3 comments about Justice of Shattered Dreams: Samuel Freeman Miller and the Supreme Court During the Civil War Era (Conflicting Worlds: New Dimensions of the American Civil War).

1. Justice of Shattered Dreams is a well-balanced blend of history, law, economics and biography. The author provides a succinct and well-written summary of such topics as popular sovereignty, the tension over the Kansas/Nebraska issue, the recalcitrance of the South during Reconstruction, and the legal battles between capitalist bondholders and small town populists. Ross, who has a J.D. from Duke, provides insightful legal summaries of Dred Scott, Ex Parte Merryman, the Prize cases, Ex parte Milligan, the Legal Tender cases, as well as the Slaughterhouse cases for which Miller is most remembered. Ross's analysis of Ex Parte Milligan resonates today vis-a-vis the legal arguments over the status of the internees at Guantanamo Bay. There is just enough legal analysis to explain the theory of the decisions without overpowering the non-lawyer reader, and just enough facts to convey the essence of the case and its background.

   The book is interesting because it is not a true biography of a Supreme Court justice. It blends the economic background and the societal tensions that were present during Miller's lifetime. Additionally, Ross makes some very good points on Reconstruction and reinforces why Reconstruction, in some ways, was just as decisive as slavery in fracturing the country - a legacy that continues today much to the dismay of the modern Democratic party. Ross's analysis of how railroads and railroad bridges destroyed the small western towns is very informative; again, Ross provides a good, cogent synopsis of an economic issue. Overall, this is an interesting and informative book that ties together divergent strands of history and presents a cohesive snapshot of our country between the 1850's and 1870's.




2. The appointment of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Freeman Miller by President Lincoln was perhaps his best decision before the Civil War. Miller's life story is well written by Dr. Ross and perhaps will be the definitive study of the man for generations to come.
   Ross provides new insights into Supreme Court cases, such as the Slaughter House rulings and other important judicial issues of the Civil War and Reconstruction. But perhaps what is Ross's finest work is his ability to articulate Miller's character. The author's background on the Justice fully prepared the reader for understanding why Miller voted on a certain issue. In doing so, the reader can clearly comprehend the various court decisions of that era.
   Clearly, the judicial system of the Civil War is one of the few areas of that time period with insufficient attention. Ross's book will hopefully ignite a spark to this unknown subject of American history.



3. This book does a superb job of placing the legal decisions of the Civil War era within the complex and exciting times in which they took place. Samuel Freeman Miller is a fascinating and important figure.

5 comments about First Principles: The Jurisprudence of Clarence Thomas.

1. In writing "First Principles," Scott Douglas Gerber has done something that few, if any, members of the media or legal cognoscenti have even contemplated: giving Justice Thomas a "fair shake."

   Mr. Gerber should be commended for presenting a balanced portrait of Justice Thomas's jurisprudence. Gerber dispells the myth that Justice Thomas is merely Justice Scalia's second vote.

   Mr. Gerber also does a good job of exposing the intellectual dishonesty of Thomas's critics. The picture he paints is clear: the current civil rights movement hates Thomas because he fails to tow the liberal, collectivist line. He actually thinks for himself. How remarkable!

   After reading this book there can be no doubt that Thomas is his own man. Of course those of us who have taken the time out to actually READ HIS OPINIONS already knew this to be the case.

   The only fault that I can find with this book is Mr. Gerber's mischaracterization of originalism. On page 183 of his book Gerber writes that conservative originalism is a flawed method of constitutional interpretation, musing "Why that document? Why that framer?"

   Originalism is not that simple. As noted by Justice Scalia is his recent book, A Matter of Interpretation, "It is curious that most of those who insist that the drafter's intent gives meaning to a statute reject the drafter's intent as the criterion for interpretation of the Constitution. I reject it for both. I will consult the writings of some men who happened to be delegates to the Constitutional Convention--Hamilton's and Madison's writings in The Federalist for example. I do so, however, not because they were Framers and therefore their intent is authoritative and must be law; but rather because their writings, like those of other intelligent and informed people of the time, display how the text of the Constitution was originally understood. Thus I give equal weight to Jay's pieces in The Federalist, and to Jefferson's writings, even though neither of them was a Framer. What I look for in the Constitution is precisely what I look for in a statute: the original meaning of the text, not what the original draftsmen intended." (see page 38)

   It is interesting to note that Gerber's definition of "originalism" closely parallels the above-referenced quote by Justice Scalia. In a footnote on page 47, Gerber defines "conservative originalism" as maintaining that "the Constitution should be interpreted as the Framers themselves would have interpreted it."

