1 comments about David Hackett Souter: Traditional Republican On The Rehnquist Court.

1. Writing judicial biography can be a challenging undertaking. How much of the judge's family history should be included?; what elements of the judge's pre-court career merit careful examination?; how extensive should the discussion be of how and why the judge was selected for the position?; and finally, how many of the judge's decisions should be reviewed to round out the picture? It is a pleasure to report that Professor Yarbrough has mastered the craft well, having written prior biographies of both Justices Harlan, Judge Frank Johnson, and District Court Judge Waring.
   
   This an enormously valuable resource for understanding Justice Souter. It gives just enough attention to his family background and his pre-Court career. Many judicial biographies rush over the process whereby the subject is selected; not so here. This chapter is particularly of pertinent interest given the current Roberts' hearings. It is surprising to see Souter, labeled by many as the "stealth nominee," being far more candid with the Judiciary Committee than Judge Roberts in his testimony.
   
   It is a particularly difficult task to discuss the judicial philosophy of a subject who is still on the court. In fact, Justice Souter will finish out 15 years in October, 2005. Once again, Yarbrough is up to the task. Much attention is devoted, and rightly so, to Souter's "common law" adherence to precedent. Over the 15 years so far, the Justice has developed a position of moderate liberalism (with the exception of criminal justice) on such issues as establishment, maintaining Congressional authority, limiting "state sovereignty," restricting the reach of the "taking clause, Bush v. Gore, and protecting the right to privacy.
   
   The book is especially valuable in discussing Souter's interactions with other members of the Court, particularly as regards the critical Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision. Yarbrough here relies heavily on Justice Blackmun's now public court files to trace the maneuverings that occurred in this case. As I explained in my Amazon review of Linda Greenhouse's Blackmun biography, I am still a bit uncomfortable with the private memos of sitting justices being studied, even though they add enormously to the value of Yarbrough's discussion. His chapter on Bush v. Gore is also very strong in terms on explaining exactly what motivated various of the Justices in that case.
   
   I would have liked Yarbrough to have included a bibliography, to compliment his extensive notes. He also apparently has made little use of the professional literature (such as law review articles) on Souter, although I was surprised to discover that there is not that much attention that has been devoted to the Justice. All the more reason to be appreciative of this fine judicial biography that admirably fills the gap.

3 comments about Of Men and Mountains.

1. Author: Douglas, William O. (William Orville), 1898-
   Title: Of men and mountains.
   Edition: [1st ed.]
   Publisher: New York, Harpers [1950]
   Edition Date: 1950
   Language: English
   Notes: Autobiographical.
   Physical Details: xiv, 333 p. maps (on lining papers) port. 22 cm.
   Subjects: Cascade Range.
   Wallowa Mountains (Or.)



2. An account of explorations within the tangled, rugged fastness of the Pacific Norhtwest, Of Men And Mountains is informal autobiography, deeply personal and revealing. A book of adventure and discovery, it is full of the excitement, the strength, and the exaltation that men have found in the wild.
   
   The narrative at times rises to those solitary moments when man "under conditions of grandeur that are startling can come to know both himself and God." At homelier levels it moves with authority and expertness through the accumulated lore by which man has found how to survive in the wilderness and to accommodate himself to it joyfully. But always the narrative is characterized by a freshness of observation, by a shrewd wit, and by a reverential humility that mark Justice Douglas as unmistakably of the company of Thoreau. -- from book's back cover



3. Living in Brazil, I can't remember exactly how I happened to find this book. The important aspect is that I found it, I read it and even some years later I still carry some passages in my mind, so I have to regard this book as a good one.

   It is a kind of autobiographical narrative of the youth of Mr. William O. Douglas, who later in life became a Supreme Court Judge in America.

   An interesting aspect, is that later I learned that as a Judge, Mr. Douglas would very often give shelter to the 5th. Amendment in his sentences, and by reading the book, we can sort of understand how his personality and his passion for freedom was formed many years before.

   It is a first person narrative of his early years as a child and later as young man, and we can clearly understand his respect for wildlife and independence in a human's being life.

   Recalling his early expeditions as a boy in nearby mountains, Mr. Douglas describes us the forests, rivers and rainbow-trouts of his youth. At a certain time I started to think there was too much information about trout-fishing, but we should always forgive and understand a man when he decides to tell us about his childhood. :)

   This book is not about the Supreme Court Judge, but on the contrary, it is about the poor boy who grew under the mountains and borrowed some of their magnificent dignity from them.

