

One section of the book is devoted to Bush v. Gore, a topic to which Toobin has devoted an entire book, and it is a superb analysis of that unfortunate episode. In the third section of the book, much attention is paid to Justice Kennedy, a puzzling character at times, but one who has assumed O'Connor's spot as the swing vote. Also of interest is O'Connor's growing frustration with Bush and the GOP, despite her central role in Bush v. Gore. The final section focuses upon the Bush White House and its maneuvers in filling the Rehnquist and O'Connor vacancies, another outstanding job by Toobin. The most interesting concept raised in this discussion is the Roberts' Court view of stare decisis--namely, does it still exist? Geoffrey Stone (former dean of the University of Chicago law school and provost at Chicago) has spoken eloquently and perceptively about this same phenomenon.

The book runs around 350 pages; it has a number of color photographs, 8 pages of notes, and a brief three-page bibliography. By any measure, Toobin has done as insightful and thorough a job in this study as one could imagine. The writing is crisp, does not bog down in legalistic details,