   The documents and Framers consulted by judges, or legal scholars, to interpret the Constitution are ONLY IMPORTANT to the degree that they shed light on how the words used in the text of the Constitution were understood by the men who drafted and ratified it. Originalism is not perfect, and it does not answer all constitutional questions or inquiries. But this method of constitutional interpretation works 95% of the time. The problem is that most judges are NOT looking for the answer to a constitutional question, they are looking for a way to justify their agenda. After writing this book and evaluating the superficial jurisprudence of other Supreme Court Justices (e.g. Stevens, Souter, etc.), I have a feeling that Mr. Gerber understands this reality all to well.

   With that small criticism noted, I highly recommend this book. A job well done!




2. While it is true to say that Clarence Thomas is one of the most vilified men to sit on the Supreme Court, it must also besaid that he has also often suffered from having the wrong kind of defenders. With the lonely exception of Senator John Danforth, practically none of Thomases defenders has taken the time to understand his thought or character. Finally, an inteeligent book has been written about Thomas, by someone who comes neither to glorify or condemn Clarence Thomas, but to UNDERSTAND him. Scot Gerber is one of the fastest rising stars in American constitutional thought.In this fine study, he analyzes Thomases opinions, and concludes that Thomas is not simply a tail to Antonin Scalias intellectual kite. Instead, Clarence Thomas ins a thoughtful, highly principled jurist, with a much deeper undrstanding of our Constitution and its foundations than many of his colleagues on the Court,(And the entire Democratic membership of the Senate Judiciary commitee, for that matter.)While Gerber is critical of many of Thomas' opinions,he is never crudely dismissive. Instead, he shows just how scholarly and intelligent this very misunderstood justice is.Why do I call this book 'courageous'.For one reason, and one reason alone. As I have already said, Scott Gerber is a rising star of constitutional theory.He is also a Liberal, in the classical, libertarian sense. However, in defending Thomas, he has risked prevoking the wrath of some very influential people. He has several hair -raising anecdotes in this book about how reputable law reviews have refused to print anything favorable to Clarence Thomas, and it is indeed doubtful that this fine book will meet with the respect it deserves.Even now, it has only been reviewed in 'conservative' magazines, while such organs of "liberalism" as The New Republic ,The New York Review of Books,and The New York Times have greeted it with silence.One can only hope that Americas leading law reviews will not follow in their footsteps,and instead show the same maturity and courage as Scott Gerber.Both he and Justice Thomas deserve respect.



3. This is an exceptional book. What Gerber has done is to avoid the political panderings of both the left and right wing and given us an objective, unbiased consideration of Justice Thomas'opinions. What a pleasure to read a book based in data not political philosophy. Plus the book is very well written. Kudos to Mr Gerber



4. I applaud Gerber for avoiding yet another partisan attack upon (or defense of) Justice Thomas. Too often scholars, or politicians, respond to justices, and Thomas in particular, with partisan attack divorced from any real consideration of the substance of the justice's view. Gerber looks at Thomas's opinions in cases from three areas: civil rights, civil liberties, and federalism.
   
