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.

This book is a travesty, a misuse of important historical sources. These letters, rediscovered by the Dodd family in 1990, should have been compiled into a book by a historian of the Nuremburg trials, combined with letters by Dodd to other correspondents, with notes filling in context and their relation to the historical record. In this way, they would have provided interesting views of Germany after the war and insight into how the Nuremburg prosecutions were put together. Instead, Chris Dodd has put the letters from Thomas Dodd to his wife into a campaign book, with family photos, purporting to show the human side of Dodd. The great romance which is supposed thereby to be revealed amounts to a lonely husband complaining that his wife--who is taking care of five children, one a toddler--is not writing long enough letters. These passages are repetitive and boring. By all means read the book for the historical information--but then go find a good history of the Nuremburg trials.

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.

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

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.

The appointment process for nominees to the United States Supreme Court is broken, asserts Christopher Eisgruber, and it needs to be fixed. Considering the power wielded by the nine justices, this is not an assertion with which many would argue. The nomination process has long been contentious but, particularly since the Bork hearings, it has become a colossal waste of time. Recent hearings have been an exercise in stonewalling that tell senators and the American people next to nothing. The issue becomes, then, how to fix it. This is where the going gets trickier.

But Mr. Eisgruber is careful in the development of his theme. He starts by pointing out that it is impossible to get politics out of the process and that people who assert the opposite are being disingenuous. The Constitution has too many abstract ideas and too much vague language for a person to be neutral in interpreting it. Even parsing out the implications of what seems to be very clear language requires judgement that is a reflection of a person's beliefs. He points out that "judicial restraint," "strict construction," and "originalism" are all terms reflecting ideological slant (that can work both ways) and that "deference to elected officials," while possible, is rarely achieved even by those who claim to follow it (which almost no one does anymore).

Mr. Eisgruber then gives us some background on how the Court works, as an insider who clerked there. He takes us through some history, and the impact of certain court decisions. He points our that even Supreme Court justices can't do anything they want, bound as they are by certain procedures and requirements. However, knowing their judicial philosophy offers the most insight into the type of justice a person will be.

Judicial philosophy is the key for Mr. Eisgruber. He points out that every president since Eisenhower has vetted their nominees carefully and new fully well the type of justice they were putting on the court. That, unlike what some people think, there have really been no "surprises." Senators have done less well in determining what the judicial philosophy would be and Mr. Eisgruber has a number of suggestions and lines of questioning that might help senators ferret out this information for the American people. If the hearings could do that, he thinks, then the process would do what it is supposed to do.

He is realistic, however. He seems to understand that even his suggestions won't work without a government committed to trying to do things better, something that doesn't necessary seem to be on the horizon. He also is a realist in that it is clear that certain arrangements will make certain things happen whether we like it or not. (i.e. A conservative president with a conservative majority in the Senate will get conservative justices through and vice-versa. Moderate justices are the result of presidents and Senates with different ideological slants.) But he is optimistic about what could be done if we were willing to demand things to be different.

Overall, I like what Mr. Eisgruber does with this book. He is a very clear and disciplined writer, if not a dynamic one--pretty much what you might expect from someone who has spent his career in the field of law. He is also very open about the fact that he tends towards the liberal side of the political spectrum. And yet, he then proceeds to give a very balanced assessment of the appointment process, peppering his explanations with his insights from working for both liberal and conservative judges over the course of his own career. He doesn't demonize conservative justices or canonize liberal ones and, though he points the direction for what he feels would be a fairer process, he understands that even a "fair" process wouldn't necessarily give him a Supreme Court of the bent he might desire personally. To handle such a charged subject with this level of fairness is something that deserves high praise.

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.

This book will not just have you smiling and giggling, you will laugh until you have to catch your breath and then start laughing all over again. Christopher Buckley has done a pitch-perfect job of capturing Washington's absurdities -- the one liners are priceless. But he's also managed to do it by giving many of his characters texture, nuance, and a touch of humanity not usually found in such high-quality comic relief. And as a view inside the workings of Washington, this hits home. Buckley knows as much if not more than Bob Woodward, but he's a much better writer and his truths are larger ones. It is a genuine classic, and surely one of his best works. Splurge on the hardback -- it will make the whole Fall feel a lot better.

While I really enjoyed Thank You for Smoking: A Novel and Little Green Men: A Novel, Supreme Courtship (which I read in galleys) just missed on all counts. The characters were flat cliches, the plot seemed almost an afterthought, and even the snarky footnotes were halfhearted. The only thing that was vaguely amusing was the Scalia stand-in, but there Buckley seemed to give us the man and not a parody. Go read The Bretheren or The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court instead -- reality is a much better than fiction in this case.

When a vacancy opens on the Supreme Court, President Donald Vanderdamp faces one of the greatest challenges for U.S. presidents: choosing a nominee to rule on the most important constitutional questions of the day (preferably in line with the current administration's beliefs) for perhaps decades to come. There's also the small task of trying to guide the nominee through the hell that is the Senate confirmation hearings. Vanderdamp dutifully selects the most inoffensive nominee he can find.