   I hope to read some of Mr. Douglas' Law writings one day, so I can finally understand the whole man and close this chapter. But this will still take some years, and until then, all I can say is that I have nice memories from this book. By the way, a pretty hard to find book.

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

1. 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.



2. 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.



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. 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.



5. 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!

1 comments about Making Civil Rights Law: Thurgood Marshall and the Supreme Court, 1956-1961.

1. This book is a decisive history of Thurgood Marshall's actions and the effects that he had on the civil rights of African-Americans while he worked with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). His successes, failures, and discussions of his effects make it a very informative book. It is quite obvious that the author spent a great amount of time researching his topic of choice. The book is absolutely full of quotes from people of the time and very detailed factual accounts of events. Unfortunately, the content is not written in an extremely appealing matter. It tends to drone on and on about various cases and actions which have no major significance in history nor in the life of Marshall. If you can read through the dry spots, though, its a great book. You can really get a felling for the social climate of the era as well as the thoughts and feelings of Marshall himself. As a research tool, this was definitely the most valuable book I came across. If I was rating this book based on its information it would be an easy five. Ultimately, it is a good book for pleasure reading but not the best. I would have to say that Juan Williams' Thurgood Marshall: American Revolutionary is the best. If you are interested in Marshall's career, though, you want to look at Tushnet's other book Making Constitutional Law : Thurgood Marshall and the Supreme Court, 1961-1991.

No comments about The Memoirs of Chief Justice Earl Warren.

5 comments about The Forgotten Memoir of John Knox: A Year in the Life of a Supreme Court Clerk in FDR's Washington.

1. The Booknotes discussion some years ago was unforgettable. Later, after reading the book, I found the author's focus on details of segregated Washington in the 1930's... (Black v. White) (Employer v. Employee) (Rich v. Broke)... to be a powerful lens, useful for looking at today's urban messiness. DC back then was a disturbing mix of bizarre skin-color rules, hatreds, affections and above all: -intimacies.
   The boss (US Supreme Court Justice McReynolds) employs 'servants' & he takes the job description VERY seriously. A well-off guy from Jim Crow Kentucky is shown to have gruesome personal limitations. After all, HE DECIDES to what extent this is a Republic "conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal..."
   What is the measure of a man who poisons nearly ALL interactions with his peers at work and with those of his own household? What indeed. This a great book, from the tragic, desolate pen of Mr. Knox.



2. This book is a gem for anyone interested in the Supreme Court or in this era in particular. It is unlike anything else I have read about the Justices who were part of the Constitutional Revolution of 1937. John Knox's memoir provides a glimpse of people rather than historical figures, and that glimpse explains a lot. His style is conversational and easy to read. And the book is hard to put down.



3. This book is a delight to read, and throws light on the Supreme Court in the momentous court year of 1936-37 when the Court was saved by Justice Roberts breaking away from the conservative wing of the Court and upholding New Deal laws which, if they had been held unconstitutional, might well have resulted in changes to the Supreme Court such as FDR had requested. The account by John Knox of how he came to be Justice McReynolds' law clerk and the odd life had to lead as such clerk is of much interest. I have seldom read a memoir of greater interest than is this one. Knox himself is a most unusual person, having a effrontery which amazes one looking at it from the viewpoint of history. The book is magnificently edited, with citations which enable one in this computer age to look up the cases mentioned and live the time with Knox. Knox's subsequent career is also of interest, and poignant. This book is a winner, and anyone interested in Supreme Court history will find reading this book extremely rewarding



4. From the dying days of Russia's Tsarist courts in which the young Kafka sharpened his perception of the absurd, here, similarly is the prophetic voice of a clerk in the blossoming federal judiciary.

   Watch carefully over the next decade or so for a similar glimpse behind the curtain of our Oz-esque federal judiciary. The federal bench is a well hidden bastion of intellectual dishonesty and privelege. Coming works of this nature will owe Knox a certain debt. You will read them with a sharper eye for having shared a year with Knox.

   After a clerkship ghostwriting for a fat/lazy/corrupt federal district court judge as a "law clerk", this account helped me understand my own mis-steps once I escaped to the saner world of rural criminal defense work.

   Our federal courts especially remain a bastion of royalist arrogance. Knox's glimpse should be treasured by anyone encountering the federal courts whether as barrister, litigant or citizen. He speaks a timeless truth against which we are not well armed.




5. If you're the ultimate policy wonk on 2nd Amendment law, you'll want to read this book just for John Knox's insights into the character of Justice McReynolds who wrote the decision in U.S. v. Miller, 1939. Unfortunately, Knox was no longer clerking for McReynolds in 1939, so we miss the inside story on that landmark decision, but after you've read this book you'll better understand why Miller makes so little sense.