   Gerber's conclusion is that Thomas is just as result oriented as any other justice, he reads his own preferences into the text he is interpreting in the same manner that "liberal activists" do. Unfortunately, Gerber at times glosses over this fact because of his pet theory of "liberal originalism" that sees all constitutional principles as derivative of the Declaration of Independence (a theory dubious on its own terms). The most obvious gloss comes in affirmative action cases. Thomas has insisted upon a colorblind interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause, but he fails to give any originalist defense of this position. Instead, he uses moral arguments with a single citation to the declaration. Gerber spins from this a position that Thomas believes in his theory of interpretation, at least here since he admits that Thomas abandons this idea in other areas such as religion. But, neither Thomas nor Gerber clearly state what importance the declaration could have on the meaning of the 14th Amendment, enacted nearly a century later. In fact, the history of the 14th Amendment demonstrates a pervasive use of benign racial classifications similar to affirmative action programs, leading many to conclude that, as originally understood, affirmative action programs are constitutional. Gerber swipes aside these criticisms, stating that Thomas's affirmative action opinions rely upon moral arguments and not history. But this ignores the fact that Thomas claims to be an originalist who relies upon the intent and practice of the enactors of a provision. We should hold Thomas up to the standards he claims to live by. Another example, of rather recent development which explains why Gerber's book doesn't include it, is takings. In the recent New London decision, Thomas offered a powerful originalist critique of the broad majority opinion of the public use requirement. He uses intent, original understanding, and contemporary state practice. Yet, he joined in, and continues to support, Scalia's opinion in Lucas admitting that history failed to support regulatory takings, and describing the same history used in New London as irrelevant. This is a glaring inconsistency necessitated by the fact that history fails to support Thomas's belief in regulatory takings so he abandons these inconvenient facts. Thus, we see that originalism fails to constrain Thomas's behavior in the way he claims it does.
   
   Another annoying thing is that Gerber seems to find it necessary to vocalize his opposition to Thomas's opinion, almost as if he is afraid of being labeled a Thomas-defender. I think this is unnecessary and he should have simply presented Thomas's thoughts without his subjective opinion as to the correctness of those positions. All told, I think Gerber's book is a fine one, presenting Thomas's opinions and thoughts themselves. In the end, we see that Thomas is just as likely to join in activist policy-making as any other justice. This should hardly be surprising and we should encourage it because it adds another important voice to constitutional issues, particularly in affirmative action cases where he is the only justices to experience it first hand. We should encourage this diversity of opinion while removing the illegitimate claim that it is the requirement of history rather than Thomas's personal policy preference.



5. I had one primary motivation for reading an arguably dated book: with the addition of Roberts and Alito to the Court, the Court will certainly transform itself from being the most effective institution, besides our military, in protecting the reserved rights of "We the People" to a court that will most certainly expand government power as the Conservatives on the court gain control. J. Thomas, who has written many a provocative dissent, will now become a prolific writer of opinions that will grant the government sweeping powers as our individual rights are stripped away. I wanted to better understand what to expect out of Thomas as his opinions now become binding law.
   
   Gerber's book is considered the most fair, unbiased, and most accurate analysis of Thomas' jurisprudence though limited to the first five years of his tenure, though it also contains a short afterword that catches up on Thomas through 2000. What is most intriguing about Thomas is that Thomas claims to read and interpret our radically liberal constitution within the context of the even more radically, and revolutionary Declaration of Independence, unlike Scalia who claims to read only the Constitution from a textual perspective. Rather than yielding a solid libertarian view a la' Randy Barnett so well-espoused in Barnett's "The Lost Constitution", Thomas seems to constantly rule opposite of the original meaning or even original intent of those two documents if they deny a conservative political objective. So what gives?
   
   Gerber not only does a great job of providing a rhetoric-free analysis of Thomas's view, he also does a fine job of comparing those views to competing views and fairly crucifying Thomas's media critics who hate the rulings without any understanding of Thomas' arguments. As fair as Gerber is in analyzing Thomas' opinions against his judicial adversaries, Gerber also does a fascinating quantitative analysis to empirically expose whether Thomas is honestly deciding cases or is driven by conservative political objectives - the results of this research contained within the Appendices is alone worth owning this book.
   
   Some of Gerber's findings:
   
   Gerber publishes outtakes from a Thomas 1987 speech to the Heritage Foundation where Thomas claims to support the constitutional principle of the "primacy of the individual, and establishes our inherent equality as a God-given right." Thomas ends this subject in his speech arguing that Conservatives should embrace this concept rather than have this principle continue to be conservatism's "Achilles' heel". Fine rhetoric indeed, Gerber then goes on to show how in ruling after ruling, Thomas rejects his own principles to vote firmly for sweeping government power that deprives the individual of their rights with respect to civil liberties as Thomas ignores the fact that we reserved our rights and tries to limit those rights by trying to prove they are all numerated in the Constitution, and narrowly at that.
   
