5 comments about Counselor LP: A Life at the Edge of History.

1. John Kennedy was a great man and would have been a transformer of Washington politics. That's why they killed him!!! Ted Sorenson tells the up close and personal story of why we no longer have Jack kennedy among us.



2. Sorenson
   
   Ted Sorenson's autobiography is told in three parts: his early life, his years with JFK, and his post-November 1963 experiences. Within the three parts, the book deals with episodes or themes of Sorenson's life rather than a chronological, day in and day out retelling of his experiences.
   
   Sorenson's early years are interesting, but the book really takes off when he moves to Washington, DC. His rise is quick, as within a short time of his arrival in DC he is already the confidante and a top aide to a rising star in the Senate. It is in the chapters on JFK's Senate career and presidency that most readers will be most focused. While interesting, there are not too many new insights on the major events here that cannot be found in other works on Kennedy, including Sorenson's own book, Kennedy. What was enlightening for me was the extent of Sorenson's work and relationship with Kennedy. I knew they were close and that Sorenson wrote his speeches, but had no idea that Sorenson was basically Kennedy's Chief of Staff and a top advisor on every major issue. I imagined the Kennedy/Sorenson relationship, from what I had learned, as one where JFK turned to Sorenson at the end of the day to ask his opinion, not one where Sorenson had such a formal, central role.
   
   I also did not realize the extent of Sorenson's career after his departure from the Johnson Administration. Until picking up the book, I did not realize his extensive involvement in RFK's 1968 campaign, his own 1970 race for the Senate, or his brief nomination to be CIA Director (I was born after the Carter Administration). These sections of the book, and many others about his involvement in Democratic politics, demonstrate a continued involvement and impact that was far greater than just his years in the Kennedy White House.
   
   The book makes me nostalgic for a time I never experienced. Intelligent, hardworking people engaging in serious issues and trying to do their jobs well and make the country better, with politics not the driving force. Perhaps it was never as good as Sorenson makes it seem, but it sure looks better than today.



3. Ted Sorensen subtitles his memoir Counselor as "A Life at the Edge of History." It is, in fact, a rarely candid and insightful account of a life at the very center of history.
   
   Sorensen is widely known as JKF's speechwriter, but he was much more. He was JFK's liberal conscience and go-to-guy for everything from the handling of the "Catholic issue" in Kennedy's run for the White House to the writing of the letter to Khrushchev during the Cuban missile crisis. The combination of keen intellect and inspiring idealism that anchored Sorensen at the center of JFK's political life is crystallized on the pages of a retrospective clearly aimed at bringing both the author and his country closure on the shattering of that brief window of greatness.
   
   Don't come expecting a tell-all from this member of the Kennedy inner-circle (not just JFK, but Robert and Teddy, as well). Surely Sorensen is the faithful keeper of many secrets. He traveled with JFK throughout his campaigns, competed with RFK in the White House, enjoyed a close friendship with Jackie, and jeopardized his own political future by helping the family "handle" Chappaquiddick; but beyond the general and widely known stories, you'll get nothing new from Sorensen. He remains, as he has always been, the loyal keeper of the flame. What Sorensen does provide is a clear-eyed and frank view of his own life and its sizeable impact on political history of our times.
   
   For anyone who still remembers where he or she was when the gunshots rang out in Dallas, this book is a behind-the-scenes revelation of a history we lived, but never really knew. For those too young to remember, the book is, as JFK himself would have wanted, a torch of liberal idealism passed to a new generation. To that end, Sorensen has accomplished with book the goal he set. He has completed his service to the President he loved.



4. This is the most moving, realistic depiction of JFK I have ever seen. Many will forever rant and rave over his personal peccadillos, but this man was a leader. His speech at American University, which was his way of dealing with Soviet & American feelings about nuclear war included the following. "For in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet; we all breathe the same air; we all cherish our children's future; and we are all mortal." I heard that speech as a young man. I am now 82 and it still rings in my ears. I was raised an avid republican, but I am proud to have helped vote him into office. His like hasn't been seen since.



5. Few would disagree that John F. Kennedy was one of our most inspirational presidents and that it was a tragedy that he was assassinated. Since the 1950s, it was well known that some of the most memorable words that Kennedy inspired us with were drafted if not written in total by Ted Sorensen, Kennedy's dedicated staffer who played many roles in addition to helping write speeches, books, and articles. Speculation about Sorensen's role was fed by Mr. Sorensen's humble deflection of praise that others aimed in his direction.
   
   Imagine what it would have been like to talk to JFK every day and to see him most days. Imagine, even more, if you were walking on history's stage in your role: You weren't just pouring him coffee.
   
   You could re-title this book as "Dream Job" and you wouldn't be far off.
   
   In Counselor, Mr. Sorensen reveals more than in the past about his personal relationship with President Kennedy, who did what and when, his views about Kennedy's decisions and legacy, and what the lessons for historians are from that era. In letting down his hair, Mr. Sorensen is a loyal heir to the Kennedy legend: He doesn't criticize more than an independent observer would who knew the surface facts. Naturally, he also defends where many would not (he's gentle on Kennedy for increasing the number of military advisors in South Vietnam and letting the military leaders there murder the country's political leader). Further, he seems to have amnesia about what any president did before Kennedy who was not a Democrat (he writes as though there was no space program before Kennedy took office).
   
   One of the most interesting episodes in the book comes long after President Kennedy was killed in the description of Mr. Sorensen's nomination to be CIA head by President Carter. The contrast between Kennedy and Carter could not be clearer in reading how this was handled.
   