5 comments about Making My Mark: The Story of a Man Who WouldnÆt Stay in His Place.

1. Marvin's book is very inspirational. He shows us that with hard work and determination you can conquer any obstacle. He grew up in a poor family a child of a truck driver and a domestic worker, but he managed to graduate from high school, college, graduate school and became a lawyer, city council president and a judge. He was faced with racial discrimination in his early years growing up in Atlanta. He discusses his involvement with the civil rights movement and how that shaped who he is today. He was one of the first black men to attend Emory Law School in the 1960's. My favorite quote in his book is "I believe that all children given appropriate guidance and instruction from their families, teachers and communities can achieve success." I believe he is a great example of that belief. I think this book is a great read for a young adult and anybody else who wants to be inspired by Marvin's success.



2. Marvin Arrington has crafted a lucid and accessible narrative that details his experiences growing up in Jim Crow Atlanta. In addition to describing his rise to the presidency of the Atlanta City Council, he offers many anecdotes from his childhood that give an idea of just how painful racism can be through the eyes of a young boy. Throughout, he encourages his readers to learn from his example of hard work, which is fortified by his experience growing up in public housing projects, attending segregated schools, and working a wide variety of jobs. Then, having integrated Emory Law School's full-time division along with his friend (current U.S. District Court Judge) Clarence Cooper in 1965, he carries forth the lessons of his youth to the legal profession. He would later partner with famed civil rights attorney Donald Hollowell to form Arrington & Hollowell, one of the top 10 black law firms in the nation. He is currently a Superior Court Judge in Fulton County, Georgia, having been elected in 2003.
   
   Arrington's book is both the story of one man's personal odyssey through hardship and success, as well as a short history of the city of Atlanta.
   Thanks to his involvement in politics, his book sheds light on other major figues in Atlanta life with whom he had frequent contact, such as Q.V. Williamson, Maynard Jackson, and Andrew Young. Thanks to his wealth of experience, Arrington also gives an impressive insight into the duplicitous nature of city politics, culminating in his loss to Bill Campbell in the 1997 Atlanta mayoral election. In October 2008, Campbell will be completing a stint in federal prison for tax evasion.
   
   The lessons that one can glean from his autobiography are just as relevant today as they were more than four decades ago. Arrington's recent collaboration with Bill Cosby in addressing the myriad problems plaguing urban communities has only helped to buttress his timely message. I agree with other reviewers that this book should be required reading for middle school and high school students thanks to its power and relevance.



3. I first met Marvin Arrington when I was a college senior and editing the Emory Wheel and he a second year law student, though I doubt he remembers that. We had many encounters after that and I had the opportunity to follow quite closely his legal and political career for many years. Yet as close as I felt I knew him, it was not until reading his memoir that I better understand the inner soul of this gentle and committed man. I thanked him for writing it, because as a son of the south and as a white man who had many friends who were Black Georgians, it wasn't until I heard or read the stories Maynard Jackson, Vernon Jordan,
   Andrew Young, and Marvin Arrington told in their personal memoirs that I felt I had understood my own time with them. Whether a reader knows him personally or not, I enthusiastically encourage people to read this well-told narrative of growing up in the Jim Crow and post-Jim Crow south. That Marvin has brought his unique and heartening experiences to the courtroom and has had children follow him into the law is an evolution that could have been expected, but nonetheless still very gratifying.



4. This book should be assigned reading for every fifteen year old. The story of Marvin Arrington is proof that poverty and apparent lack of oppuritunity can be overcome.
   
   Martin L. Fierman
   Madison, Ga



5. Judge Marvin S. Arrington has been fixture in Atlanta, GA legal and political circles for more than thirty years. I expected his autobiography to be another in a long line of inspiring tales about tough warriors in the AFrican American quest for dignity, respect and inclusion. The title should have been my clue that it is much more. It is a saga of how his extraordinary life mirrors that of his beloved and iconoclastic city. Just as Atlanta rose from its ashes to become an international hub that defies its southern roots, Arrington forged his path from obscurity to a place of honor on the right side of Atlanta history. From the early chapters, where he offers a riveting picture of his early life in the neighborhood fictionalized in Tom Wolfe's Atlanta-based novel, to the later ones, he builds on the theme of refusing to stay in the place unjustly assigned to him by his city, his circumstances and his culture. A virtual who's who in law and politics endorsed this book including Pres. Jimmy Carter, Sen. Sam Nunn, Mayor Shirley Franklin, Ambassador Andrew Young, and Gov. Douglas Wilder. Tom Wolfe also lent his name. This book has been added to my collection of African American biographies. It is written in a narrative style that makes it accessible to a wide range of audiences, informative to multiple disciplines and enjoyable for re-reading over time.

