A few remarks on some recent reading.
"Jan Crawford Greenburg, a graduate of the University of Chicago Law School, has just published an already-widely-noted book, "Supreme Conflict." So says a quick blog post from that institution providing some useful links. Apparently, partially from the chapter on Justice Thomas, various conservatives enjoyed the book. I lean more toward Edward Lazarus' take ... nothing much new, though some interesting stuff in the second half on Roberts/Miers/Alito (Alito gets a fairly brief mention) and the Thomas stuff leaves a bit to be desired (it is not exactly news that he is not just a Scalia clone and the argument Scalia actually followed him is a bit dubious).
The book is fairly useful, I guess, for a newcomer to the genre. But, other books covered the ground of over half of the book (pre-Roberts), including the superior recent bio on O'Connor. The second link also seems to think the comments on Souter were interesting ... I know I read a bio on him too (less interesting but servicable), but even without that, not sure just how interesting said comments were. Greenburg's somewhat quick takes on some of the issues (a few pages on Bush v. Gore etc.) really didn't do much for me. Nor did various just plain wrong comments, like the fact the media recount confirmed O'Connor's argument that Bush would have won any way. No it didn't. I don't like stupid errors that are easily disputed or checked (like the number of dissenting justices, to note another book, in Korematsu -- three, not two)
As noted, the Alito nomination was dealt with quickly, and we don't learn too much about the Roberts confirmation either. The Miers chapter was fairly useful, but overall, I did what the author feared in her acknowledgements -- skimmed over large sections. I did read the shorter The Great Justices 1941-1954: Black, Douglas, Frankfurter and Jackson in Chambers by William Domnarski, partially since it was in effect four essays on these people, but didn't really like it. The idea that their personalities ("in chambers" is somewhat misleading, since that still sounds judicial) affected their judging is sound enough. And, some interesting stuff was provided in that vein.
But, I was not convinced by the arguments, arguments that basically found all but Douglas rather wanting. Clearly, the author supports Douglas' judicial philosophy and way of judging, but surely the man has many flaws as well ... flaws that hurt his judging in some ways. The book, after all, briefly (rather so) notes his slipshod writing style at times hurt the furthurance of his judicial ideology (the "personal is the judicial" is a subplot in the book, but one not really fully drawn). Tellingly, he cites one case where Justice Brennan had to re-defend a certain point in a later case.
This suggests why the latter is associated with the ideology Douglas promoted, one which a person like Souter suggests can be defended in a more "legal process," case by case sort of way. And, it sort of suggests my problem with the book overall. In its 168 page length (plus notes) it raises certain interesting arguments and so forth, making it worth a read, but in my opinion does not quite adequately defend them. This is seen is a passing note on how the general belief now is that Nuremberg was a troublesome precedent. Some do believe that, including to some degree at least a reader of this blog, but many do not. Such a conclusionary statement therefore is dubious.
Finally, I'm reading a book not about the Supreme Court itself,* but raising various issues that it covers: When Sex Counts: Making Babies and Making Law by Sherry F. Colb. It basically is a collection of her Findlaw columns with added commentary and notes. [Some might therefore choose just to check out the archives over there, but the additional stuff, ready reading, plus the fact I used a giftcard to buy it, made it a good buy for me.] This makes it good reading for the general public and everyone else since it provides snapshots of various issues (at the moment, I'm basically reading one essay a day). It only has the limitations of the genre -- only so much depth in a few pages.
She is a good writer and provides an interesting feminist perspective, adding a bit of animal rights into the mix as well. The focus on the childbearing aspect of womanhood, which some might dislike, suggests her perspective -- while fairly consistently feminist -- has some interesting wrinkles. For instance, she suggests that fetal protection laws are in various ways sound, and ignoring the fact to have a single focus on the woman's rights is misguided. Her reasoning suggests support for fetal pain protection late in the pregnancy, if it doesn't hurt the mother.
I have other books in progress, reserves and all, but at the moment its law focused. Mixed bag, but all do have some benefits. Thus, and I got the first book out of the library, consider this a recommendation to check them out. Mixed one.
---
* She includes a chapter on John Roberts' "Feminists for Life" wife that is quite damning of that organization's dubious bona fides, even if one might be sympathetic to the basic idea behind (or one phrasing) it.