   I think we should be generous with Mr. Sorensen. It's been many years. He's almost the last of those who served in those years who knows the inside stories. He also suffered a substantial stroke that affected his vision and made writing this book extremely difficult. I commend Mr. Sorensen for making the effort. There are many lessons here that new administrations can learn from.
   
   I also honor him for his service to the nation, to John F. Kennedy, and to my youthful idealistic dreams by inspiring them with his timeless words. Many will always remember him as a speech writer, but he was truly more . . . especially during those potentially deadly days during the Cuban missile crisis.
   
   Thank you, Mr. Sorensen.

1 comments about Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's African Journey.

1. Long before Senator Barack Obama was heralded as a man whose balance between African and American worlds would lead to substantive international change, Justice Thurgood Marshall was crafting a legacy of statesmanship, exacting jurisprudence, and diplomacy that matches the great works of any statesman and the human rights legacy of Martin Luther King. As this deeply researched, clearly phrased, and elegantly written book makes known, Justice Marshall's intervention into Kenyan nation-building was always based on a hope that the law and governmental support could provide a system durable enough for both liberty, equality, and efficient organization of people with sometimes divergent views. What I admire most about Justice Marshall is that his work speaks for itself and, despite his human rights advocacy, he never politicized his arguments. They were based on the best kind of legal reasoning possible. This book made me aware of how much the work of the founders of Kenyan and the architects who transformed South Africa from the worse kind of white supremacist state into a flawed state that still reversed bigoted ills through the Truth Commission--this book made me aware that this kind of judicial conflict resolution and nation-building is not often continued in international relations.

5 comments about Sandra Day O'Connor: How the First Woman on the Supreme Court Became Its Most Influential Justice.

1. Biskupic picks up where Justice O'Connor left off in her joint biography (with brother Alan) of growing up on the Lazy B ranch in southern Arizona, and includes O'Connor's decision to pursue law studies at Stanford ("to make a difference," and as an outgrowth of a professor contending that an individual had a responsibility to the community).
   
   After graduating from Stanford, marrying, and living in Germany with her husband while he competed his military assignment, Sandra Day O'Connor eventually settled in Phoenix. Failing to find employmente commensurate with her education, she started a law firm with another attorney, had three sons (took off five years to raise them), joined many community boards, helped/led several major Republican political campaings, became an assistant State's Attorney General, was appointed to a legislative vacancy (and subsequently elected in her own right), and became President of the State Senate.
   
   Upon William Rehnquist's nomination to the Supreme Court, Sandra O'Connor undertook considerable effort to support him, including contacting fellow Stanford classmates, U.S. Senators, and newspaper editors, as well as making supporting speeches. Afterwards she left the State Senate to run for a vacant county judge position (won).
   
   Several years later O'Connor was appointed by Governor Babbitt (Dem) to the state Appeals Court, and then had the opportunity to spend some time vacationing with Chief Justice Burger.
   
   O'Connor's having grown up on a Western ranch seemed to make her more attractive to President Reagan, who had made a campaign promise to appoint a woman to the Court. Her prior abortion stance (voted to end an Arizona law prohibiting it) threatened to torpedo her nomination, but supporters (including Senator Goldwater) managed to quickly move the process forward and overcome opposition.
   
   The remainder of the book details O'Connor's actions in a number of Court cases. (It was somewhat comforting to read of how sharply she honed in on issues while on the Court - I had a brief experience before her in her County Court, and was amazed and even intimidated by her sharp questioning even then.)
   
   Finally, while I have the highest regard for Justice O'Connor, it was disappointing to read of the large role played by politics - even in our judicial system, and especially the centrality of the abortion issue. I was also unhappy to read about O'Connor's political comments (wanting to retire while a Republican was President), her dancing around the abortion issue, and key role in the 2000 election.



2. This is a most engaging portrait of a model justice in the common law tradition. Justice O'Connor is a true American icon of humble and hardworking origins rising to the heights of leadership based on character, critical thinking and an ethic of service. Her good will and civility toward those with whom she disagreed is an example to follow. The narrative is well informed, nuanced and flows steadily in a current that merges national, judicial and personal events in the judge's life most artfully. A wonderful book about a wonderful lady and an excellent Supreme Court justice. It is the likes of Sandra Day O'Connor that make one proud to be an American. And though I've never (yet) voted Republican she is also one more beautiful reason to love Ronald Reagan.



3. Joan Biskupic's biography _Sandra Day O'Connor: How the First Woman on the Supreme Court Became Its Most Influential Justice_ provides a compelling picture of the first woman Supreme Court justice and of the inner workings of the Supreme Court through four presidential administrations. Biskupic combines assiduous research with a writing style that makes the intricacies of Supreme Court proceedings accessible and fascinating. The biography is impressive on many counts, especially in how it captures O'Connor's skilfull handling of the challenges of being the nation's first female Supreme Court Justice. Throughout, Biskupic's stance is balanced, outlining the strengths of O'Connor's jurisprudence while acknowleding O'Connor's critics.
   
   While the main focus of the biography is on O'Connor's work in the Supreme Court, the early chapters offer a snapshot of O'Connor as a driven career woman, a devoted wife and mother, and an adroit politician. Biskupic shows how O'Connor's life on the family's "Lazy B." farm in Arizona was a formative influence, even though her parents consciously separated her from the farm in order to give her more educational opportunities at a private school in in El Paso. Her father's independence and opposition to the expansion of federal powers in Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal, and O'Connor's experiences as a trial lawyer, an Arizona state senator, and a judge on the Arizona Court of Appeals shaped an approach to law based on pragmatic, narrow definitions as opposed to overarching theoretical positions in rulings. As Biskupic shows, O'Connor's Arizonan, Western roots are manifest in her respect for the Tenth Amendment, which gives to states those powers not directly assigned to the federal government.
   
