Christopher Judge Books

Dr. Christopher Wolfe is a gifted legal scholar, and this book is one of the best on the evolution of U.S. judicial review, tracing its history from Federalist No. 78 and the landmark case, Marbury v. Madison. Wolfe describes three major periods in the transformation of judicial review, beginning with the first, or "traditional" period, from the birth of the Constitution until the end of the 19th century, which embraced a notion of interpretation based on a "fair reading" of the Constitution and a moderate form of judicial review. The second, or "transitional" period, from the end of the 19th century until 1937, maintained the theory of the traditional era, but in actual practice, it spawned a more activist form of judicial review. The third, or "modern" period, from 1937 until the present, developed new activist theories of constitutional interpretation and judicial review. Many of Wolfe's theories do not necessarily prevail today in legal scholarship, especially with the rise of legal "realist" views, but this book is a good starting point to understanding constitutional law and separation of powers.

First off, Jess Walters is a wonderful writer. Very powerful writing.

After reading the book, I have the upmost respect for Darden and his fight for justice. Although he could not achieve justice for Nicole Brown, I admire him for his heart.

This is an easy book to read. Getting an insider look through the eyes of Darden is well worth your time. It inspires emotion and inspiration.

A very well written book about Christopher Darden's childhood, working as an adult in L.A. and "trying" to prosecute O.J. ! I did not want to read anything about O.J. - but glad I went ahead and read this book. I would highly recommend it. Loved every aspect of the book.

Truth is stranger than fiction! This would be a great fictitious story, only one small problem, it's real. lf you came from another planet or were under a rock for the past l4 years, you would think that Darden has an incredible imagination. But he lived it. 0f course this was his side of the story, l'm sure the dream team's version is much different. But hats off to Christopher Darden. And BABAB0OEY to y'all!

In this well written book, Darden gives readers a behind the scene look at what happened at the trial. He tells readers how racism was injected into the trial by the defense team, gives his account of the infamous glove demonstration, and reveals the stress he was under being the focus of the Dream Team's wrath. He does not hold back frank opinions about Judge Ito, the Dream Team, fellow prosecutors, Furhman etc. The book is a very interesting read that provides important context to the most famous trial of the 20th century.

A nice book about the O.J. Simpson case. I liked how Darden relays his own story of race with the murder case. Clearly, Darden has evolved over the years and became someone to look up to.

Darden tells it like it is with how the Dream Team uses the race card. Up against insurmountable evidence that their client did it, they attack the DA's case by showing there was a rascist cop and a incompetent technician. The jury itself is itching to come to the same conclusion due to the Rodney King beatings.

This is a nice tale on how the justice system is not always right. Two people were murdered and there was little justice.

The 1 star reviews make me wonder what people were expecting with this one, It is clear Mel & Goldie had a blast making this film, it really shows, In this Mel is Rick Jarman, a man who has been in the witness protection program for years for testifying against two crooked DEA agents (David Carradine & Bill Duke(Predator) years ago, Carradine is paroled & looking for payback & Rick's contact has retired leaving him to depend on another "Witness" agent who has sold him out to Carradine, Goldie's character is a former love interest of Rick who accidently spots him & gets caught up in his mayhem as he is shot at & chased by Carradine & Duke, what follows is good old fashion fun as Mel & Goldie reconnect under dire circumstances, there are many sight gags here, the motorcycle chase, plane sequence, the hotel rooftop scene, & lastly the zoo sequence that I don't think have been repeated since, overall a fun movie & very reminicent of director John Badham's follow-up movie " The Hard Way" a year later, although critics trashed it in 1990, it was a big hit, I remember the theatare being packed, wihch surprised me giving that this one had serious competition in 1990>>("Back to the Future III", "Pretty Woman", "Die Hard 2", "Gremlins 2", "Dick Tracy", "Another 48 Hours", "The Hunt for Red October", "Days of THunder" & "Ghost", & yet this one still made money, If you are a fan of Mel & Goldie" this is a must see!!

He has used many names and trades to star away from long arm of the law. And Maryamm just happed to eun into him.

Of cr@p. This really is one of the worst written movies in history. I just gave it five stars cause Joan Severance is delightful and gorgeous and I got a thing for her ... and all she has to do is ask me for it. I can see this movie developing in a producer's bungalow on the studio lot.

