Law Books

Frankly, I was disappointed in the depth of insight and reflection offered in this book. This little volume is essentially a recapitulation of a narrow and shallow view of Constitutional Law and exegesis of the US Constitution that lacks a unifying logic or point of view that underlies it. And, I found him disingenuous in that he adopts a literalist position while knowing full well that no such position is possible in reading documents more complex and abstract than simple assembly instructions. His responses to the criticisms of Dworkin, Glendon, Tribe and Wood were frequently glib and self-indulgent, even self-congratulatory. Contrast this work with Justice Breyer's Active Liberty.

This is an excellent book that provides valuable insight into understanding the modern controversy and problem of construing the American Constitution. Unique in that Justice Scalia graciously provides his theory first. He is then rebutted in different ways by university scholars in very varied manner. Each rebuttal is quite unique and interesting in its own right. Fascinating in that Scalia also provides responses to each rebuttal at the end of the book.

The format is very educational and enlightening and it's remarkable that a sitting Justice of the Supreme Court would provide such candid and unapologetic theory of interpretation, knowing that his views would face challenging if not scathing attack by some very important scholars on the topic.

The only thing that would have made this book more interesting is a discussion, or forward describing just how this process of argument, response and rebuttal was organized. Just how did these authors get together to create such an honest discussion of what are, in some cases, very polar views on the issue of interpretation. That's why I gave it four stars. But I loved it.

I would caution that some of the writing is technical both legally and philosophically. Legally in that some discussion referring to the doctrine of incorporation seem to be assumed understood. Philosophically in that Dworkin's discussion of "meaning" and "intention" could be daunting though I think he does a beautiful job of simplifying and clarifying what are often considered some of the most complex philosophical issues of the 20th Century.

Very well done. Very appreciated work. I was fascinated and thoroughly enjoyed the format of argument, counterargument and response.

My favorite part of the book is when Scalia criticizes those who bash textualism for being formalistic. "Of course, it's formalistic! Law is formalistic!," he claims.

Beyond that, the book is more or less dull precisely because Scalia did not provide any satisfying answer to any of the non-originalist criticisms.
One of the core criticisms raised against Scalia is that originalist interpretation can be, too, and often is, a subjective view of an individual judge. It's just a matter of how you, as a judge, support your decision and originalist judges tend to stick by their textual interpretation as a way of doing that. But how, one might ask, do you prove that the text is saying what you believe it is saying? Some say we should rely on legislative or framers' intent. But that doesn't solve the problem either, because there has to be an interpretation of the intent, and there you see another layer of subjectivity involved.

I hope someday Scalia, or any other originalist for that matter, can clearly answer the criticism so that we all can move on to the next stage. But this book is not doing that.

First of all, let me make it clear that I think Scalia is a brilliant Justice. I have a very high level of respect for him intellectually. However, I think that he is too conservative, as is this book. I still think people should read it, because I advocate hearing all sides of an argument, but I thoroughley disagree with Scalia's opinions.

Be that as it may, everyone should sill read this insightful and interesting book, if for no other reason than the debate that takes place at the end of the book.

I think the largest challenge facing Scalia was turning his simple philosophy into an entire book.

When interpreting the constitution we should look at its original meaning.

There it is in 11 words. Scalia manages to expound on his theory a little bit by differentiating it from strict textualism and reinforcing his views here and there. Scalia allows several scholars to give their replies followed by Scalia's rebuttals. This back-and-forth provides an engaging read and expands the simple premise into a full-length, comprehensive read. All in all I enjoyed this book.

I feel compelled to warn potential readers that from time to time this book will sink into the worst of academia. That pseudo-intellectual, acting smart for the sake of sounding smart mentality that plagues universities across the country. These lapses are usually brief and do not greatly detract from what is otherwise a great book on an important debate currently occuring within the highest court in America.