5 comments about The Tyrannicide Brief.

1. This is an excellent read. I did not know a whole lot about the trial and execution of Charles I before reading this book, but I always subscribed to the view that the dastardly Oliver Cromwell had unfairly done away with him. This book challenges that common assumption.
   
   However the real focus of Geoffrey Robertson's book is on John Cooke, the lawyer who accepted the brief to try the king. Robertson's account of John Cooke's life is a true inspiration to lawyers to abide by their principles rather than choosing the politically safer option. Unfortunately it is apparent from the book the John Cooke was quite exceptional amongst the lawyers of the time in taking a principled approach.
   
   Also as a Christian, I found the account of John Cooke's faith in Jesus Christ to be inspirational. It is this faith which gave John Cooke the strength to "die well" despite being drawn and quartered.
   
   A great read!



2. This is without doubt the most cynical re-writing of history I am yet to read (and believe me that is saying something). To present the illegal trial of King Charles I as a good deed beggars belief!
   This book falls down because it glosses over the fact that Colonel Pride purged the House of Commons of some 150 members leaving a small rump of 80 members who were totally dependent on the Army, therefore giving Cromwell his way to put the King on trial. Not to mention that the House of Lords were not part of the process.
   
   Having read the book and listened to Mr Geoffrey Robertson QC put forward his points in interviews, it is clear to me that he has his own agenda for writing such a book as this.



3. I confess: I like the way Geoffrey Robertson thinks and the way he writes even if I don't always agree with his conclusions. This book is a great read. If you can suspend your knowledge of the history (and any associated bias) and look at the events through the perspective of the law, then this is a wonderful fresh look at the legal issues uncovered/exposed by these events.
   This book is not just about the events of 17th century England. The issues discussed reverberate today in the trials of modern war criminals and leaders.
   
   Highly recommended to all who have an interest in history, the law and contemporary international events.



4. Along with Dickens' Bleak House, this book is a must read for all common law lawyers and those who aspire to join the profession (to be read after Bleak House!!). It is a riveting story unto itself, describing the first piercing (and the last for another 300 years) of the shield of sovereign immunity by a low-born, commoner barrister whose courage, character and conviction allowed him to face down and bring to book one of the most brutal dictators of his day, King Charles Stuart I of England. The parallels between the trial of Charles 360 years ago and those of Milosevic and Saddam today are unnerving to say the least.
   
   If only we had Robertson's protagonist, John Cooke, with us today to take on similar prosecutions--Charles' trial , sentencing and execution took all of 2 weeks--a shameful rebuke to those incompetent bureaucrats running our present day War Crimes' Tribunals (which incompetents recently allowed Milosevic to slip the "noose" of justice, such as it is today, by dying in his bed after more than 4 years of aimless prosecution). To make matters worse, Charles was probably even afforded purer due process.
   
   Robertson's exhortation in his epilogue to human rights lawyers and campaigners to work towards the passage of an anti-tyranny covention under the auspices of the UN to allow for the lawful removal (as opposed to the current reliance on the principle of might makes right) of sovereign dictators and despots who are culpable of tyranny and other crimes against humanity towards their own citizens is spot on. The problem is that the UN today in many ways acts with the impunity of a tyrant towards its own staff and other third parties, and can never be trusted to be the court of last resort to prosecute the likes of Saddam, Mugabe and their ilk.



5. This is a book that should be read by all American lawyers and law students. It puts the lie to the various myths about the development of Anglo-American law and its near godlike propagandists like Coke and Hale. With a little thought we see exactly what the framers of the American constitution hoped to avoid when they put limits on the power of the government. Thank God, so to speak, that we no longer draw and quarter (as revoltingly described in great, yet necessary, detail) as punishment. The United States and the Commonwealth are fortunate to have inheirited their legal systems well after this dark period.
   
   That said, Geoffrey Robertson writes with great insight and wit. He is a pleasure to read with his insights into today's problems with tyrants and his acerbic observations. Robertson, surpisingly, even knows about "speed dating" and suggests that Puritans indulged. Imagine that.
   
   Robertson is one of those nice lawyers who enjoys afflicting the comfortable (the majority of lawyers) and comforting the afflicted.

No comments about Baltic Winds: Testimony of a Soviet Attorney.

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.