This book held my interest and is generally well written. It gives a behind-the-scenes account of why presidents nominated certain individuals for the Supreme Court and why they did not nominate others that were under consideration. In that vein, it provides insight into how our highest judges are chosen, but it's also clear from the book that each president has his own way of going about the nomination process. One of the more interesting points described how the qualifications for successful Supreme Court nominees has changed. The book points out that neither Sandra Day O'Connor nor Harriet Miers had a deep, working knowledge of constitutional law prior to their nominations. (The book also puts Lewis Powell in this category.) But back during the time of O'Connor's nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee (and other Senators) did not grill nominees in the same way that they do today. Today, Senators (and others) expect the nominees to have a strong understanding of constitutional law. That wasn't so several decades ago. This may be the one positive aspect of an otherwise counterproductive trend in the changing shape of Senate confirmation hearings. ( )

I was afraid this book would be stuffy and one sided so I began reading it with a bit of trepidation. I was pleasantly surprised by how well the author was able to tell the inside story of the struggle for control of the Supreme Court without crossing the line between story teller and political mouthpiece. I was surprised by how interested I was and by how much I ended up enjoying the book. ( )

I thought this book provided a great look into the politics and personalities of the US Supreme Court. Despite my chosen profession, I rarely get into books about the Supreme Court or law, but I found this book to be a truly interesting read. It was almost gossip-y at points(who knew Sandra Day hated Clarence or loved Rehnquist?), but did more to provide a personality for each Justice than anything I had read before. I wish I had read this before law school - it would have provided some real color to all of those awful red casebooks. I definitely recommend it. ( )

It was interesting learning about the Supreme Court and how the justices are chosen and a little bit about the history. ( )

This is an excellent book to introduce people to the complexities of the Supreme Court. Greenburg, a reporter for ABC News with a law degree, has written one of the most objective books I've read... and I don't much believe anyone is objective.

The book covers the court from the mid-80s or so, and the confirmations of Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy. Both were disappointments to social conservatives, who were hoping for Roe v. Wade and affirmative action to be overturned. Both started out as fairly reliably conservative, but O'Connor began drifting left in response to Clarence Thomas and his aggressive early stances on the Court. Kennedy, the author believes, drifted left in part in response to public opinion. Neither had a firm judicial philosophy, preferring to take a case-by-case approach. The judicial conservatives believed in interpreting law not making it, while the liberals believed in an evolving Constitution and the ability of judges to affect social issues.

At least those are the theories. One of the things that comes across most clearly is that laws, like anything written by humans, are subject to interpretation, and that the range of possible interpretations is broad. After all, if there were no disagreements on interpretation there wouldn't be a requirement for so many judges. Well-meaning and competent people can, and do, differ as to what laws mean and whether their meaning evolves over time.

Greenburg also gives a picture of the personalities of each judge. They are a diverse group. Roberts and Alito, the newest members, are what those on the right have been seeking for years, reliably conservative, but both are well-qualified and work well with others. They are of an age to sit on the bench for years to come.

Excellent book, a worthwhile read. ( )