I also recommend you read Active Liberty by Justice Breyer. I have nothing against Tribe, Dworkin or the other respondents in this book, but Breyer takes the discussion out of originalism and into his own philosophy.

In the shadow of the upcoming Supreme Court decision concerning affirmative action, I wanted to do some research on the issue. This books treatment is excellant. There are detailed articles about the Bakke and Hopwood cases. There's a summary of the Harvard's affirmitive action policy which was praised by the Supreme Court in the Bakke case as an excellant policy. An article opposing all civil rights laws followed by an artcile that justifies affirmative action are both thought provoking. There is also an intersting article about various ways to look at equality and fairness in treating your children in different situations.

The upcoming decision in the Michigan case may truly be a watershed opinion on affirmative action at least in university admission cases. Justice Blackmun said it best in the Bakke case: "there is no other way" than affirmative action. We cannot end racism without taking into account race.

I am from South Korea and now living in Indiana, USA. This book has been
very popular in my country because the book is very helpful for preparing for law schools, especially for LSAT reading part.
This book made me not only get used to LSAT reading style but also
understanding comprehensive US law system and philosophy based on it.

This is the "Bible" of legal forms and information. Used early 1989 edition quite a bit. Will use this up-dated edition even more.

It's not always the most entertaining book to read (who enjoys reading about taxes?), but read through it once. Stick it on your shelf. And then whenever you need it, the book can reference you to certain government documents such as release forms, copyright forms, tax forms, consignment forms, authenticity forms, etc. There's tons of forms in the book for you to work off of when you are writing up your own agreements. Also current on laws for artists. Always keep a current edition of this book handy.

This is an excellent resource to define and explain legal issues in the arts. It is a little dry in some parts but far easier to read than books written for the legal profession. I have been using this book as a textbook for a college class at an art school for graphic design students for several years.

The book covers copyright law and touches on legal business issues that pertain to all visual artists. The focus of the book is on fine artists but it is the best resource I have found for graphic designers.

Tad Crawford does his as-usual excellent job clarifying a complex area for the working visual artist. Readers will admire his straightforward writing style and many, many practical examples.

A word of warning, though: as Tad himself says, he is not providing legal advice and, while the artist will thank Tad if he or she follows Tad's advice, it does not substitute for appropriate legal consults as needed.

Even if you have the luxury of an attorney that speicalizes in art contracts, as I do, this is a great book of forms to keep handy for quick reference. My advice is to get it with his other book: Business & Legal Forms for Fine Artists also by Tad Crawford

My daughter started reading this book at age 12, and has had it for 2 years. She still loves to go back and read selections of love, hope, courage. Give your teenager something worth reading! :)

I bought this book as a gift for my 16yr old niece. The very next day, she told me how much she loved the book. She even cried reading it. I think it's nice to find reading materials that can move the minds and feelings of teenagers.

I skimmed through the book before I gave it to my granddaughter who just turned 13. I thought it had some well written stories that a teenager can relate to and a lot of food for thought. She was so happy to get it, since she had the one for pre-teens also and really liked it.

Once again, "Chicken Soup for the Soul" books has a hit. This is a wonderful gift for young teens with its easy read of short stories on pertinent topics and experiences teens face. Teens I have given it to as a gift have loved it and purchased the next in the teen series. Also a source of good talking points for those anxiety ridden moments or social issues teens face.

I am a teacher in two high schools and I like to read the stories of the book to my students from time to time to inspirate them and reinforce their teenage self esteem! I suggest it to all teacher to make the same with a nice calm background music.

First, the book is terrific and it has been exceptionally well reviewed. The reviews focus on the legitimate and obvious reasons for which the book is great. Specifically, it is well written, riveting, thought provoking, and wildly entertaining--regardless of your predetermined views of the justice system. I agree with all of those reviews and will not repeat them here.

