Jan Crawford Greenburg

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.… (meer)

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.… (meer)