   Biskupic is sensitive in tracing O'Connor's role as a trailblazer (though, often, in a purposefully understated way), and the biography shows how attitudes toward women have evolved from the 1950s to the present. O'Connor, for instance, despite graduating in the top 10% at Stanford University's Law school in 1952 and having been a member of the Stanford Law Review, received no offers at firms. One prestigious firm, Gibson, Dunn offered her a legal secretary position, which she declined. In an irony reflective of social changes, when Fred Smith, Ronald Reagan's White House Counsel and a former lawyer with Gibson, Dunn, and Grutcher, interviewed O'Connor in 1981 for the Supreme Court vacancy, O'Connor asked him if it was an interview for "a secretarial position." Biskupic begins her book with this effective anecdote, and the biography throughout reveals how O'Connor astutely negotiated gender prejudice in public life.
   
   Biskupic also offers a detailed picture of O'Connor's important votes related to Roe v. Wade, affirmative action, capital punishment, and Bush v. Gore as she became increasingly the fifth tie-breaking in a deadlocked court. Biskupic chronicles O'Connor's evolution as a jurist, arguing that her role as a centrist often made her a baramoter of where the nation as a whole stood. Biskupic points out that O'Connor's legislative background as an Arizona State Senator--as a person who ran for office and thus who was directly accountable to the electorate--gave her a unique perspective in the Supreme Court with its life-time appointees.
   
   Chapter 15, "Scalia v. O'Connor," highlights O'Connor's judicial pragmatism and minimalist interpretations, offering a contrast with Scalia's philosophically driven understanding of law on originalist grounds. In this chapter, Biskupic addresses critiques of O'Connor's decisions and legal reasoning from both the right and left. This chapter is fair in its discussion and highly informative about different approaches to law and about the role of the Supreme Court, in general.
   
   An anecdote at the end of the book reveals O'Connor's personal style. In an interview with Biskupic, Clarence Thomas recalled O'Connor's congeniality and even the subtle impact this had on the court . O'Connor had attempted for a number of years to convince the other justices to eat lunch together after listening to cases. Although Thomas and other justices initially resisted, prefering to work on cases, he and others later relented. Thomas remarks, "Now, you have a group of people who really enjoy other's company." Biskupic argues that such tact helped lead to O'Connor's ascendant role in the court.
   
   Biskupic's biography chronicles O'Connor's own life and provides a view of the day-to-day dynamics of the Supreme Court, including shifts in the court with retirements and the investitures of new justices. The biography, while telling many important stories affecting American law and life, maintains a clear argument of O'Connor's unmistakable influence.



4. As an admirer of SDO for quite some time, this book opened me up to admire her even more. This book told me so many things that I never knew. It also explained her reasoning behind many of her decisions, both as a justice and in life. Worth the read.



5. No author to date has fine-tuned the story of O'Connor from ranch to robes as well as Ms. Biskupic. The extent of her study and interviews shows, but does not become an academic report. It is fresh and insightful, and certainly as amusing and straight-shooting as its subject.
   
   If you are interested in the law, the Supremes, history in the making, or simply the politics of what it means to be a woman in the law, this is the book you want to read.

2 comments about Of Rats and Men: Oscar Goodman's Life from Mob Mouthpiece to Mayor of Las Vegas.

1. The copious notes and eight pages of bibliography supporting John L. Smith's meticulously researched biographical look at Oscar Goodman, former mob attorney - presently the two-term mayor of Las Vegas, impressed me.

   Talk about "insider" information! Smith has long been quoted as a preeminent authority on mob history and "wise guy" relationships. In his book, "Of Rats and Men: Oscar Goodman's Life from Mob Mouthpiece to Mayor of Las Vegas," Smith names a Who's Who of notorious clients, alleged criminal activities, and egregious political innuendoes surrounding the controversial bonds between Goodman and friends. Scared me! While it is obvious the attention-seeking mayor was generous in his interviews with the author, Smith kept me up nights as he interpreted what Goodman would have us believe with his [author's] own extensive background knowledge and investigative prowess. John L. has balls of brass to write as honestly as he does.

   Don't let an easy read fool you. This book is a gem for all who follow gaming history, or the Las Vegas / mob connection - to say nothing of government ineptitude (now, that was a hoot!).




2. Of Rats And Men: Oscar Goodman's Life From Mob Mouthpiece To Mayor Of Las Vegas is the inherently fascinating biography of Oscar Goodman, a man who deliberately became a pre-eminent defense attorney for alleged gangsters for 35 years. Accused but never proven of being more than a mouthpiece and defense attorney for organized crime, Oscar Goodman somehow managed to successfully defend his clients without becoming part of organized crime itself -- at least according to the voters of Las Vegas who eventually elected him as their mayor twice. Of Rats And Men is very highly recommended reading for anyone with an interest in the history of organized crime in America or who wish to avail themselves of a unique insight into the life and philosophy of an accomplished trial lawyer who specialized in defending members of established crime families.

5 comments about Covering: The Hidden Assault on Our Civil Rights.

1. I recently heard Professor Yoshino speak here in Seattle on a day in celebration of Human Rights Day, and I can attest to his being a gifted speaker and possessing an extraordinary intellect.
   