For me, the book has made a lasting impression and it is on my required reading list for all lawyers or aspiring lawyers because it forces the reading lawyer to ask the fundamental question of "what type of lawyer do I want to be?" Most lawyers and law students confuse this question with "how much money/prestige can I accumulate over a legal career?" The book helps the reader answer this question in a profound way. For that reason alone, it is worth reading. For all the other reasons and reviews it is MUST reading.

Keith J. Bruno

I'm an incoming law student this fall and I bought this book because I'm considering working as a public defender after law school. The book itself didn't disappoint. It was written well and really made me feel what it might be like to endure the daily struggle of too many desperate clients and not enough time to adequately represent them. I was very shocked at how much time the criminal judicial system wastes through a variety of substandard mechanisms... Mr. Feige did a remarkable job of explaining it all.

However, after finishing the book... I can't help but feel a little sad. As an ex elementary school teacher, I almost feel as if taking a job as PD would be similar (a job that is very demanding and rough for very little pay). The work of a public defender seems so noble and so important, yet after reading Feige's book... I have to say that I'm actually not inspired to do the work. I'm instead inspired to seek out to practice law in a different setting.

I think I'll certainly use one of my law school summers to intern for a PD office, as I know that I can't possibly understand what the job is like until getting as close to working it as is possible.

But man, is the system messed up. It's frightening. Thanks, Mr. Feige, for giving me a little insight into the world of big city indigent defense.

I recommend this book for anyone thinking of pursuing similar work in the legal profession or for anyone wishing to know just how much time, money, effort, and agony is wasted daily in the process which is our criminal court system.

If you're teaching a class in law, this is an excellent introduction to the legal system...I had to discipline myself from reading it too fast...

I pre-ordered this book right before I took the bar exam, but didn't get around to reading it until I visited my parents' house almost a year later. In the meantime I'd passed the bar, been sworn in as a lawyer, and spent nine months as an ADA in the Big City (not the same Big City where Feige practiced, but not much changes in the grimy world of high-volume, high-stress courthouses). I found this book when I came back home for vacation, and just finished reading it last week.

I'm glad I accidentally waited so long before reading it. I think a book like this looks different from the inside than the outside. It has different benefits: rather than giving you a glimpse inside a new world, it makes you look at familiar surroundings from a new perspective. In a career where every professional relationship is adversarial and the other side is often met with suspicion (and often with good reason), it's invaluable to get an honest view of what the other side is thinking. Feige's book is an excellent reminder of the fact that we're still all human in a sometimes inhumane system, and of how it is possible for good and worthy people to stand on both sides of the courtroom. I realize that sounds incredibly basic, but it's so easy to forget in the battlefield. The book provides some reassurance that I'm not failing in my job when I cut defendants breaks, or withdraw charges when justice doesn't line up with the letter of the law. And it reminds me to be decent to the defenders who are decent in turn, because the good ones are horribly overworked and underappreciated in what they do. I'm grateful to be reminded of those things. I needed it.

Of course the book has its flaws; all books do. Nothing is said about extremely pro-defense judges who are as unfeeling toward victims and their families as Feige's pro-prosecution judges are toward defendants. Nothing is said about good cops, or humane court staff, and almost nothing about inept or indifferent public defenders, or the crimes of which their clients are guilty (as, indeed, most are). But the book isn't intended as an even-handed, clear-eyed evaluation of the system; it's a heartfelt and impassioned piece of advocacy for one particular point of view.

So, again, I'm grateful to Feige for writing this book. It's well worth reading. Rarely does this particular corner of the legal profession have such a skilled and passionate advocate.

I am not fond of criminals. Nor can my politics be considered left-wing. However, I do believe in the Constitutional right to due process and David Feige's "Indefensible" shows how Americans are routinely denied this right without a whimper from the elitist liberals and their mainstream press pals. Steve Bogira tried showing the nature of the criminal justice system in his "Courtroom 302" (Courtroom 302: A Year Behind the Scenes in an American Criminal Courthouse, but that came out sounding like a left-wing whine blaming everyone except the lawbreaker.

