PDF Ebook A History of the Supreme Court

PDF Ebook A History of the Supreme Court

The advantages that you can get from checking out type of A History Of The Supreme Court will certainly remain in some methods. Locate this book as your selected reading material that you really wish to do. After seeking some stores and also have not located it, now this is your best time to obtain it. You have actually located it. This soft data publication will urge you reading practice to expand much faster. It's due to the fact that the soft documents can be checked out quickly in any time that you want to check out as well as have willing.

A History of the Supreme Court

PDF Ebook A History of the Supreme Court

A History Of The Supreme Court. Provide us 5 minutes and also we will show you the most effective book to review today. This is it, the A History Of The Supreme Court that will be your ideal option for much better reading book. Your five times will not spend lost by reading this web site. You could take guide as a resource making much better idea. Referring the books A History Of The Supreme Court that can be positioned with your requirements is at some time challenging. However right here, this is so simple. You can find the very best point of book A History Of The Supreme Court that you could review.

To make you bit fall in love to check out, we will certainly offer the soft file of A History Of The Supreme Court to check out. Previously, you need to get it by making take care of the link of guide. This book is sort of preferred book read by many individuals, from worldwide. When you want to do such journeys, however you still do not have sufficient cash, read a publication and you can feel like being in your genuine experience.

One that makes this publication is highly read by amounts people is that it provides a various method to utter the significance of this publication for the reader. Easy to check out as well as understandable turn into one part personalities that people will consider in picking a book. So, it is very appropriate to take into consideration A History Of The Supreme Court as your analysis product.

Yes you're right; this book that is provided in this website is in the soft documents. Yet, it doesn't suggest that it will minimize the material of guide. It exactly adds the benefits. You can copy the soft declare your very own tool and read it every time you desire. A History Of The Supreme Court is always being among the advised publications to check out, by many individuals in the world.

Amazon.com Review

Bernard Schwartz's history treats the Court as "both a mirror and a motor--reflecting the development of the society which it serves and helping to move that society in the direction of the dominant jurisprudence of the day." Beginning with the 17th-century writings of Sir Edward Coke, which shaped much of the legal thinking of America's Founding Fathers, Schwartz considers each of the major eras of the Supreme Court's tenure, from its first term in 1790 (held in New York City) to the Rehnquist years. There are also four chapters that deal specifically with watershed cases: Dred Scott v. Sandford, Lochner v. New York, Brown v. Board of Education, and Roe v. Wade. Schwartz marshals a substantial amount of historical information to carry the story forward without getting stuck on minutiae.

Read more

Review

"Schwartz's book is not just for legal scholars; here he differentiates between the various Courts by chief justices, fleshing out the personalities, the scholastic backgrounds, and the philosophies of the jurists and giving law students and history buffs alike the lowdown on those who haveshaped U.S. laws into the present....All the important cases, from Brown v. Board of Education to Roe vs. Wade, are explained in simple English. With its plain talk about complicated legal issues and its handy appendix, this book is a gem."--Booklist"Excellent text!"--Charles C. Perkins, Fisher College"This is a first-class history of the Supreme Court by an author who writes well, and it should provide a solid background for students who wish to study the Court rather than just read excerpts from opinions."--Dr. Robert W. Langran, Villanova University"An excellent account of our still least-visible yet no longer least-dangerous branch of the national government. In what is the best one-volume history of the U.S. Supreme Court, Schwartz guides the reader on an impressive, informative journey through the court's work over its two centuriesof existence....Schwartz's latest scholarly contribution to the literature of the Supreme Court is required reading, and not just for lawyers or law professors. Highly recommended."--Library Journal (starred review)"A well-written account [that] takes us from the beginnings of the American judical system down to the present."--The New York Times Book Review"A thorough, balanced, and readable chronological overview of the highest court in the land. He mixes biographical sketches of justices like John Marshall with insightful analyses of major decisions, offering also a close look at four watershed cases, e.g., those regarding desegregation andabortion. Schwartz's account of the modern court, especially that headed by Warren, is lively and savvy, with a moderate-liberal slant."--Publishers Weekly"This compact yet comprehensive volume fills a special niche in writings about the Supreme Court and Constitutional law. Its detailed, yet manageable, information and analysis illuminate the critical role that the Court has played throughout U.S. history as the final arbiter of constitutionalmeaning and, hence, the ultimate guarantor of civil liberties and civil rights."--Nadine Strosser, Professor of Law, New York Law School, and President, American Civil Liberties Union"Lots of writers have exhaustively mined the subject of judicial activism since Holmes's' appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court. Few Scholars have understood the nineteenth-century tradition from which twentieth-century activism emerged. Professor Schwartz has given us in twelve pages the mostinsightful, historically sound, intelligible analysis of the Dred Scott case ever written. Unlike mathematicians, there are no brilliant young writers; brilliant writers are old and experienced writers, and this is the crowning achievement of Professor Schwartz's long and distinguishedcareer."--Richard Neely, Justice of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, author of How Courts Govern America"Throughout our history, Justices of the Supreme Court have frequently affected our lives and fortunes to a greater extent than presidents and congresspersons. Bernard Schwartz has performed the monumental task of familiarizing us, in a readable manner, with the careers and works of those whoserved on the highest court in the land. The Schwartz Supreme Court history belongs in the library of all who seek to better understand our democratic way of life."--Stanley Mosk, Justice of the Supreme Court of California"[An] elegantly written one-volume history....A lively narrative that springs to life through the introduction of key cases and colorful figures....Highly readable....It is, by far, the best one-volume history we have of the Court."--Kermit Hall, The Ohio State University