   However, with respect to the notion of "covering," a term I believe that he has coined in this book to illuminate a polemical topic that he wishes to place squarely into the fore of the larger map/discourse of civil rights in the U.S., I am perplexed that his notion of the "mainstream" apparently does not take into account more dimensions, e.g., the cultural anthropological/sociological.
   
   From my own experience as a gay man AND as an Asian-American, I have found, largely to my dismay, that in either social group, there is, in fact, a "mainstream" that does, in fact, exert pressure to conform to its "majority" norms, behaviors...
   
   And I would suppose that in any "society," whether it be in a nation-state such as Japan, or a social group such as African-Americans, that there do exist "mainstream" cultures that individuals within those groups do have to "contend with."
   
   "Covering" as Yoshino has placed it has, by dint of his conceptual definition of it has overwhelmingly negative connotations, one which allows a "mainstream" body within a social group to exert pressures on individual members who do not conform, whether out of choice or due to individual disposition.
   
   But sometimes what could be considered "covering" (by some people) is also a means of what one could consider "healthy assimilation" or a reasonable concession to the majority--without being in any way a "sell-out."
   
   When and where such "concessions" become a sell-out, of course, is an open question. But even where "adaptation" in some behaviors to the "norm" of the mainstream does occur, it may simply entail "building bridges" and acknowledging the opinion of the majority rather than remaining in isolation from them.
   
   (If, for example, I am a nudist, I can still choose to walk outside of my house WITH clothing on, if only in simple deference to the fact that the law and the majority of my fellow citizens deem it an offense or offensive or both).
   
   This is not to deny the legitimacy of the claims of gay people to equal rights (to marriage, protection from discrimination in the job market, etc.) but to point out that "covering" might be understood in a more nuanced context. Covering, in all its different aspects, is not tantamount in all situations to being an "assault on civil rights."
   
   Covering may simply describe the "interface" where the majority and a smaller grouping, at least in a particular situation, and where the minority accedes to the norms of the former--despite the negative overtones that the author is ascribing to it. In other cases, the reverse (majority accedes to the behaviors of the minority despite a clear divergence of opinion) could and, in fact, DOES happen in America.
   
   In some instances, too, dysfunctional or inappropriate (vis-a-vis the majority) behavior by a minority is tolerated, condoned, or even lauded.
   
   Discussions of loaded discussions of "diversity" or "covering" need to be evaluated within a context rather than be seen in a predetermined, black-or-white intellectual "matrix."
   
   In other words, the major concern that I have with this book is that it too "obviously" has an agenda stamped on it.
   
   The personal details disclosed nicely balance the analytical (legal) side of the discussion.
   
   But in terms of overall appeal to both mind AND heart, a little less Paul Haggis (director/screenwriter of "Crash"). Taking a strong position on an issue, with corroborative evidence, is fine. Re-iterating that position--as a constant thread--throughout a long discussion may seem to some people evidence of "not dodging an issue." But considering all the different dimensions of that issue would provide, I believe, a more balanced, more cogent argument in favor of one's position.



2. The Publisher's Weekly review says it all, but I cannot let the opportunity pass to add my voice to those honoring this book. Yes, it's a simple concept, elaborated over 200 pages, but there is nothing monotonous about it. The academic monotony characteristic of similar monographs is thwarted through the simplest of means: the scholar-author is also a poet. He writes on the minutiae of civil rights law with the compression and unexpected image that make strong poetry memorable. I heard the author speak on the concept of Covering on the Maine Public Radio broadcast of the Chataqua Program. The discussion was interesting enough, but when he read the Epilogue, I immediately thought, "I have to have that in my Commonplace Book." As a politically active gay man and 15-year conductor of a gay men's chorus, I've often meditated on the meaning of cultural appropriation, assimilation, and accommodation and the resulting effect on actualization and abnegation of the individual. So, Kenji Yoshino's orderly discussion of coversion, passing, and covering is immediately attractive to me. But it is not my habit to read 'brainiac' books. I'm put off by the customary tone, talking down to me, especially when the subject of the discussion is, by inference, me and the people I know and love. This one is the exception. I feel like Yoshino and I have just spent a long evening, with a wide variety of friends, talking about something of immediate concern to all of us. And then there's that Epilogue. Talk is one thing, but how we live it out is usually quite another. And it's never simple. That's why it's best left to the hands of a poet, and this poet has done it well.



3. A mix of professional experience, glimpses of personal experience, poetic imagination and some interesting ideas for America's future. I am glad I've read it. The only regret is that the book doesn't lead to a powerful, clear vision for the country. The very interesting ideas from the introduction are just briefly repeated at the end. Maybe someone else will build upon this material? The book certainly encourages a discussion. Maybe that was the whole point?



4. No offense to Yoshino, but in truth, he doesn't make many actual points. This is a great book if you want to hear about his personal journey, but it's not very enlightening overall.



5. There have been several struggles in civil rights in the USA. Women suffrage, African American civil rights, and finally the Gay, Lesbian, Transgender, and Bisexual cause.
   
   Yoshino, a law professor at Yale and a gay, Asian-American man, masterfully melds autobiography and legal scholarship in this book, marking a move from more traditional pleas for civil equality to a case for individual autonomy in identity politics. Seldom has a work of such careful intellectual rigor and fairness been so deeply touching.
   
   In questioning the phenomenon of "covering," a term used for the coerced hiding of crucial aspects of one's self--in his case his homosexuality--Yoshino thrusts the reader into a battlefield of shifting gray areas. Yet, at every step, he anticipates the reader's questions and rebuttals, answering them not only with acute reasoning, but also with disarming humility.
   