   Again Gerber quotes Thomas defending the original meaning of the 9th amendment that would "explicitly deny to the national government certain powers over various subjects would imply". And throughout the book Gerber then exposes Thomas as he tries to narrowly interpret the other Bill of Rights amendments to show preference to government power rather than use the Constitution to interpret the powers delegated to the government to, as Jefferson said in the D of I, "secure the blessings of liberty", e.g., Thomas voting with a 5-4 majority approving of government funding of religious activity in Rosenberger v. the U. of VA. (1995); an unprecedented ruling that directly opposses the establishment clause and our equal protection rights.
   
   Not that Thomas is always on the side of non-delegated gov't power. Gerber does a very respectful and insightful analysis of Thomas views on civil rights in regards to affirmative action and Thomas' fierce defense of free speech regarding political speech, like in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission where Thomas did support the original meaning of the Constitution by limiting government power to explicitly stated delegation of powers while broadly interpreting the people's and the press' right to speech.
   
   While the chapter on Thomas' views on Federalism, where Thomas is an active proponent of allowing states non-explicit powers to deny Americans their constitutional rights is interesting, Gerber doesn't go far enough, like Barnett has done, in analyzing whether any founding framer believed in the principle that the states could deny rights to "we the people", with the "people" being narrowly defined at that time.
   
   Many constitutional law bloggers have easily exposed Scalia as an absolute hypocrite regarding his defense of original meaning when he often, and lately almost constantly, ignores that concept when needed to support a conservative political goal. Thomas's opinions require a much more thorough examination to expose his rationale for his rulings; Gerber for the most part is up to the task. If you are a Thomas fan, you'll get plenty of support for your position, if you are aghast at his findings, you will understand how far Thomas must twist reason to support his conservative ideology, and if you are like me, a person who thinks Thomas has unlimited potential but is also aghast at his rulings, you'll find evidence that maybe with time Thomas will begin to defend our reserved rights as time develops his jurisprudence, unfortunately the two new members will most likely have no positive influence on Thomas, providing support for narrow rulings with twisted logic to claim protection of rights while ruling in a manner that destroys those very rights.

1 comments about Fifty-Eight Lonely Men: Southern Federal Judges and School Desegregation (Illini Books, Ib 74).

1. The 58 men who sat as judges in the South when Brown v. Board of Education was decided in 1954 had the least enviable job in America. Almost without exception, they had been raised in a climate of racism, and were respected members of their communities. Once the strategy of massive resistance took hold in the South, they were caught between having to follow the Supreme Court's directive in Brown, or continuing to be respected leaders of their own communities.

   How they resolved this dichotomy makes for great reading, and is one of the most intense tests of character imaginable.

1 comments about Ira Rowe, Caribbean Lawyer: Materials, Tributes & Cases.

1. It is wonderful to have a such a succint and engaging novel about a talented and intelligent jurist. So few books are written on Caribbean Jurisprudence, which makes this one all the more a treasure to be added to any library, large, small, private or public. It is my hope that all persons, laymen and lawyers a like, will find their way to this book and take the time to learn what molds and expands both Caribbean law and the jurists within such. Enjoy!

No comments about John Jay: Colonial Lawyer.

No comments about The International Judge: An Introduction to the Men and Women Who Decide the World's Cases.

1 comments about Cowboy Justice: Tale of a Texas Lawman.

1. Cowboy Justice won Westerners International Co-Founders Best Book Award and to great critical acclaim.

   "Cowboy Justice is a nonfiction masterpiece that shows us a lawman who enforced the law because the Rule of Law was sacred to him. There was no sense of personal gain or selfish career building, nor was there a sense of power for power's sake. Gober deserves a place beside Earp, Masterson, Garrett and others who gained fame for their law enforcement. And yet, he almost stands alone when it comes to greatness tempered with courage and humility." ---Michael Martin Murphey

3 comments about Fighting Injustice.