Read more

See all Editorial Reviews

Product details

Paperback: 480 pages

Publisher: Oxford University Press; Reprint edition (February 23, 1995)

Language: English

ISBN-10: 0195093879

ISBN-13: 978-0195093872

Product Dimensions:

9.2 x 1.2 x 6.1 inches

Shipping Weight: 1.5 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)

Average Customer Review:

4.4 out of 5 stars

18 customer reviews

Amazon Best Sellers Rank:

#523,059 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

It was an eye-opening experience. In my last year of college I took two courses in Constitutional Law (Con Law I & II) and discovered most of what I thought to be true of the Supreme Court was false. The least democratic of the three branches of government was in fact the most likely to protect individual liberty. We weren’t assigned textbooks. We read Supreme Court decisions directly from the casebooks, such as Marbury v. Madison, Dred Scott v. Sandford, Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown v. Board of Education, and Roe v. Wade. We read both majority and minority Court opinions, both of which could be equally persuasive. Indeed, a number of the minority opinions (the Dred Scott decision and Plessy v. Ferguson are two prime examples) would eventually become the majority opinions when these cases were overturned by the Court decades later. Reading the cases was sometimes tedious but always fascinating, especially in how the justices read the Constitution and applied it in their decisions. The Constitution is not a static set of laws but a living document, intended by the framers to be flexible to meet the needs of a changing society.“A History of the Supreme Court” by Bernard Schwartz is about how the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution from the time of its inception down to the publication of his book, in 1993. The book reminds me of my two Con Law classes as it covers the same material. The author begins by saying the great theme of our nation’s development is the idea of law as a check upon government power. Indeed, the Constitution is not a prohibition against what the people might do, but a prohibition against what the government might do.The Supreme Court was hardly supreme in the beginning. It wasn’t until John Marshall was appointed Chief Justice in 1801 that the nation’s highest court became the equal of the executive and legislative branches of government. Marshall did it with a judicial slight-of-hand in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) by establishing the precedent for judicial review. Marshall ruled against Marbury in declaring the Court had no power to issue the writ of mandamus he was seeking, because the congressional act conferring such power to the Court was in fact unconstitutional. On the surface it appeared to be a victory for President Thomas Jefferson who was set on blocking Marbury’s appointment to the bench of a lower court. In fact it was a victory for the Supreme Court because it confirmed judicial review as the core principle of the constitutional system.During his 35 years on the bench, Marshall’s rulings cemented the power of federal over state governments and the sanctity of private property. “I consider,” Marshall once said, “the interference of the legislature in the management of our private affairs, whether those affairs are committed to a company or remain under the individual direction, as equally dangerous and unwise.” Marshall’s successor, Chief Justice Roger Taney (1835-1864), wrote decisions that furthered Marshall’s view of property rights but with a twist—where the rights of property conflict with those of the community, the rights of the community must take precedent. It was in keeping with the Jacksonians who had appointed him to the bench.Taney was a brilliant Chief Justice whose reputation was shattered by a single decision—Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857). Taney meant well. A southerner, he had freed his slaves prior to his appointment to the Court. The nation was badly divided over the slavery issue. Violent conflicts between abolitionists and advocates of slavery were common in the western territories. The Kansas-Nebraska act of 1854 had done nothing to resolve the issue. With the Dred Scott decision, Taney hoped a ruling by the nation’s high court would settle the issue once and for all. Taney’s majority opinion held that slaves were not citizens and had “no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.” It was not just mean-spirited but politically motivated. And it failed to do what Taney had hoped for. As Schwartz says, seldom has wishful thinking been so spectacularly wrong. Within four years of the Court’s ruling, the nation was embroiled in a bloody Civil War.After