   What emerges is an eloquent, poetic protest against the hidden prejudices embedded in American civil rights legislation--legislation that tacitly apologizes for "immutable" human difference from the white, male, straight norm, rather than defending one's "right to say what one is." Though Yoshino recognizes the law's potential to further (and hinder) liberty's cause, he admits that his "education in law has been an education in its limitations." Hence, by way of his unsparing accounts of self-realization, he reveals that the struggle against oppression lies not solely in fighting an imagined, monolithic state but as much in intimate discourse with the mother, the father, and the colleague who constitute that state. It deals with the ability to "blend" with the society who is yet to give the GLBT community the rights and respect it deserves.
   
   As healing as it is polemical, this book has tremendous potential as a touchstone in the struggle for universal human dignity.

5 comments about The Supreme Court: The Personalities and Rivalries That Defined America.

1. An excellent book. If I were still teaching Constitutional Law at the college level, I would use some or all of it in class to show that law is interpreted by "real people." I think anybody would find it interesting, but lawyers and law students should find it fascinating.



2. It's one of the fundamental principles of the U.S. Constitution that the three branches of government are more-or-less equal, with checks and balances assuring that no branch takes over. The reality, of course, is different: at times - particularly in the 1800s - the Congress was the more powerful branch, while at other times -especially recently - the Presidency has taken the reins. The judicial branch, however, has always been in third place; although it makes a difference at times, it rarely is more visible than its "coequals". Nonetheless, there are times that the judicial branch - and in particular, the Supreme Court - has assumed a critical role in history.
   
   Jeffrey Rosen's The Supreme Court is not so much a history of the institution as a study as to how certain personalities affected the Court. He focuses on four such rivalries that dictated not only the direction of the Court but also the direction of the country. The first rivalry (and the only one featuring a non-Court figure) is Thomas Jefferson and John Marshall. These two embodies the two principal political philosophies of the early United States: Republicanism and Federalism. Unlike previous Chief Justices, Marshall really defined the Court and made it an important part of the government, most notably with the Marbury v. Madison decision. Since Marshall differed with Jefferson on many issues, this set the two branches at odds with one another.
   
   The next rivalry is John Marshall Harlan and Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., a pairing that is probably the most obscure to the modern reader. Holmes, with his nickname "The Great Dissenter" earned a reputation based on his dissents in some free speech cases, but often had much less sympathetic rulings, such as his opposition to civil rights and his support of eugenics. Harlan, on the other hand, was more forward-thinking, and notably dissented on Plessy v. Ferguson, the Court decision that - after Dred Scott - is probably the darkest mark on the institution's history.
   
   The third section deals with Hugo Black and William Douglas. Unlike the previous pairings, these two were politically of a similar bent, but they still had different judicial philosophies, with Black being the sounder reasoner and Douglas being somewhat more free-wheeling. Douglas's presidential ambitions, which never really amounted to much, also affected his decision-making. Similarly, the fourth section deals with two Justices with similar politics yet different philosophies: William Rehnquist and Antonin Scalia. While Rehnquist would often try for consensus, Scalia is more absolute in his beliefs and doesn't really seem to care who he rankles.
   
   In each pairing, Rosen casts one person as hero (Marshall, Harlan, Black and Rehnquist) and one as villain (Jefferson, Holmes, Douglas and Scalia). Of course, things are not really that simple and Rosen recognizes flaws in the heroes and virtues in the villains; perhaps it is better not to use the heroes-and-villains analogy at all, but it is clear Rosen favors one in each rivalry. This has less to do with politics than with technique: Rosen favors Justices who can promote harmony within the Court and can create rulings with real potency to them. Rulings that go 5-4 are not nearly as strong as those decided unanimously, and are more likely to be eventually reversed.
   
   In the final section, Rosen offers an early analysis of new Chief Justice John Roberts, one that is generally positive. Roberts, Rosen believes, seems to have learned from the better Chief Justices (a group in which Rosen would include Marshall, Warren and Rehnquist) as to how to run the Supreme Court. Rosen's writing is insightful, clear and reasonably objective (in the sense that he doesn't seem to favor either the political right or left). This book is a good, alternative way at looking at the history and structure of the Supreme Court.



3. For a look into some of the most well known figures in the Supreme Court, this book does a fantastic job. From in-depth analysis of their personalities to little anecdotes on each Justice, the Author clearly knows his history.
   
   It's a tad short, and I think the specific cases could have been covered in greater detail. While it was informative, it didn't have that something special that had me anxious to keep reading. At times, I felt like I was reading a history book.
   
   If you're someone looking to get some background into the Supreme Court and some of the characters that shaped it, this is a good book to start with. You may not feel completely entertained, but you will feel smarter after reading this book.



4. Jeffrey Rosen's accessible and engaging companion book to the PBS series offers not only a fine introduction to the U.S. Supreme Court (and many of the most important cases it's decided in its history) but also a perspective from which to understand the Court as an institution. This perspective is tantamount to Rosen's thesis: that "judicial temperament" is a quality possessed by the Court's most distinguished justices, those who subordinate their ideological leanings to the deliberative and practical process of establishing legal consensus.
   
   Rosen illustrates his thesis with four case studies: Marshall and Jefferson (not a justice); Harlan and Holmes; Black and Douglas; Rehnquist and Scalia. In each case one justice is seen as embracing judicial temperament while the other (or Jefferson, in the first chapter) is cast as something of an ideological maverick, a flamboyant but ultimately less influential constitutional thinker. Like one reviewer here, I found the questions raised by such pairings to be productive rather than reductive: Rosen is making a legal-historical argument here, and so reading his history of the Supreme Court is necessarily an exercise in critical interpretation.
   