1. A vivid and engaging glimpse into the highstakes game of constitutional law. What's at issue is whether there will be any control at all over police and prosecutors in the USA. The cases and issues frame the world we in the USA will all have to live in, and it would be a far better one were Tigar's side to win. In the voice of an experienced (and winning) storyteller, Tigar takes the reader through the strategies, gambles and often humorous surprises of his stellar career of high profile cases. I'm a musician, not a lawyer (though I know some of the people Tigar mentions), and was never at a loss due to technical language left unexplained. A great book.



2. As I read this book, I found myself saying "this is why I went to law school" again and again. As an example of what someone can do with a law degree and a conscience, no one surpasses Michael Tigar. Young lawyers should read this for inspiration. Law students should read this to remind themselves why sitting through four hours of Contracts or Evidence or Federal Courts matters. Activists should read this to relish the victories and learn new approaches. Anyone who has ever watched The Practice or Law & Order should read this to understand what criminal defense lawyers really do.



3. In my first year of law school, the vocal Michael Tigar had a reputation around campus for being strategically dramatic and professionally pragmatic. In Fighting Injustice, however, the paper Tigar mixes history and amusement with quite personal anecdotes to gain the confidence, interest and compassion of his readers. The book is structured chronologically from his life as a child growing up in California through the recent past just before 9/11. He uses his own cases to exemplify the quest for justice in such areas as sexual/gender discrimination, military justice proceedings, draft board cases, death penalty and even the carefully orchestrated pomp of debates hosted by William F. Buckley, Jr.
   Fighting Injustice is the third book Tigar has authored for the American Bar Association, for which he served in various chair positions of the Litigation Section in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The book includes two important themes that have shaped Tigar's sense of justice and have gotten him into interesting and sometimes entertaining circumstances. One important theme is the light and dark aspects of affiliating with justice-seeking groups. Tigar begins the book with a discussion about his early childhood. His father worked at various jobs that were available to an ex-military man with minimal education until he ultimately joined a workers' union in California. His father's connection with the union resulted in young Michael's receiving autographed pictures of Roy Rogers and Gene Autry, who were his movie heroes at the time. On one occasion, Roy Rogers came over to a table where young Michael and his father were seated to discuss hunting.
   
   Later in life, Tigar would experience a darker side of fraternizing with justice seeking groups. Throughout college, young Tigar worked tirelessly in student body government at the University of California at Berkley to support such causes as the free speech movement in the waning days of McCarthyism, abolishment of capital punishment and racial equality. His efforts included sit-ins, picketing and boycotts of stores that refused service to African-Americans. Later in law school, Tigar successfully led a campaign to remove the loyalty oath from the California bar student application. He argued that the oath unconstitutionally restricted freedom of speech by preventing bar members to "advocate the violent overthrow of the government." These activities later created political difficulties and pressures from the FBI and other governmental agencies when Tigar later sought employment as a law clerk to Justice Brennan of the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Brennan initially promised Tigar the position, but later reneged without any explanation. These and similar experiences recounted in Fighting Injustice suggest that Tigar's personal experiences with controversy motivated an understanding that justice seeking groups are made up of loved ones and heroes; whereas, those who execute the law can damage a person in ways that may have no practical defense or remedy.
   
   Another important theme of Tigar's theory of justice is his own desire for independence and control. As early as junior high school, young Tigar gained the election of student body president. Later, he practiced as an attorney for the renowned litigator Ed Williams in Washington D.C. at the Williams & Connolly law firm. Williams was famous for entertaining clients and other lawyers on any number of subjects at bars after work. Tigar, however, preferred to attend such gatherings only on occasion or when absolutely necessary. Tigar also experienced to his displeasure the leadership of Joe Califano at Williams & Connolly. Califano tended to lead the firm toward a bureaucratic practice that conflicted with Tigar's "organized chaos" conception of litigation.
   