Exec 1: "What if we took Mel Gibson and Goldie Hawn and put them together in a action comedy?"
Exec 2: "I love it, Sammy, but our budget's just about used up for the year and those two will demand big bucks."
Exec 1: "No sweat, Josh, we'll save it on the script. Those two together are what people will want to see ... a script will just get in the way."
Exec 2: "Don't you ever get tired of being so brilliant."
Exec 1: "Sometimes."
Exec 2: "yeah, me too."
Exec 1: "Did you just insult me?"
Exec 2: "How could anyone insult someone as daft as you?"
Exec 1: "Huh? Daft means dumb."
EXec 2: "It does?"

Dir. John Badham. Stars: Mel Gibson, Goldie Hawn,
David Carradine, Bill Duke, Joan Severence and
Stephen Tobolowsky. The best 15 mintues of this
well made but highly unlikely film are 7.5 minutes
in the beginning when Duke picks up Carradine at
the prison he is being let out of in upstate New
York and the 7.5 minute final fight scene between
Carradine and Mel at the end. Duke and Tobolowsky
get killed way before the end and ditzy, spoiled
rich j.a.p. Hawn whines her way through this
movie to the point of distraction. Us guys who
like actioners could hardly wait for the Mel v.
Dave fight at the end, though because of Carra-
dine's age it isn't as good as Carradine v. Nor-
ris in the end of Lone Wolf McQuade! Still it's
sort of worth the wait. Good movie despite flaws.

Bird On A Wire DVD

Bird On A Wire is about a guy (Mel Gibson) who is in the Witness Relocation Program (WRP)going by the name Billy Ray Bowers, named for both the scoundrels that could have been his Daddy, per his Momma. One day his ex-fiancé ( Goldie Hawn) drives up to the gas station where he is working and tells him to fill `er up, unleaded.

Goldie Hawn at 45 still had great legs and takes every opportunity throughout the movie to show them off..

The movie is filled with action and for the ladies even has a shot of Mel Gibson's back-side.

Recommended for fans of Mel Gibson and Goldie Hawn ( of Laugh-In fame).

Gunner February, 2008

The 1 star reviews make me wonder what people were expecting with this one, It is clear Mel & Goldie had a blast making this film, it really shows, In this Mel is Rick Jarman, a man who has been in the witness protection program for years for testifying against two crooked DEA agents (David Carradine & Bill Duke(Predator) years ago, Carradine is paroled & looking for payback & Rick's contact has retired leaving him to depend on another "Witness" agent who has sold him out to Carradine, Goldie's character is a former love interest of Rick who accidently spots him & gets caught up in his mayhem as he is shot at & chased by Carradine & Duke, what follows is good old fashion fun as Mel & Goldie reconnect under dire circumstances, there are many sight gags here, the motorcycle chase, plane sequence, the hotel rooftop scene, & lastly the zoo sequence that I don't think have been repeated since, overall a fun movie & very reminicent of director John Badham's follow-up movie " The Hard Way" a year later, although critics trashed it in 1990, it was a big hit, I remember the theatare being packed, wihch surprised me giving that this one had serious competition in 1990>>("Back to the Future III", "Pretty Woman", "Die Hard 2", "Gremlins 2", "Dick Tracy", "Another 48 Hours", "The Hunt for Red October", "Days of THunder" & "Ghost", & yet this one still made money, If you are a fan of Mel & Goldie" this is a must see!!

He has used many names and trades to star away from long arm of the law. And Maryamm just happed to eun into him.

Of cr@p. This really is one of the worst written movies in history. I just gave it five stars cause Joan Severance is delightful and gorgeous and I got a thing for her ... and all she has to do is ask me for it. I can see this movie developing in a producer's bungalow on the studio lot.

Exec 1: "What if we took Mel Gibson and Goldie Hawn and put them together in a action comedy?"
Exec 2: "I love it, Sammy, but our budget's just about used up for the year and those two will demand big bucks."
Exec 1: "No sweat, Josh, we'll save it on the script. Those two together are what people will want to see ... a script will just get in the way."
Exec 2: "Don't you ever get tired of being so brilliant."
Exec 1: "Sometimes."
Exec 2: "yeah, me too."
Exec 1: "Did you just insult me?"
Exec 2: "How could anyone insult someone as daft as you?"
Exec 1: "Huh? Daft means dumb."
EXec 2: "It does?"