   The chapters on the twentieth-century Court are excellent, with Rosen showing how the liberal-leaning Hugo Black and the conservative-leaning William Rehnquist had more in common with each other (in terms of judicial temperament) than with their respective colleagues: William O. Douglas and Antonin Scalia. Here Rosen parses the legacies of Black and Rehnquist by showing how their restrained judicial character helped them produce well-crafted decisions that advanced the Court's legitimacy in the public eye.
   
   Douglas and Scalia, on the other hand, were/are so committed to the purity of their ideological beliefs that, whatever one thinks of their individual decisions (and I am decidedly aligned with Douglas over Scalia in this regard), one has to come to terms with the fact that their jurisprudence will not have a lasting influence on the law of the land. Douglas and Scalia are seen as larger-than-life personalities, self-aggrandizing justices who rarely spoke for the Court as such.
   
   Again, you might agree or disagree with the specifics of Rosen's argument and framing of his historical examples. But the survey presented here is a solid, general introduction to Supreme Court history. And with judicial temperament Rosen gives us a lens through which we might view that history, and understand better exactly how the Court works.



5. Recently there have been many good books available about the Supreme Court. For a quick, no-nonsense straight to the heart of the matter history of Supreme Court, this is the book. A history of the Supreme Court derived from its major decisions and its major dissenters. The author shows that often justices that may be on the dissenting side of Supreme Court decisions are sometimes justices that are ahead of their time. Their lonely decisions often become basics to the American way of life in a later era. The Author, Jeff Rosen also relays a life's lesson to Supreme Court Justices, that in the interplay between majority vs. dissenters decisions, no matter how dedicated, wise, or oracle-like a justice appears, history bears out that the justices that "play ball", fraternizes, cajoles, and displays a good nature seem to win out. In other words the Law is not just the Law, the decisions cannot be divorced from the political impetus that brought them to the court and the most successful Justices are the most political Justices. Nothing underscores this more than the chapter on Justice Holmes and Justice Harlan. Justice Holmes was an ivory tower type justice and his reputation is somewhat revered today. Justice Harlan is lesser known, but the track record shows that modern American life revolves around decisions he made and that Holmes has been surpassed in almost all his major decisions.
   A very rewarding book, that will make the reader feel that in one book you can gain an understanding of what make the supreme court tick, and some of the twists ands turns it has taken in its history

5 comments about The MAN TO SEE.

1. I have never been more absorbed by a book than by this one. Admittedly my interest was heightened by the fact that Williams was my criminal law teacher at law school, but I found this a fantastic book. Evan Thomas (did you know he is Norman Thomas' grandson?) paints Williams warts and all, and I found it a searing read. The account of Williams' deathly fight with cancer is most poignant. Anyone at all interested in law should read this book, and anyone interested in an amazing life will be enthralled by this account.



2. This is one of the best biographies I have ever read. It is a great story about a great man. I read a lot of biographies and I can tell when the author is fauning over his subject - just read some of Robert Slater's books on Jack Welch. Thomas book did none of that. Thomas made you feel that he was giving an accurate and true account of Williams life. Of couse Thomas was helped by selecting a subject that was larger than life, a one of a kind person both in legal talent and raw personality. This book is right up there with "Vince", Michael O'Brien's biography of Vince Lombardi. Interestingly, Lomardi and Williams were very much alike - both very religious yet profane, and above the rest of their competitors in their chosen fields. They were also both like to drink, were emotional and quick to say exactly what they thought or felt about something. I recommend this book to anyone who likes to read biographies about great men.



3. Take a fascinating subject-- Edward Bennett Williams. Add a highly-skilled author with remarkably deep interviewing and archival research skills-- Evan Thomas. Put in a lot of hard work. And presto-- you have Thomas' "The Man To See," one of the most thorough biographies ever written (I have read many hundreds).

   Edward Bennett Williams was one of the most dynamic men of the 20th Century-- a great figure of destiny whose life would have seemed emptier had not Evan Thomas been his biographer. EBW was a self-made man in the days where one could still achieve that accolade. He was no spoiled yuppie of family money. Bright, hard-working, forward-thinking, compassionate and disciplined-- and a wonderful rogue!-- this was Edward Bennett Williams. Warts and all, Evan Thomas presents the larger-than-life lawyer who pioneered criminal law practice in postwar America, bringing the constitution into the 20th Century. He sought power for the purpose of doing good, after doing well. Thomas interviewed practically every living person with whom EBW had a conversation or situation.

   I am re-reading "The Man to See" for the fourth time in ten years. It remains fresh and fun. What a brilliant book!




4. This is one of the best biographies ever written. A wonderful piece about an interesting man.



5. "THE MAN TO SEE" was a great book. Since I'm going to be attending law school this fall (of 2007), I thought it wouldn't hurt to read books by and about lawyers; man, am I glad I included Evan Thomas's "THE MAN TO SEE" because this is without a doubt one of the best biographies I have read in ages. Page by page, you feel caught up in a drama without end. The characters, adventures, and funny stories add so much luster to a larger-than-life figure. By the end of the book, I was sorry to see it all end; I felt like I actually new Mr. Williams! If you're interested in a good biography check out "THE MAN TO SEE." You won't be disappointed.

5 comments about The Birthday Party: A Memoir of Survival.