   Fighting Injustice includes very few aspects that will disappoint the reader. Tigar falls short of, however, a complete development of his criticism of civil law practice. He makes a few critical remarks about the apparent importance of billable hours and the apparent bureaucratic management in civil firms, but falls short of proposing an alternative to the problems. Indeed, his criticism appears to be little more than accusing civil law firms of being motivated by money and being too efficient. His contrast of civil practice with his criminal practice, which includes approximately one-third pro bono cases, lacks a fair discussion of the different factors and incentives involved in civil and criminal practices. Although his brief criticism demonstrates perceived problems, its presentation belies a thorough understanding of the differences between the civil and criminal practices of law or a reasonable alternative.
   
   The factors contributing to injustice in the U.S.A. in virtually every criminal law context are developed with mastery and passion in Fighting Injustice. Michael Tigar uses a writing style that entertains and educates readers without assuming legal training, while simultaneously providing gems of instruction in the art of legal advocacy.

No comments about Sir Edward Carson: A Dream Too Far.

5 comments about Flame-out : From Prosecuting Jeffrey MacDonald to Serving Time to Serving Tables.

1. This book was written by my friend, Jim Blackburn, who I met twenty-seven years ago when he was Assistant Attorney General for Consumer Affairs in Raleigh, North Carolina. He quickly became not only a friend, but a man I respected for his wisdom, wit, good advice, and good looks, I might add. After reading this book, I find it difficult to put into words the respect I have for his courage, perserverance, honesty, and integrity. He pours out his heart and soul regarding his journey from great heights and his fall to greater depths and does a marvelous job of conveying his emotions and detailing this very complex situation on paper.

   Jim lost a great deal and made some very serious mistakes that would have broken a lesser man. His story is an inspiration to all who suffer from depression. He can now write and share greater wisdom, deeper wit, better advice, and still has the same good looks! I cannot wait for his next book!




2. The title of this book may initially attract you because of the famous Jeffery Mcdonald murder case. But the book itself ends up being about every man..our temptations, our potential for self-destruction without regard to education or socio-economic status. And yet James Blackburn gives us a message: there is redemption--but apparently only through confession, humiliation and loss. This is an easy concept to preach but actually doing it is another thing entirely. This book is written by a man who did all of it and lived to tell the tale as a better person. It was gave me insight into myself and others--- and taught me not to judge a person by scandal in the newspaper.



3. I have a great deal of respect for the author. Writing this book must
   have been a daunting task; one that required an immense amount of
   courage. Mr. Blackburn's candor and honesty are unique and refreshing,
   and the story of his fall and relatively rapid return to grace
   sensational. Overcoming depression is a daunting task, one that many
   individuals are unable to conquer. The first step in the journey may
   be to recognize that you need help. Admitting that you have a problem
   can be difficult and painful. Once you admit the problem and find
   help, you must work extremely hard to conquer your demons! Overcoming
   depression is a great deal of work. This book inspires readers to
   climb their personal mountain to achieve and overcome obstacles. I am
   both inspired and refreshed, and I sincerely admire the author for
   coming back despite odds that appeared insurmountable. Although local
   readers are likely to know the story of Mr. Blackburn's conviction,
   writing the book has turned the story into a national one. I
   appreciate and admire the author for his honesty, strenth and courage,
   and wish Mr. Blackburn future success. I hope he continues writing!



4. Jim Blackburn is a wonderful person who has chosen to open his heart to the world. The lessons to be learned by his journey from respected lawyer to convicted felon and then to waiter are invaluable. Without having a preaching or condecending tone, Jim relates to the reader his experiences and what he learned from them. It would add another wonderful chapter to his story if this books becomes a best seller.



5. I found this book to be a real exercise in courage, humility and honesty on the part of James Blackburn, and I admire him for it greatly. The fall from grace that he experienced would have completely and utterly destroyed a weaker man. To be so high and to fall so low is truly not to be underestimated. Blackburn is to be commended for sharing as much of his personal story as he did.

   The honesty with which he deals with his depression are perhaps the most compelling parts of this book. It's rare that a reader is granted access to the inside of a depressed mind. Blackburn does a decent job of showing the reader what his state of mind was like at the time.

   All in all, however, the book suffers from Blackburn's storytelling skills. The book reads rather much like it was directly transcribed from dictation. There is very little art in Blackburn's writing.

   Nevertheless, I'd recommend this book to anyone who is suffering from work-related depression. It's truly a unique and useful read in that regard.