Dir. John Badham. Stars: Mel Gibson, Goldie Hawn,
David Carradine, Bill Duke, Joan Severence and
Stephen Tobolowsky. The best 15 mintues of this
well made but highly unlikely film are 7.5 minutes
in the beginning when Duke picks up Carradine at
the prison he is being let out of in upstate New
York and the 7.5 minute final fight scene between
Carradine and Mel at the end. Duke and Tobolowsky
get killed way before the end and ditzy, spoiled
rich j.a.p. Hawn whines her way through this
movie to the point of distraction. Us guys who
like actioners could hardly wait for the Mel v.
Dave fight at the end, though because of Carra-
dine's age it isn't as good as Carradine v. Nor-
ris in the end of Lone Wolf McQuade! Still it's
sort of worth the wait. Good movie despite flaws.

Bird On A Wire DVD

Bird On A Wire is about a guy (Mel Gibson) who is in the Witness Relocation Program (WRP)going by the name Billy Ray Bowers, named for both the scoundrels that could have been his Daddy, per his Momma. One day his ex-fiancé ( Goldie Hawn) drives up to the gas station where he is working and tells him to fill `er up, unleaded.

Goldie Hawn at 45 still had great legs and takes every opportunity throughout the movie to show them off..

The movie is filled with action and for the ladies even has a shot of Mel Gibson's back-side.

Recommended for fans of Mel Gibson and Goldie Hawn ( of Laugh-In fame).

Gunner February, 2008

Dodd's letters truly present the allies (except the USSR) effort to insure that future generations would see the fairness and lawfullness of their deliberations.It comes at a time in history that individuals are being held by one of the allies without trial 5 years after their capture. Nuremburg 1 1/2 year Gitmo 6 years The Taylors, Jacksons and Dodds would be ashamed.Aside from the Legal?Historical perspective the book is an excellent example of a husbands love and devotion. Christopher Dodds has good genes.

This is a great book that provides a unique perspective on the Nuremberg trials. Highly recommended.

After reading Ellie Wiesel's characterization of this book as "an important contribution to history", I wonder if he actually read the book or just skimmed some pre-publication proofs. Mr. Dodd's letters provide more detail about his living accommodations, dinner meetings, and travels than about the war crimes trials or the defendants. The defendants' cases are glossed over. You keep reading, waiting for details, waiting for insight. It's not there. The book is mildly interesting, but adds nothing to our knowledge of the war criminals or their trials.

This book was nothing like expected from the reviews I read before purchase. It started out a little interesting, but quickly became dull, boring, and endlessly repeating, repeating, repeating. I expected the excitement to build, it never did. His fathers letters should have remained a family secret,well hidden if possible, they have no business in print for rest of the world. I wouldn't buy this book again if it was on the $1.00 table at a rummage sale.

I didn't know that the father of the senior senator from Connecticut was one of the chief prosecutors at the Nurenburg trials. Dodd begins by giving us a background narrative of his family which I found very useful. The bulk of the book consists--as the title indicates--of letters written by Tom Dodd to his wife. The trials lasted much longer than Dodd had anticipated. The letters reveal a man with a keen eye for detail when describing the defendants and his description of Himmler is especially interesting. There is also a lot of speculation about his running for governor and we get to see some behind-the-scenes political maneuvering. On the negative side, his constant whining about how he misses his wife becomes tedious and it might have been useful for the author to have edited these letters a bit more judiciously. If you are looking for a true history of the trials, this is not the book for you. However, the book provides a true insider view of what really went on and is a valuable historical document as such.

It's been over 24 hours and my video is still only 32% downloaded. This is the absolute worst program I've evr used.

As a StarGate SG1 fan from day one, it was heartbreaking to see the series come to an end, but they couldn't have ended on a higher note. This episode is absolutely wonderful - touching, exciting, and sad. I loved it. The effects are absolutely stunning. Full scale movie quality stuff. Best ever. Sniff!!

