A Court Divided: The Rehnquist Court and the Future of Constitutional Law

A Court Divided. The Rehnquist Court and the Future of Constitutional Law. Mark Tushnet (Author, Georgetown University Law Center). Sign up for the monthly.
Table of contents

• SearchWorks Catalog
• Library Menu
• Additional Information
• A Court divided : the Rehnquist court and the future of constitutional law in SearchWorks catalog

I am an ignoramus in legal issues, particularly in the areas of constitutional or business and property related law, so a lot of the author's good work has been wasted on me. I am mostly interested in the social issues and I have found a lot of material in Mr. Tushnet's work that I have not seen before. Also, some material seems to be presented with more clarity here. The in-depth discussions of the First Amendment cases, affirmative action, gender equality, and gay and minority rights are presented exhaustively and convincingly, even for a legal dilettante such as this reviewer.

Most of the book is as compulsively readable as good fiction. The profiles of individual justices that include biographical sketches and studies of their judicial philosophy are particularly interesting.

Even the less exhaustive portraits of justices Stevens and Breyer are illuminating. Several themes caught my attention. I find it hard to agree with the author's convoluted interpretation of the Anita Hill's case during Thomas' confirmation hearing. The author seems to be backing away from what he had written in an earlier book on that subject, where he concluded that judge Thomas had lied.

The whole issue has suddenly gained a lot of currency these days with the recent wave of sexual harassment accusations. On the other hand, it is also interesting how merciless Mr. Tushnet is in debunking Justice Scalia's image as an intellectual giant on the Supreme Court.

The reader will find a lot more good stuff.

A highly recommended read. He seems mostly objective. But the author also admits that when it was going on, he thought Thomas must be a liar. There's biographies of all the justices, and I did learn plenty I didn't know.

Maybe more political than I really had the stomach for at Really 3. Maybe more political than I really had the stomach for at the time. It really does appear that Scalia is just an asshole. Funny bit about his dissent to the sodomy case, where he arites "What's next, gay marriage? He ends with a conclusion discussing the fact that there is a right-leaning justice theory, but not really a left-leaning one.

Feb 27, Mike Ricci rated it really liked it. This book is good for folks interested in the personalities of the Court right before Justice Roberts took over as Chief. It's definitely readable for folks not totally up on con law. But it has fair profiles of all the big names - O'Connor, Thomas, etc. As with most Supreme Court writers, the author is too infatuated with his subjects to really be considered as an objective voice, but close enough to the action to offer readers rare insights into the goings on behind the scenes.

Working through This book is good for folks interested in the personalities of the Court right before Justice Roberts took over as Chief.

• See a Problem?;
• Theres Always Work at the Post Office: African American Postal Workers and the Fight for Jobs, Justi.
• Raising a Father: Memoirs of a dad, challenged by his daughter to live for todays special moments.
• Diseases of the Pituitary: Diagnosis and Treatment: 4 (Contemporary Endocrinology)!
• The American Revolution (1912) Volume: 4?

Working through it now. Mark Tushnet truly capture fascinating insights into the workings of the Rhenquist Court. The briefs on cases, and the reasonings behind the legal arguments are informative and captivating. There's hardly a dull moment with power struggles between factions on the court and with such strong personalities as there were in the Rhenquist Era. This is definitely an excellent read for anyone interested in the judiciary or some of the more 'hot button' issues decided by the court in those days.

Jun 26, Len Knighton rated it liked it. This book seems more suited for law students or those considering a law career.

Additional Information

Much of it seemed well over my head. I have read other books on the Supreme Court that were more in tune with laymen like me. Jan 02, Natalie H added it. I know it seems like it'd be boring, but this book really gives a first hand looking into one of the lives of one of our nations most influential human beings!

My favorite line from the book is, "the most common road to the court is the path of randomness and serendipity. Feb 26, Delyanne Barros rated it really liked it.

Good summaries of important cases decided by supreme ct over the years and how it came to be under Rehnquist era. Brad rated it really liked it Jun 24, Jessica rated it liked it Apr 16, Karia Solano rated it it was amazing Feb 15, Ramona Whittington rated it liked it Jan 10, Bruce Love rated it really liked it Feb 20, Despite largely being a selective history of the Rehnquist Court, this is a book that has two implications for persons who study the use of persuasive rhetoric about American politics.

First, it is a book that examines how the justices have tried to persuade each other and the public of the value of their interpretations of the language of the Constitution. To do this, as in most studies of the justices, Tushnet explicates the meaning of the justices' opinions. After an initial chapter that offers a quick review of the recent history of the Court, the conservative legal movement, and the ideology and opinion writing style of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, he offers his thesis: Then Tushnet offers chapters to provide more evidence in support of the thesis.

He does this in two ways. Four chapters attempt to expose the differences among the justices through an examination of the opinions of Justices Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy. None of the chapters fully explores the jurisprudence of each justice. Instead, Tushnet attempts to reveal the core of a justice's political and legal vision and argumentative style by a selective analysis of their opinions, off-the-bench writings, and reports of personal behavior.

Therefore, he discusses Thomas's use of history and natural law and conception of race. This discussion is followed by commentaries on Ginsburg's treatment of gender with attention to the Virginia Military Institute admissions case, Scalia's status quo version of First Amendment rights and formalist jurisprudence, and Kennedy's approach to gay rights. Although the point is not belabored, the reader is made aware of the significant differences among the justices in their constitutional theory and opinion rhetoric.

Tushnet then shifts gears and offers commentary on the Rehnquist Court's decisions on religion, abortion, race and crime, federalism, takings, and awards for damages in personal liability cases.

These chapters argue that the divisions in the Court have forestalled the Court from advancing the political agenda of both the right and the left. Instead, he contends that the victories of the religious right have, in the Rehnquist Court, had limited political effects, the Court has held the line on the limited legality of abortion against assaults from the right, and the justices have looked at race in affirmative action cases through the lens of the white majority rather than the race-conscious vision of the left.

Additionally, he finds that the much ballyhooed decisions of the justices in federalism, the Takings Clause, and awards in personal injury cases have not upset the political status quo. He argues that, rather than swing power away from Washington, the federalism cases only allowed the Court to lash out at Congress.