Feige was a public defender in New York for more than 15 years. He tells the story of those years with a touch of humor, an understated admission of the psychic pain he suffered as the system ground down defendants, their families and their lawyers, while elevating and protecting incompetent (if not corrupt) judges, prosecutors and police. His story has the ring of truth. He talks about innocent people railroaded into pleading guilty just to escape the system. Of evil judges who gave no second thought to wrecking families and lives. (He names names.) He doesn't resort to the usual left-wing nostrums of blaming society, demanding more money to perpeptuate dependent welfare or any of that.

By simply stating the facts from his perspective, Feige makes a strong argument for thorough reform of the criminal justice system. Right now the system isn't concerned with justice, but simply keeping itself going. As I said, I have no sympathy for actual criminals and it irritated me a bit to read of Feige negotiating down sentences of robbers and murderers. My attitude toward them is more like lock them up and throw away the key. But Feige reminds us that every criminal defendant has unalienable Constitutional rights - and that these rights are being violated day in and day out in New York's criminal courts. (Bogira attempted to make the same point about Chicago.) More than likely the same can be said for any criminal court system in America. The system is dysfunctional and doesn't work. So plea bargains are the currency of the day. Society suffers because bad people come back to the streets to soon. But innocent people suffer too, denied a trial, forced into pleas that may harm them or even ruin their lives.

It's a lousy system, far from the promises of the Constitution, and one that must be reformed on every level. Feige makes his points without beating the reader's head against the wall and he makes them effectively. He doesn't make any left-wing, criminal-coddling arguments: he doesen't have to. His experiences as a public defender, representing the truly guilty, the innocent and just those whom life dealt a bad hand to are all that's needed to waken your conscience to the miscarriage of justice we call our criminal justice system.

Jerry

i had this book to read for a class at james madison university and if your living and breathing...don't read this book. it was dry and didn't grab my attention at all.if you want facts, then this is the book for you.if you want good reading,pick another book.

I originally read this book for a class at Vassar College my freshman year. Yes, this book can be dry, and it is not a quick read by any stretch of the imagination, yet, it also clearly portrays the basic theoretical paradigms behind the contemporary study of human rights. Quite evidently, this book is meant to be a text for courses on the subject matter, and in terms of this objective it succeeds.

Jack Donnelly porvides a very good introduction to human rights as an issue in world politics. Particularly his treatment of human rights in foreign policy is excellent. Worth reading.

I have become interested lately in the various opinions handed down by the Supreme Court in the Guantanamo habeas corpus cases. I was particularly surprised by the vehemence of the dissenting opinions expressed. This lead me to this book, to find out more. Published in 1979, it documents the internal workings, decision making and rivalries in the Supreme Court between the years 1968 and 1975. The activist Chief Justice Warren resigned at the start of this time, and the remainder of his colleagues moved towards retirement, replaced by Nixon appointees. The Court's more controversial cases in this time dealt with segregation, abortion and Watergate.