What a morose way to end such a fun series. I always said that if they ever began taking this show seriously, it would come to a bad end, and I was right. It's like, we're ending the season with no sense of humor. In fact, we're gonna off the Asgard by letting them commit mass suicide and then we're going to spring a Greek tragedy on poor T'ealc. This show succeeded through its sense of humor (why else watch a show where everyone within three galaxies all speak 21st century English? Duh!). Now it fades into oblivion without any sense of fulfillment. What a shame. Maybe that's why this season is going for $29! I'd rather buy two copies of Season 1! How do I pick zero stars?

C'mon you got to be kidding me! I really felt the Asgard, of all the races on the show, should not have been the ones to get killed off the show. They were my favorite! I believe they had so much to offer.Im glad its over because I couldnt watch any future episodes without the Asgard there to help out.Thor is the man! Im gonna miss those guys. Kewl finale though.

While I thought the idea of the Asgard giving Earth all of its knowledge and technology unrealistic, including the idea that the Ori could track its "energy signature", I did enjoy seeing the characters grow old together. Only complaint is seeing the series end. Can't wait for the movies.

This book has two commendable characteristics, one procedural and one substantive. Procedurally, the author does a fine job of distilling his expert knowledge of constitutional law into language that is clear and easily accessible to the layman. Substantively, he persuasively explains how our Constitution, written as it is in abstract, general terms, requires that Supreme Court justices make politically controversial judgments. Thus, contrary to some commentators who say that only a nominee's technical qualifications should be relevant, Eisgruber shows that a nominee's judicial philosophy, which includes their ideology, should be a basis for a Senator voting yes or no on a nominee.

These points alone make the book worth reading.

That said, Professor Eisgruber makes a couple of problematic claims that ultimately make his recommendations for improving the appointment process unlikely to be helpful. And since that's the point of the book, it must weigh heavily in my rating:

1) His specific explanation of how the appointment process is "broken" doesn't seem to comport with reality. Eisgruber argues that Senators rely too heavily on the public hearings, in which meaningless concepts like "judicial restraint" are bandied about by carefully coached nominees, and do not spend enough time combing through the nominee's past history to glean the ideological and procedural values that determine what kind of Justice the nominee will be. But, this claim doesn't stand up to strict scrutiny.

Why not? Because most if not all Senators obviously already *do* this. Liberal senators often vote against conservative nominees, and vice-versa. These senators are keenly aware of a nominee's ideology, and factor it heavily in their voting. And even though moderate Senators aren't so ideologically oriented, tending to focus on the nominee's technical qualifications, and as long as those are in good order, only voting against if the nominee has an "extreme" ideology (e.g., the 2005 "no filibuster" agreement between moderate democratic and republican senators), they obviously do consider ideology as well.

In fact, on the surface, the criteria used by moderate Senators sound very close to Eisgruber's recommendation, which is that, except in unusual circumstances, Senators should vote for moderate nominees, not "rigid or extreme ideologues" of either the left or right.

So if, despite the largely vapid nature of the choreographed nomination hearings, liberal and conservative Senators are usually well aware of a nominee's ideology (and don't hesitate to vote based on that), and moderate Senators are too but allow it to influence their vote only when, as per Eisgruber's recommendation, the ideology is rigid or extreme, what is Eisgruber's ground for complaint?

2) Eisgruber correctly chastises recent Presidents, particularly Nixon, Reagan, and GW Bush, for disingenuously characterizing some of their obviously conservative judicial nominees as "moderates". But, Eisgruber does the same thing, only in a liberal direction. His definition of a judicial moderate (p. 120) is a judge who has two characteristics:

a) a "lively and thoughtful understanding of the limits of the judicial role" , which Eisgruber translates as a procedural belief that justices should have a healthy respect for both past court decisions (precedent) and the legitimate role in the law of other institutions, such as congress , legislatures, and the executive. In other words, a moderate Justice proceeds cautiously, and doesn't try to over-reach his/her authority and transgress on the policy-making powers of others.

b) "an open-mindedness towards novel claims of constitutional justice brought by unpopular or disadvantaged groups or persons", which Eisgruber says (p. 121) is a way to make the country "more inclusive and responsive" to the claims of groups that have suffered due to malice, misunderstanding, or neglect.