the Civil War and until the New Deal era, rulings from the Supreme Court upheld the status quo, favored American’s burgeoning corporations, and ignored individual rights. One of the most damning decisions was Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) in which the court validated the South’s Jim Crow laws in confirming “separate but equal” schools as Constitutional. Another decision, Lochner v. New York (1905), typified the era in upholding an employer’s rights to work employees for as many hours as deemed necessary. Writing brilliant dissenting opinions, four justices emerged during the Court’s laissez-faire era: Stephen J. Field (1863-1897), John Marshall Harlan (1877-1911), Oliver Wendell Holmes (1902-1932), and Louis D. Brandeis (1916-1939). After Word War II, their dissenting opinions would become the Court’s majority opinion in a number of now-famous cases buttressing individual freedom.The Court’s decision in Brown v. Board Education (1954) reversed decades of blatant discrimination in ruling “separate but equal” was inherently unequal, thus spelling an end to Jim Crow in the South. Among other ground-breaking decisions were three involving criminal procedure. In Mapp v. Ohio (1961), the court adopted the exclusionary rule, which bars the admission of illegally seized evidence, in state criminal cases. In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), the court ruled that if a defendant cannot afford counsel, one would be appointed for him. In Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the court ruled that a person under arrest has the right to remain silent, that anything he says may be used against him, and that he can have a lawyer present. The latter has become known as the Miranda Rule. These were among the decisions of the Warren Court, a decidedly activist court led by Supreme Court justice Earl Warren (1953-1969) and two “radicals,” justice Hugo Black (1937-1971) and justice William O. Douglas (1939-1975). Some felt the Warren Court had overstepped its Constitutional bounds with decisions that bordered on legislating laws rather than adjudicating law. Perhaps. But their decisions were in keeping with protecting the rights of the individual against government encroachment, which is decidedly the business of the Court. When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, their goal was to create a government that protected the rights of the minority against majority rule. At its best, that is what the Supreme Court has done.Returning to what I stated earlier, that much of what I had heard about the Supreme Court—from politicians mostly—I found to be mostly wrong. The thinking among them was that radicals had overtaken the Court and needed to be replaced with “strict constructionists.” In reading the actual opinions of these "radicals," I discovered this not to be the case at all. The so-called radicals based their carefully worded opinions on the absolute letter of the law. For example, “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.” According to Justices Black and Douglas, the First Amendment right of free speech means exactly that—no speech may ever be restricted by government action, even speech that is libelous, obscene, or subversive. As my college professor used to say, court “radicals” Black and Douglas were in fact “strict constructionists.” The fact is, the three branches of government—the executive, the legislative and the judicial—merely reflect the thinking of most Americans. We live in a democracy. Public opinion changes. The court’s ruling in the June 2015 decision to make same-sex marriage the rule of the land would not have been made ten years ago. Since that time public opinion had changed, and the court followed.I recommend Schwartz’s book highly. It reads well. It tells something about each of the court’s most important decisions—both right and wrong decisions—and something about each of the most influential justices. The book serves as a nice introduction to the Supreme Court--much like my two college courses back in the day. Five stars.

"A History of the Supreme Court" is a nicely written institutional history of, well, of the Supreme Court. However, it's not really a history of the U.S. constitution or its role in our national development, and it gives legal doctrine short shrift in favor of capsule biographies of Justices and standard summaries of leading cases. The author includes a running commentary on the tension between judicial self-restraint and the need to adapt the Constitution to changing social circumstances, but his remarks just scratch the surface of Constitutional jurisprudence. I enjoyed the book -- it's almost a page turner if you like this sort of thing -- but it wasn't quite what I was looking for.