They say that no man is a hero to his butler, and I think this book provides a law clerk's eye view of the workings of the court and the interactions of the justices. Each year, each justice hires three (more recently four) law clerks to help with research and documentation. The clerks leave after one year, and the book is laced with opinions about lazy justices being over-reliant on their clerks to write their opinions, how hard working clerks can influence which cases are taken and what opinion `their' justice forms. I think this needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. It is certainly true that the justices are appointed to life-long posts (they can be impeached by Congress, but otherwise make up their own minds when to retire), and that the temptation exists both to remain at work though they get older and physically weaker, and to get less interested in the writing of complex opinions. However I think it is clear that all the justices mentioned here, closely valued their own opinion and were jealous in casting their vote in the judicial conferences. It is also clear that, over the years, their basic philosophies could lead close observers to predict what their views on a particular case were likely to be.
I have read that one of the authors' main sources for this book was the Justice Potter Stewart, who was in the running to become Chief Justice after Warren retired, but declined to put his name forward. There is an element of sour grapes towards Justice Burger, who did become Chief Justice. Burger is depicted as dim-witted, vacillating, manipulative and devious. I am sure that being in (essentially) a job for life, with eight other colleagues can lead to enormous frictions, especially when you are both free and required to express your opinions, which can have enormous consequences on society.
The book is very informative about the workings of the Supreme Court, the characters of the Justices and the role of famous precedent setting cases. It is both enlivened and cheapened by the gossipy nature of some of the anecdotes, for example, when Justice Hugo Black died, he asked that all his personal papers be destroyed, to preserve the confidentiality of the decision making process. His paster, who wished to say something at his funeral, was left without much to go on, so he went to Black's book collection, and looked through books written by Black;s former law clerks; the pastor chose some of the underlined passages, especially from one particular book which was heavily marked, to illustrate what he believed were Black;s interests and views. The book quotes the other justices saying, after the funeral, that Black must have been turning in his grave, as he only underlined areas with which he disagreed!.
There was an ongoing issue about how to define pornography, whether it was a version of free speech or an offense to the general public. The justices could not come up with a definition of pornography that might not infringe (they felt) on free speech, so the best they could come up with was expressed by Potter as `I can't define it, but I know it when I see it'. Unfortunately this translated into the Supreme Court having to view, and decide by majority, on every piece of contested pornography in these years!. This is also dealt in a gossipy, jocular way, which again undermines some of the seriousness of the decisions - in fact the `liberals' (Brennan and Douglas) felt nothing should be banned, provided it was proven that if was capable of being only viewed by adults who specifically were aware of its contents, therefore they did not view any of the material.
The relative standing of each justice is also described, especially Harry Blackmun's inferiority complex, his indecision and his desire not to be seen a overly-influence by Justice Burger (despite being a life-long acquaintance). Their interaction, and the pride they took in contributing to developing law - as opposed to writing futile and bitter dissents, is contrasted with their profound (and perhaps egotistical) political philosophies. Their personalities are largely described in relation to their clerks also - an `amiable' justice takes the time to learn his clerks first names, something you might think is common courtesy ; however usually their personality contrasts with their legacy - William O. Douglas, a liberal icon, is seen as acerbic, imperious and eccentric.
The book is particularly good on the abortion judgement and the Watergate decisions, which, I believe, show the Court at is worst and best respectively. The court ruled in favour of abortion, as an extension of a woman's right to privacy, and the opinion was written by Blackmun. The opinion as written is shown to be of equal parts concern not to interfere with medical practice, and as a way for Blackman to redeem his reputation for indecision. It was definitely an unexpected decision of a Nixon appointee, though the progress of the case and the writing of the decision are well described.
The Watergate controversy came to the Court as a challenge by President Nixon to orders for him to release taped Oval Office conversations to an committee investigating the Watergate break-in. As you would expect Bob Woodward has an excellent command of this case, and the process is described in detail. Though there was enormous concern (apparently) among the justices that their opinion be unanimous, and there was manoeuvring to ensure that Justice Burger, when writing the opinion, did not prevaricate or water it down, it seems to me that the strength of the court was that there was no question, from the outset, but that the President would loose. Whether the opinion would be narrowly based, and deferential, or a towering denunciation, was of some concern, but their unanimous view was that the President, who had appointed three of their number, was in the wrong, and must release information which would lead to his impeachment or resignation. Watergate and Nixon's resignation gave the Soviets a short-lived fillip in the Cold War, and at the time was seen as the Stumbling of the American Superpower, but ultimately can be viewed (I think) as the ability of the United States system of governance to impose standards and to correct itself.