The problem? While the first aspect of Eisgruber's definition of judicial moderation is seemingly ideologically neutral (or moderate), the second aspect is clearly ideologically liberal. To be sure, open-mindedness is a moderate, and admirable quality. But to be truly "moderate", one can't be open-minded towards the justice claims of some societal groups but not others. Why doesn't Eisgruber's definition of "moderate" emphasize open-mindedness towards the novel justice claims of large corporations? Or the wealthy? Or white males?

Surely, a moderate would be open-minded towards the justice claims of everyone in our society. A special sensitivity to the justice claims of disadvantaged groups such as gays, racial minorities, and religious minorities is -whether you think it a good idea or not - clearly characteristic of liberal ideology, just as a focus on the justice claims of corporations and the rich is characteristic of conservative ideology.

Thus, Eisgruber inadvertently gives away his game: He wants to see more justices appointed who will vote liberal on social issues such as gay rights, affirmative action, and abortion. His Trojan horse is to convince us to re-define characteristically liberal ideology as "moderate".

Further evidence of Eisgruber's conflation of 'liberal' with 'moderate' lies in how he uses these terms to characterize sitting justices. For example, on page 87 he refers to Justice Stevens as a liberal, but on page 44 he calls him a moderate. Likewise, on page 64 Justices Breyer and Souter are called liberals, but on page 121 they are called moderates.

I wasn't fooled by this, I hope you won't be, either.

There recently has been a deluge of very solid books discussing the almost pathetic state of the process for confirming nominees to the Supreme Court. I have reviewed several of these books on Amazon, and each one makes a contribution to trying to deal with the present situation. This book, by a Princeton provost and Professor of Public Affairs, is somewhat unique. First, the author clerked for Justice Stevens and brings to bear an insider's perspective. One might argue that this is not an advantage, since the focus here is on Senatorial confirmation practices. But it is because what makes this book uniquely interesting is the author's analysis of the problem and his prescription for improvement.

Second, for Eisgruber, it is foolish to waste time arguing about whether Justices make policy, ought to be no more than impartial umpires, and should be forced to disclose their views of particular cases during confirmation hearings. In fact, Eisgruber believes far too much emphasis has been placed on the importance of hearings, which as recent examples demonstate, often simply don't do the job. The author suggests that making controversial decisions is simply built into the role of being a Justice, since the Constitution speaks in abstract terms, with implied principles, and legal history often cannot provide explicit answers to the intentions of the framers.

Rather than focusing on hearings, Eisgruber recommends the Senate investigate nominees much as Presidents do--get to the basics of their philosophy of judicial review (i.e., "what it is good for"), their views regarding when it is appropriate to defer to the elected branches, their conception of the "judicial role," and what their overall judicial philosophy consists of. This approach will yield, he suggests, true judicial moderates for the bench. For Eisgruber, the notorious Bork hearings were a success, since they represented the only recent example of an extended dialogue with the nominee about his judicial philosophy. Eisgruber recognizes that we will probably never ever have a repeat, and this is another reason he discounts hearings. He does offer, however, suggestions for improving hearings and some possible questions that would elicit pertinent information, rather than evasive discharges of octopus-like ink, from nominees.

This is a valuable book not only because it offers important constructive suggestions for improving the hearing process, but also because Eisgruber's discussion of how Justices make decisions and the factors that influence their decision making (which is really the bulk of the book) is laced with the insight of a former clerk for one of the acknowledged giants of the Court. There are excellent notes, but not a bibliography unfortunately. A significantly important contribution to the literature on this topic.

All I can say about this book is that I only read to page 15. It is writen by a local writer about the city where I live so I read about ten pages more than it deserved. You have to support local writers.

I found the writing tedious and the dialogue and characters cliched. There was no sign of a plot.

Just didn't like it. Never was interested and couldn't see where the story was headed for the longest time. Chapter 17 seemed to be a better starting point for the book. One through sixteen was just longwinded stage-setting. All those baseline details of plot could've been shoved into one chapter. Disappointed, disappointed, dissappointed. I thought publishing companies had someone read the story first to see if it was worth publishing. I would be extremely surprized if this was a profitable venture.