Unfortunately for Vanderdamp, his biggest adversary, Senator Dexter Mitchell, is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Mitchell, who wants the seat for himself, prevents the president's nominees from ever passing through the committee hearing to a full Senate vote. After his second candidate fails, Vanderdamp is furious.

For most presidents, especially one as unpopular as Vanderdamp, a stalemate would ensue. But Vanderdamp is not like most presidents -- he doesn't care about his reelection. In fact, he'd prefer not to be reelected. So he has nothing to lose when he decides to infuriate Mitchell by nominating Pepper Cartwright, the number one TV judge and sassy Texan, for the job.

I wanted to like this book, and after the first few pages it seemed promising. Unfortunately, Buckley's story quickly devolves from a smart satire to chick lit -- and not even good chick lit.

The author juggles the multiple storylines of Pepper, Vanderdamp, Mitchell, and various other characters so much that none of them are well-developed. There's romance on the Court (which is thrown together), a television show starring Mitchell (which makes little sense), a presidential election (which goes from the candidates announcing their bids to election night in about fifty pages), etc. It makes for a quick read, yet leaves you wondering whether you simply read the outline of a novel. The characters themselves are paper-thin; an outspoken Texan, a self-obsessed Senator, and a vengeful ex hardly seem original (although I do love Justice Crispus, a man with a wry, classical vocabulary).

The major plotlines also require a suspension of belief that Buckley doesn't justify. For example (just one of many), the only ones perturbed by Pepper's nomination are those in government. The people wholly embrace her (c'mon, no matter how popular she is, the public would still question the president's sanity).

Buckley does excel in mocking Washington-speak and a few of his jabs ring true (for example, a nominee being rejected because of a movie review he wrote in grade school), yet it's not enough to save his flimsy plot. If you're looking for a light-hearted, political novel (although not a satire), try Sammy's Hill by Kristen Gore.

In his latest novel, Christopher Buckley trains his trademark "outside insider's insight" on the Supreme Court to parody the political and personal undercurrents shaping how the Court works. The result is political satire at its best - a fun house mirror image of the inner workings of Washington that succeeds because it starts with a deep insight into the real world and then deftly distorts it to highlight the humor (and sometimes ridiculousness) of it all.

In simple overview, Supreme Courtship tells the tale of an unpopular President who overcomes a self-interested Senator's opposition to his Supreme Court nominees by nominating a wildly popular television judge to serve on the Court. Underlying that simple story is a series of finely-drawn caricatures and "ripped-from-the-headlines" sub-plots that offer a foil for Buckley's intelligent and irreverent commentary on a range of political and social themes.

Parodying the American public's infatuation with electing outsiders as President, Buckley presents President Vanderdamp as the ultimate outsider - a bowling fanatic who is actively trying not to be re-elected, which of course is just the boost his flagging popularity needs. Pitted against Vanderdamp is Dexter Mitchell, a Senator who so desperately wants to become President that he resigns his Senate seat to play one on TV, giving him just the name recognition and outsider status he needs to then run against President Vanderdamp. Pepper Cartwright, the former TV Judge whom President Vanderdamp appoints to the Supreme Court, combines Texas sass, New York sexy, and a frank and pragmatic Judge Judy jurisprudence to emerge as the Court's center of gravity and voice of reason. A host of other characters play their parts just as effectively - from the Scalia-like Justice Crispus to the "milk-the-formula's-success" TV producer Buddy Bixby (who is also Pepper's husband).

The result is a thoroughly enjoyable read. Like a welcoming host who likes your company, Buckley brings you inside a world he knows intimately so together you can share a few hours of knowing smiles, LOL's, and occasional scary-true grimaces at the stranger-than-fiction world of Washington.

There are some authors who--even when they're not at their best--are so much better than almost anyone or anything else. Christopher Buckley is just such an author.

I don't think that Supreme Courtship is his strongest work. The satire isn't quite as clever and cutting as some of what he's done in the past. I'd call it "Buckley light." That said, you'd have to be made of stone not to get a giggle from this book. It's just silly and fun.

In the novel, the US is governed by a wildly unpopular president. (I'm not even going to say anything here.) Not only is he unpopular with the people, he's even more unpopular with his own congress. (He vetoes all of their pork barrel projects.) As revenge, the senate subcommittee eviscerates every Supreme Court nominee he sends their way, no matter how honorable and qualified. It's painful to watch. At his wits end, in an attempt to nominate an untouchable, he nominates Pepper Cartwright, America's favorite television judge. Hilarity ensues!

Not only is Buckley lampooning all three branches of the federal government, he takes pot shots at reality television, the uninformed populace, and possibly the writers of The West Wing. Again, this is a very light and fluffy book. If you're looking for in-depth insight into the workings of the Supreme Court, you're barking up the wrong tree. If, however, you're looking for a pleasant and not too challenging way to pass a few hours, you could do a lot worse. Christopher Buckley makes me smile. And you'll never look at the Nimitz the same way again, LOL.

Some joker reserved this for me at the library, I know not why. Thinking I had done so because of a good review, I slogged through it. To say that the plot was contrived is to say that the sun is a little warm--an understatement's understatement. Usually in a novel, there's at least one character I care about, or like, but I'd be hard-pressed to name one here. Don't waste any time reading any of this.

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.