The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court
Acclaimed journalist Jeffrey Toobin takes us into the chambers of the most important—and secret—legal body in our country, the Supreme Court, revealing the complex dynamic among the nine people who decide the law of the land. An institution at a moment of transition, the Court now stands at a crucial point, with major changes in store on such issues as abortion, civil rights, and church-state relations. Based on exclusive interviews with the justices and with a keen sense of the Court’s history and the trajectory of its future, Jeffrey Toobin creates in The Nine a riveting story of one of the most important forces in American life today.
BUY THE BOOK
Community Reviews
Toobin zooms (ok will only make that joke once) through about thirty years of Supreme Court history. Compelling, well paced, dramatic, and coherent. Sort of a successor to The Brethren, feels insidery at times, but mainly just well written play by play. Doesn’t really try to put the court in context of its entire history, rather situated it in the political context of the 80s thru 2000s - and does so effectively.
Author takes a point of view - sounds more like a CNN commentator than a historian, which probably makes sense because that’s what he is! Here’s a representative quote : “To the conservatives nothing mattered - not consistency, not integrity. They only cared about control of the Supreme Court.”
He makes a couple big points:
1. Starting with Roe, conservative (largely evangelical) counter-movement has focused on getting control of the court. These conservatives formed a powerful bloc of legal influencers in Washington that have dictated conservative judicial appointments ever since. The author points out that when Bork publicly challenged Roe in the 80s this doomed his Supreme Court nomination. By the 2000s, Myers and Gonzalez saw their nominations torpedoed bc they had not expressly and sufficiently satisfied conservatives that they would over rule Roe. It’s a striking shift that certainly made me more aware of the power Roe has to organize political activity on the right and the organizations that built that original outrage into an effective political machine which survives to this day.
2. O’Connor (and to a lesser extent Kennedy) determined the courts position on controversial issues for about twenty years. During this period the court tried to overtly respect precedent (excepting most notably cases involving minority groups such as gays) and rule pragmatically - sorta in line with how a consensus of voters saw most issues. If Toobin has a hero in the book it’s gotta be O’Connor, despite point 4.
3. Starting with O’Connors retirement, the conservatives had control of the court and most controversial rulings had a tendency to reduce then power of the federal government to curtail state actions or impose equitable treatment of certain groups. This represented the triumph of the group on point 1 and I suppose has strengthened since this book was written.
4. In Bush v Gore, the court failed its mandate as an independent branch of government and succumbed to base political motives. The best thing Toobin does here: show how each judge personally reacted to the fallout. Souter (disillusioned and depressed - literally cries alone in his chambers), Stevens (idealistic and devastating in critique), Kennedy (transformed by this experience, transcends the failure and moves international and left for the duration of his life), O’Connor (completely in denial - doesn’t want to think about it, doesn’t want to talk about it), and Scalia (pugnacious and aggressive, as always).
5. O’Connor specifically really didn’t like the Bush admins approach to war on terror or domestic issues. And as Margolick from nyt pointed out in his review of the book, these perspectives almost certainly come from off the record interviews with the justice. Toobin explains O’Connors disillusionment with Bush much more clearly than her own biographer (Evan Thomas) ever does, I suspect because O’Connor was extremely selective about who heard this criticism and where it would appear. All of this only deepens my fascination with the enigma that is O’Connor’s personal moral philosophy.
The side show stuff is interesting, but could have been left out. Clinton tried to woo Cuomo Sr to the seat that eventually became Ginsbergs. Lot on Lewinsky, which I don’t think the author convinced me was really a Supreme Court topic. It’s all probably in there because people like to read about political horse trading and sources are much easier to find on these subjects. But it’s not a better book for their inclusion.
The mini biographies of each justices are great and probably Thomas has the best one - first resuscitating him as a thoughtful public figure and then once we begin to feel sympathy for him, demolishing the integrity of that figure.
Enjoyable, informative, and a reasonable first shot at explaining the political and social forces that drove the courts shift from 80 to 2010.
Four stars!
Author takes a point of view - sounds more like a CNN commentator than a historian, which probably makes sense because that’s what he is! Here’s a representative quote : “To the conservatives nothing mattered - not consistency, not integrity. They only cared about control of the Supreme Court.”
He makes a couple big points:
1. Starting with Roe, conservative (largely evangelical) counter-movement has focused on getting control of the court. These conservatives formed a powerful bloc of legal influencers in Washington that have dictated conservative judicial appointments ever since. The author points out that when Bork publicly challenged Roe in the 80s this doomed his Supreme Court nomination. By the 2000s, Myers and Gonzalez saw their nominations torpedoed bc they had not expressly and sufficiently satisfied conservatives that they would over rule Roe. It’s a striking shift that certainly made me more aware of the power Roe has to organize political activity on the right and the organizations that built that original outrage into an effective political machine which survives to this day.
2. O’Connor (and to a lesser extent Kennedy) determined the courts position on controversial issues for about twenty years. During this period the court tried to overtly respect precedent (excepting most notably cases involving minority groups such as gays) and rule pragmatically - sorta in line with how a consensus of voters saw most issues. If Toobin has a hero in the book it’s gotta be O’Connor, despite point 4.
3. Starting with O’Connors retirement, the conservatives had control of the court and most controversial rulings had a tendency to reduce then power of the federal government to curtail state actions or impose equitable treatment of certain groups. This represented the triumph of the group on point 1 and I suppose has strengthened since this book was written.
4. In Bush v Gore, the court failed its mandate as an independent branch of government and succumbed to base political motives. The best thing Toobin does here: show how each judge personally reacted to the fallout. Souter (disillusioned and depressed - literally cries alone in his chambers), Stevens (idealistic and devastating in critique), Kennedy (transformed by this experience, transcends the failure and moves international and left for the duration of his life), O’Connor (completely in denial - doesn’t want to think about it, doesn’t want to talk about it), and Scalia (pugnacious and aggressive, as always).
5. O’Connor specifically really didn’t like the Bush admins approach to war on terror or domestic issues. And as Margolick from nyt pointed out in his review of the book, these perspectives almost certainly come from off the record interviews with the justice. Toobin explains O’Connors disillusionment with Bush much more clearly than her own biographer (Evan Thomas) ever does, I suspect because O’Connor was extremely selective about who heard this criticism and where it would appear. All of this only deepens my fascination with the enigma that is O’Connor’s personal moral philosophy.
The side show stuff is interesting, but could have been left out. Clinton tried to woo Cuomo Sr to the seat that eventually became Ginsbergs. Lot on Lewinsky, which I don’t think the author convinced me was really a Supreme Court topic. It’s all probably in there because people like to read about political horse trading and sources are much easier to find on these subjects. But it’s not a better book for their inclusion.
The mini biographies of each justices are great and probably Thomas has the best one - first resuscitating him as a thoughtful public figure and then once we begin to feel sympathy for him, demolishing the integrity of that figure.
Enjoyable, informative, and a reasonable first shot at explaining the political and social forces that drove the courts shift from 80 to 2010.
Four stars!
See why thousands of readers are using Bookclubs to stay connected.