In general I think this book is useful, if too biased and gossipy. I think the absence of any footnotes, references or bibliography does it a disservice. As with all Woodwards material, I presume these absences are part of the price paid to get the information in the first place, and his reputation is such that the credibility of the book remains high. However, while it is likely that the events described are factually reported, and the characters and interactions are as fractious and frail as described, I think Hugo Black's view is more germane i.e. that publication of private papers/stories of Justices would inhibit the free exchange of views in the court. Read the formally published opinions and dissents, they are dramatic and revealing enough.

So, you say you want to understand what CONSTITUTIONAL basis the Supreme Court's decisions stand upon? --- You won't find much of that here.

Maybe you want to know the MORAL basis of all those famous Supreme Court decisions? --- This book's got it covered.

Or maybe you just want to read about the juicy OFFICE POLITICS between the Supreme's. --- Bingo.

Depth: B
Style: C
Content: B
Research: A
Historical Impact: D

Woodward and Armstrong write a tale of 7 years and 14 Supreme Court judges. To actually write the book, and to access dozens of law clerks and judges, and to amass huge documentation is in itself the feat of the book. The Supreme Court has been the most sheltered of all public institutions with only trifles of coverage before. The book does portray the quirks of the judges, the key decisions of each year, the infighting and the peculiarities of an institution founded on politics yet delivering fundamental cultural dictates.

W and A fall down on two points - first, this is not a history book, but a retro-newspaper account. The two can't help but fall into the mode of journalists (which they tacitly state in the intro). This is not a book by Foote, Sandburg, Tuchman, or any other great historian.

Secondly, in style they go year by year, day by day practically, without developing any great over-arching themes, lessons, keys, or even predictions.

Toobin's recent book "The Nine" is actually sounder and more stylistic due to Toobin's political analysis and book writer's flair.

It is clear that the authors despise Warren Burger, and their portrayal of him is of a petty, manipulative man with little integrity. Other accounts will have to be checked to see if the man is actually so unredeemed.

all rights reserved - Scott Jones

I found The Brethren to be quite informative as well as entertaining as I was provided a glimpse of the personalities and quirks of Justices and the Politicians that interacted with them. Seeing behind the somber facades allowed the reader to consider each Justice as an individual with his own biases and beliefs that came into play when many of this country's landmark decisions were made.

We were forced to read this book my senior year in high school. I most certainly did NOT want to read a book about the stuffy ol' supreme court! But I did... because I had to... and it turns out that it's one of my favorite books of all time. Now, 15 years later, I'm an attorney and have read the book countless times over the years. It's so interesting to read about the inner workings of the country's highest court, complete with the politics, personalities, and just outright craziness.

The text was as described with no issues. The delivery was prompt and handled in a professional manner. I recommend this seller.

This book is written in plain language that makes it easy to understand. The exercises are helpful as well.

I have used this book as a text in the legal-writing course I teach. It is one of the most widely used and respected legal-writing texts available. Its strengths are that it is clear, easy-to-read, and practical. It lays out the basics of legal analysis, plus it explains how to write a traditional, objective legal memo and a persuasive legal brief. It always gets to the point quickly, and it covers all the important topics a law student will need in a first-year course on legal writing.

One minor weakness is that some of the sample documents in the appendix do not follow the principles explained in the text.

As for the complaint from "A reader from Honolulu" that the book does not cite authority, that's an odd concern. Very few, if any, legal-writing texts cite authority. What would they cite to? Other legal-writing texts (their competition)? What you are buying when you buy a legal-writing text is the expertise of the authors, not a compilation of research on legal writing. I know that these authors are experts, and the advice in this text is practical and effective.

Every lawyer knows better than to simply say what they think, give an opinion, or offer unfounded advice. "Don't tell me what you THINK, tell me the LAW!" This book makes that error on a regular basis. You'll get lots of information on how to write and present arguments, but none of it is actually founded on anything. Indeed, much of it flies in the face of what psychology has told us of the effects of primacy and recency. Another lawyer's error that simply underscores how baseless this book is? No citations.