1. Fast-paced thriller! You can't put it down because you must know what happened next.
   Tremendously detailed account by the victim/author. Fabulously told.
   Pure New York City.
   There are lessons to be learned in this book, particularly if you live in a big city.
   Must read!



2. From the minute you pick up this book, you cannot put it down! The Birthday Party is about a most extraordinary tale of the kidnapping of a US Attorney the day before his birthday, and the events so bizarre, that it couldn't be anything but true. Stan is an instantly likeable character who is enjoying an ordinary evening in Manhattan, when in an instant his world is turned upside down as he faces the barrel of a gun and the reader is immersed at once in the story of his captivity at the hands of his kidnappers.
   
   It is a truly compelling account of what Stan's hours were like blindfolded and held at the mercy of men with guns. Stan's ability to remain calm and find the humor in some of his circumstances really made the book an enjoyable read. There were moments of genuine humor as well as details of the pain and fear that followed his ordeal. The poignancy with which he writes about what he learned and the life he leads is very inspiring. The details he remembers and explains to the reader assist in making you feel like you're living the roller coaster ride with him. And his recount of how the police found the guys who grabbed him and how they proceeded through the legal system was an interesting glimpse into the criminal justice system most of us know nothing about.
   
   There are many moments in the book where I felt like I was holding my breath waiting to see what would happen next. It was truly a great read. Stan's ability to relay the story really makes you feel like you're there with him and waiting for his safe return to his home, to his family, to his friends and to his very accomplished life. It's a great book and a very enjoyable read.



3. 
   others have used the words "annoyingly arrogant and apparently editor-less man" and i totally agree. how insecure must he be to continually bring up his wannabe dating habits? and if i was that lisa woman, i'd be pissed that he continually kept writing her full name, including middle initial. jerk. borrow this book from the library.



4. I was eager to read this book after hearing an interview with Stanley on the radio. After getting through the initial kidnapping and the first couple of hours he spent with the thugs, the book drags a bit. I commend Stanley for what he went through and how he survived this terrible ordeal and I mean no dissrespect at all to him, but the book was just a little dull for me. Granted, Stanley is a lawyer, but much of the legalistic writing in the later chapters tend to run together. Great, intriguing story, but I found myself bored by the end of the book. I will say...it's amazing the amount of detail Stanley recalls from this ordeal.



5. After hearing a great interview with the author on NPR, I ordered the book anticipating a great read. I'm sorry to say that I was sorely disappointed. The narrative drags, the protagonist's whining description of his predicament did not bring the natural empathy that the story surely deserves. His portrayal of his abductors never goes beyond the level of stick figure drawings and are filled with superficial stereotypes. I would recommend passing this one up.

5 comments about Salem Witch Judge: The Life and Repentance of Samuel Sewall.

1. Eve LaPlante's book on Samuel Sewell, one of the judges in the Salem Witch Trials (and her distant ancestor) is extraordinarily well researched, and her prose is easy to follow. Those not intimately familiar with the history of the time will appreciate her care in explaining details that many have now forgotten.
   
   Ms. LaPlante's style is worthy of comparison to Claire Tomalin's (the author of the great biography of Sewell's contemporary, Samuel Pepys). She well explains the beliefs and folkways of the times, i.e., Massachusetts in the last half of the 17th century. She reminds us of the extraordinary "dangers, toils and snares" (to quote a later hymn) that the New England colonies had gone through after the first, pleasant, and peaceful foundation of the colonies at Boston and Plymouth, exacerbated by the sudden war with France that followed the accession of William and Mary in 1688. All these people could do was to ascribe to witchcraft the disasters that in reality were the inevitable result of our ancestor's struggle to make their homes in a world that had finally become hostile to them.
   
   Remarkably, Sewell was semi-ostracized by his pastor, who came to feel the witch trials were unjust, and in response, he made a public confession of the sinfulness of his Court's proceedings -- the only judge to do so.
   
   The book should be read along with the great book about the era, "Manitou and Providence", with the sermons of Cotton Mather and his father, Increase (some of them, at least) and of course with Arthur Miller's play, "The Crucible", which takes some license with historical fact, in the service of a very good story.



2. This fascinating account of an early American leader's
   public and private life is the story of a good man who
   was guilty of a terrible mistake. Seeing he did wrong,
   Samuel Sewall had the courage to say so, and repent.
   Eve LaPlante paints a vivid portrait of life in early
   New England, especially the world of the educated
   elite. Religion and the Bible were the dominant
   intellectual features of a world ruled by fears and
   disagreements only too comprehensible to us now.
   Sewall and his peers worried about foreign relations
   and governmental debt, and lived in constant fear of
   attacks by Indians, pirates, and the French. "Salem
   Witch Judge" offers an intriguing journey into a world
   as far away as colonial America, yet at the same time
   as close as the human heart.



3. The note I wrote on the inside page of this book reads as follows:"Absolutely fascinating!" How come? Because Ms. LaPlante presents us with a character who lived as a giant in his own time. But more, she offers a clear picture of the potent religious world view and powerful lens of faith through which citizens of Puritan New England perceived the world and their place in it. The reader will find this approach not only interesting but, as the author describes Sewall's engagement with life and with his God, both existentially and theologcally terrifying. The witch trials arise from the nexus of life's uncertainty in 17th century Massachusetts and a fierce and unpredictable God through whom the likes of Samuel Sewall try to discern the "realities" of good and evil. He,his neighbors and colleagues can discern wrongly . . . as Sewall himself confessed some five years after the trials he oversaw as judge.
   But enough of this. Ms LaPlante mines Sewall's diaries and public writings for - yes - romance! In addition, she finds him a humane and civil defender of Native Americans amid local, social contempt.Sewall wrote the first Anti-slavery tract in North America, a touching and compassionate piece. He testified from a vivid Biblical perspective in behalf of gender equality when such thinking brought widespread disdain. His personal and public presence as described by the author represent a monumental figure in early American history. You will find the book clearly written and every effort made to explain to ignorant moderns 17th century language and cultural nuances. The title tags Sewall as "Witch Judge." OK. But really, so much more. Indeed, absolutely fascinating!