Bernard Schwartz's "A History of the Supreme Court" is a readable if dry narrative of the 200 years of the Supreme Court between John Jay and William Rhenquist. The story of the supreme court is a complicated one, and for the most part, Schwartz tells it well. If his book is short on analysis and long on description, it is probably more due to the nature of the subject then to the qualities of the author.Schwartz focuses on two main themes in the narrative. The first one, addressed in the Prologue and in the first few chapters, deal with the practice of Judicial Review in Anglo-Saxon common law, and especially in the early US, where under Chief Justice Marshall, the supreme court has been established as SUPREME - that is, in position to pass judgment on State legislators, State courts, and even the US Congress.The theme is very prominent in the early history of the Court, where the Supreme Court fulfilled its Hamiltonian role as the final authority on the constitutionality of law. Very early, US Justices have proved that they were every bit the politicians as the Jurists - Chief Marshall successfully established Judicial Review in his Marbury vs. Madison decision, while Roger B Taney catastrophically endangered it in his attempt to end the political crisis of the Union via his Dred Scott Decision.Later in the book, Schwartz still devotes time to the question of Judicial Review, but then in a new disguise - that of Judicial restraint, which Schwartz first sees in the actions of Roger B Taney, but which were only manifested plainly in the dissents of Oliver Wendell Holmes, most famously in the Lochner vs. New York case (1905), where the majority judges, led by Rufus W. Peckham, substituted its judgement to that of the legislative branch, and ruled a law restricting working hours unconstitutional (See Lochner v. New York: Economic Regulation on Trial). Under Judicial Restraint, the Supreme Court was only to overrule laws which no reasonable person could say were constitutional.The other major theme in Schwartz's narrative is the switch from the primacy of property rights in the 19th century, to the supremacy of personal rights in the 20th. As the US came to allow much more government intervention in the economy, Schwartz argues, the rights of the private citizen, and especially the rights guaranteed in the bill of rights and the right of privacy had to be privileged. This tendency reached its climax in the Warren court, and particularly in the Brown vs. Board of Education decision. Surprisingly, though, the subsequent Burger court did not overthrow the trend. Rather, important personal rights rulings (such as Miranda) were affirmed, and even the right to abortion was guaranteed, as a right included within the right of privacy. The Rhenquist Court, though even more conservative then the Berger Court, has yet to turn the tables on Warren's revolution; indeed, the recent judgement against anti-Homosexual laws in Texas is another landmark civil rights decision.Schwartz's book is interesting and thorough, but is not without flaws. The writing is somewhat crude, and Schwartz quotes other historians much too much. Schwartz has also an irritating tendency to use the same quote several times, and one quote from judge Frankfurter appears four times at least. The book also has the annoying tendency to assume all the readers are Americans.Worse, sometimes Schwartz's scholarship is lacking. In the case of Dred Scott vs. Sandford, for example, Schwartz's makes no reference to the classic study by Don E. Fehernbacher (The Dred Scott Case: Its Significance in American Law and Politics), either in the text or in the bibliography. As a consequence, several of Schwartz's conclusion are somewhat distorted, and sometimes his views come out of the blue entirely. Thus Schwartz calls Stephen Douglas "the chief political victim of the Dred Scott Decision" [p.124] which is inaccurate and highly misleading. In the short run, Douglas's popularity in the South did not diminish after the Dred Scot decision, and when it did, it was due to his opposition to the Lecompton constitution - not to Dred Scott. In any event, Schwartz completely ignores the sectional split within the Democratic Party, a split that was indeed seemingly worsened by the Dred Scott decision, which abandoned ambiguity in favour of an endorsement of the Southern view.Ultimately, Schwartz's book is both instructive and readable. If it is does not quite warrant a general endorsement, it is a good primer for those interested in American legal history.

A History of the Supreme Court PDF
A History of the Supreme Court EPub
A History of the Supreme Court Doc
A History of the Supreme Court iBooks
A History of the Supreme Court rtf
A History of the Supreme Court Mobipocket
A History of the Supreme Court Kindle

A History of the Supreme Court PDF

A History of the Supreme Court PDF

A History of the Supreme Court PDF

A History of the Supreme Court PDF