Copyright: 2007
Publisher: Doubleday
ISBN: 978-0-385-51640-2
This is a fascinating look at the Supreme Court that is unfortunately marred by the incredible bias of the author. I enjoy reading a diversity of opinions, however Toobin so blatantly injects his political beliefs into this story that it leaves one to wonder about the factual nature of his accounts. As I recently explained to my son, an 8th grader, sometimes what an author doesn't tell you is as important as what he does tell you. While all of the anecotes are fascinating and the book itself a very interesting read, I came away feeling like I had only been told half the story.
The Erudition of a President
There is an interesting anecdote early in the book regarding President Clinton and the choosing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg as a Supreme Court Justice. During this rocky process, President Clinton asked his staff to write briefs regarding the various choices, including Justice Ginsburg. To his credit, although very biased towards liberals, Toobin transparently exposes the sloppy process that our former President conducted when choosing a new justice, but of course the author credits him with choosing impecable candidates! Given some of the fits and starts of the selection process, President Clinton came to a point where he did not trust his staff's characterization of Ginsburg's views, so he asked that he be given her speeches and articles regarding Roe v. Wade so he could read them himself.
I have never been a big fan of President Clinton, although as with all Presidents, I respect him and the office he once held. In my opinion, radio talk show hosts who refer to him as "Slick Willie" and other demeaning names are not just demeaning the person, they are demeaning the office. I try always around my children to refer to Mr. Clinton as "President Clinton" or "former President Clinton".
With that as background, I find it interesting that many of the most avid supporters of President Clinton point to his eridition as one of the reasons they admire him. Many liberals deride President Bush as "not wanting to read" and point out that President Clinton read a lot. Further, as Ron Suskind pointed out in his book The Price of Loyalty President Clinton insisted on exhaustive briefs from his aides regarding current issues, whereas President Bush doesn't seem to bother with them.
Given the fact that President Clinton was such a reader, I found it interesting that he didn't trust his staffer's writings when it came to a matter of such importance. I admire people who are readers but it was surprising to me that he would have that much lack of trust of his aides.
Roe V. Wade - The Defining Case
The incendiary nature of the abortion debate tends to leave little to no middle ground, everyone has an opinion one way or the other on the issue. The defining case,Roe v. Wade, has a front row seat in Toobin's book about the Supreme Court. Toobin points out that President Bush's nominees were vetted by the religious right on the basis of their views on the case. By going to great pains to point out the conference calls and other communication that took place to make sure the nominees were on the "right side" of the issue, Toobin paints a picture of a vast right wing conspiracy to take over the court system.
The facts of political life however require that a President take the issue into account. In the story mentioned above, President Clinton was concerned primarily with Ginsburg's opinion with regard to Roe v. Wade and had she been of a different opinion, she would not be a Supreme Court Justice today. Whether this is an ugly mark on the system that we have evolved for our government or not is a matter for future historians to decide, the fact is, this is how we choose our judges today. Toobin should not have been so sanguine in his denouncing of the conservatives if he was going to ignore the same behavior on his side of the political spectrum.
Whose side are these people on?
Two of the most fascinating (and dubious) characterizations that Jeffrey Toobin gives are his portrayals of the nomination processes in which first Alberto Gonzalez and then Harriet Miers were passed over as Supreme Court nominees. In both cases, Toobin tries to paint the picture that it was the conservatives, not the liberals, that derailed these two nominees. There may be a bit of truth to his portrayal, these two were not the favorites among all conservatives, however Toobin completely ignores the liberal view point in these anecdotes.
Air America radio is of course a very liberal network of talk radio stations. When I listen to the radio I am a habitual channel switcher but I do like to listen to Air America (if any of my conservative friends stumble across this, I hope they can forgive me!) Anyone who is even a casual listener of that radio network though can tell you that liberals, progressives or whatever they want to be called today, cannot stand either Alberto Gonzales or Harriet Miers. The bitterness and anger towards Gonzales is only matched by the disdain and contempt for Miers. Again, for Toobin to lay the failed nomination attempts of these two people at the feet of the religious right is to completely ignore political reality.
Conclusion
I was not impressed by this book, however I was entertained by the book. Aside from the entertainment value, there is little to be gained in reading this book. You will not gain any significant insight into the workings of the Supreme Court since the book is so politically biased as to be unusable as a reliable source of factual information. If you can get over the pot-shots against Brit Hume (Washington D.C. managing editor of Fox News) and Justice Clarence Thomas, then you might find some entertainment value in this book. If you are a liberal and want a good reason to vote against a conservative in the upcoming election, you will find some value in this book. If you are interested in having a better understanding of our legal system and how the Supreme Court works, I would suggest finding another book.