4. Author Eve LaPlante, who is a descendant of witchcraft judge Samuel Sewall, covers her subject well in this book. Life was difficult in Puritan New England with death being a common visitor to families with many children lucky to live beyond the age of five. Puritans came to America for land and religious freedom, but were not accepting to those whose beliefs differed from their own. People often questioned their salvation and figured that hard times such as diseases and death among family members was due to having angered God in some way. Prayer was the most accepted method of dealing with a sick individual. A vaccination for smallpox was viewed by many as unacceptable. Surprisingly enough, Cotton Mather was open to the idea. Women certainly took a back seat in Puritan New England with their job being the bearing of children. Puritans even questioned whether or not women would be in God's heavenly kingdom. Approximately half of the book deals with the witchcraft craze of 1692, a belief they brought over from Europe. The question of whether or not the girls believed they were afflicted will never be settled. If they did it to spice up their otherwise humdrum lives they could be charged with murder. Judge Samuel Sewall had the courage to own up to his mistake while the other judges did not. Author Nathaniel Hawthorne added a "w" to his last name to disassociate himself from his ancestor John Hathorne who was an unrepentant judge at the trials. It seems difficult to believe that judges could convict people based on spectral evidence whereby you could prove where you were at a certain time, but you couldn't prove where your "shape" was. The final section of the book relates the latter part of Judge Samuel Sewall's life and others who were influential during this time period. The author also provides us with directions to visit sites mentioned in the book. I have done previous reading on this subject during my college days, and this is one of the best sources I have come across.



5. The author, a direct descendant of Samuel Sewall, provides a much-needed full assessment of the life of her notorious ancestor. The most important fact in this book is provided in the frontispiece illustration--a portrait of Sewell's apology before his congregation for his role in the witch trials and executions, known by few, if any, readers outside Massachusetts' students of history. Sewell was the only judge to apologize for his role in this horrific episode in American history.
   More fascinating, though, are the other extraordinary acts of repentance enacted by the judge over his long life. And his writings are nothing less than astounding--including examinations of experiences of various groups and even a piece on women - making him an equalitarian of the first order centuries ahead of his time. At the least, official historical accounts of what happened at Salem need to include information about Sewall's apology and repentance.

5 comments about Double Billing: A Young Lawyer's Tale Of Greed, Sex, Lies, And The Pursuit Of A Swivel Chair.

1. Some of the other reviewers have described this book at "exhilirating," but I didn't find much excitement or action in the book, rather it is a very accurate portrait of life as a young associate at a law firm, which is seldom exciting or interesting. Though the job promises a lot of money, prestige and future opportunity, it also demands a lot of unpleasant grunt work and very long hours. Stracher does a great job detailing his emotions throughout the time at the firm (and his initial decision to join the firm) as well as the tasks he was asked to perform on a day to day basis and in doing so provides a very honest example for people thinking of doing big law. The writing itself is sometimes a little too flowery, but the story does move along very well and is very insightful, so I would recommend it to anyone considering a career at a big firm or people who just want to see what a big firm is really like (as opposed to the depictions you usually see on tv or in John Grisham novels).



2. Stracher's book is a fairly boring whine-fest. He comes across as a silly young man, who went from college to law school without stopping to take the time to determine if law school was right for him. Then, after law school, off he immediately went to take a job as an associate at an enormous law firm, and was ultimately surprised to find himself miserable. Stracher's insights into the world of law are mundane and simple. It takes him three years to figure out he took the wrong job. He (and the reader) would have been much better served if he had engaged in some introspection prior to applying to law school, and again prior to taking a job, instead of thoughtlessly following a path, and then whining that he doesn't like where he has found himself.



3. I disagree with the reviewers who state that this book is a "must read" for anyone considering law school, lawyers, etc. The book could not hold my attention. Stracher likes to complain. He complains about is frustration about the doors a Harvard law degree opens yet boasts on the same page about his elation of getting in, and the opportunities that await. He can't write or hold the reader's attention. Skip this book, and pick up something better.



4. Double Billing is a fairly good representation of the life of a junior litigation associate in a large New York law firm. For all practical purposes, the firm described in the book may as well have been CS&M or S&C. I agree with some other reviewers that the title and subtitle for the book are a bit misleading, but the book is worth reading nonetheless for anyone interested in "BigLaw" and the money and prestige that come to the select few. Stracher shows that he is a talented writer in this entertaining tale and did a good job of portraying large firm life, the never-ending hours, the demanding partners and senior associates and the gradual loss of one's life and friends outside of work. Yet, despite knowing all of this, there are numbers of law school students ready to kill for a coveted summer associate position with one of these firms and the job offer at the end of the summer that usually accompanies it. Although I'm currently working in a New York law firm, the constant thought I had while reading this book was that I am glad I stayed away from litigation. I recommend this book for anyone interested in large law firm practice or civil litigation.



5. This is a pretty decent book. It's not completely non-fiction but the author does state that its a compilation of his experiences. It's quite amusing and kept me interested, though the title is much more exciting than the actual story.