Product Description

An inside look at the most secretive institution in the American government--the Supreme Court.

Operating inside a network of Byzantine secrecy, the United States Supreme Court is the most powerful judicial institution in the world. Nine unelected justices, supposedly insulated from the pressure of politics, are charged with protecting our most cherished rights and shaping our fundamental laws.

In this eloquent, trailblazing account, Edward Lazarus, who served as a clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun, provides an insider's guided tour of a court at war with itself and often in neglect of its constitutional duties. He guides the reader through the Court's inner sanctum, explaining as only an eyewitness can the collisions of law, politics, and personality as the Justices wrestle with the most fiercely disputed issues of our time. Part memoir, part history, and all spellbinding narrative, Closed Chambers provides an intimate portrait--Justice by Justice--of the battles and compromises of the highest court in the land.

--Updated with a new Afterword

"Impeccably researched and impressively documented." --The Boston Globe

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #164093 in Books
• Published on: 2005-05-03
• Format: Bargain Price
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 608 pages

Amazon.com Review
Edward Lazarus, a former Supreme Court clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun, spills the beans on an institution that values silence. Nobody is supposed to understand what happens behind the scenes of the high court--that's why the justices rarely speak to the media--but Lazarus tells all he knows from his time as a top aide to Blackmun in the Supreme Court's 1988 term. There's a lot of legal theory and history, but it's well presented and usually focuses on touchstone issues in U.S. politics; cases involving abortion, the death penalty, and racial preferences receive sustained treatment in these pages. There are gossipy bits, too, revealing unflattering details about several current justices. Sure to be one of the more controversial books of the year. --John J. Miller

From Library Journal
Part memoir, part constitutional history, this volume by a former law clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun reflects both his own experience at the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1988-89 term and substantial and original research. Lazarus, now a federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, is a fine writer who makes accessible the legal esoterica behind the compelling struggles about such issues as the death penalty, abortion, and the role of race in the law. But his story is really a lamentation over, in his view, inconsistent and irrational adjudication, driven to an unprecedented degree by ideology and the manipulation practiced by unprincipled law clerks. Justices Kennedy and Brennan come in for particular attack on these grounds, while Justice Souter warrants his praise. Whether Lazarus is right or wrong in his assessment, this book is big news?few law clerks write such behind-the-scenes accounts. The clarity and authority with which he writes makes his contribution to the literature on the Supreme Court even more valuable. Recommended for all libraries.?Cynthia Harrison, George Washington Univ., Washington, DC
Copyright 1998 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Kirkus Reviews
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes's tart description of Supreme Court deliberations``nine scorpions in a bottle''has seldom seemed more apt than in this scathing tell-all screed about the Rehnquist Court from Lazarus (Black Hills/White Justice, 1991), now an L.A. federal prosecutor. As a clerk of former Justice Harry Blackmun in the 198889 term, Lazarus came to feel that infighting between its conservative and liberal divisions had ``corroded [its] institutional culture and driven the Justices to disregard the principles of decision-makingdeliberation, integrity of argument, self-restraintthat separate the judicial function from the exercise of purely political power.'' He focuses on the Court's decisions on capital punishment, race relations, and abortion to demonstrate how its comity has become strained. During this time, the politicization of the confirmation process, as evidenced in the Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas nominations, was mirrored in the Court's chamberssometimes in subtle ways (Sandra Day O'Connor was believed to have stopped joining William Brennan in majority opinions for having tricked her in an unnamed case), sometimes in argument (a shoving match between a conservative and liberal clerk). Only other participants can confirm Lazarus's sensational charges (e.g., that clerks were ceded unwarrantably large roles in crafting Court opinions, and that conservative ``cabalists'' manipulated Anthony Kennedy into early votes in death penalty appeals because of his reluctance to cast the deciding vote to ensure an execution). His admitted liberalism can be glimpsed, as in his invariable depiction of liberals as ``scrupulous,'' ``compassionate,'' and the like. But his analysis of Court opinions is even-handedly critical. Conservatives, prodded by the brilliant but nasty Antonin Scalia, pushed states rights at every turn. Octogenarian liberals (Blackmun, Brennan, and Thurgood Marshall) fell to name-calling and hypocrisy in abandoning principle to gain victory. Today's badly splintered justices, he claims, no longer speak as one institutional voice. This memoir's revelationsbased on reporting as well as personal experiencemay obscure its less controversial but more thoughtful analysis of the Rehnquist Court's poisonous ``politics of certainty.'' (8 pages b&w photos, not seen) -- Copyright ©1998, Kirkus Associates, LP. All rights reserved.

Customer Reviews

A restrained view of ideological splits at the Supreme Court
Lazarus, who clerked for Justice Blackmun during the 1988-89 term, has written a behind-the-scenes look at the court and its decisions during that term. He focuses on abortion and capital punishment cases; somewhat surprisingly, he doesn't discuss the growth of "federalism." His overall thesis is that the overpoliticization of the Supreme Court nomination process, as exemplified by Bork's rejection, has resulted in a deep split between liberals and conservatives on the court, with the outcome in the control of Justices O'Connor and Kennedy, both of whom are too much subject to the influence of their clerks, especially a well-organized, highly partisan group of conservative clerks.

The book combines the clerk-driven content of "The Brethren" with documentary evidence from the Thurgood Marshall papers and a more sophisticated analysis of the legal issues. It provides a more complete view of Chief Justice Rehnquist's work style and why he has been so much more effective than Chief Justice Burger at effectuating the conservative legal agenda. It shows how the troubling developments of that period, such as the cert pool, have grown into monsters. It looks briefly at the newest justices (Thomas, Ginsberg, Breyer) and accurately characterizes Ginsberg so as to explain her frequent alliance with Rehnquist.

The book, despite its publicity, tells no tales out of school. It is much less chatty than "The Brethren." Its tone follows Justice Blackmun into sentimentality. With news reports missing or giving less space to the ideological battles occasionally revealed by the court's decisions, lay followers of the court should make a point of reading this book.

compares favorably to Brethren, but focused on law
Given that a fairly large number of my classmates at Harvard had high aspirations of clerking on the Supreme Court, it was always surprising to me that none of them had read this book. Reading through the (often unfair) reviews here, it is not surprising why.

Several complaints of Lazarus' 'unfair' attitudes are evinced: Lazarus focuses on abortion, discrimination, and death penalty 'snapshots' from a legal historical perspective then turns to the inner workings of the court.

Shallower readers more interested in Grisham or other fiction might object to Lazarus' description of the Scottsboro case: a legal reader wouldn't begin trying to understand death penalty litigation without that critical starting point. Lazarus describes death penalty obstructionists as dueling with death penalty hawks - such as law clerks who threw parties when executions were carried out, while Marshall/Brennan clerks conducted vigils.

After Woodward/Armstrong's scathing reviews of Blackmun in 'The Brethren,' one cannot fault Lazarus for striving to resuscitate Blackmun's career. After all, the man read deeply, thought profoundly, and cared tremendously about his legacy (which comes down, for better or worse, to Roe v. Wade).

And this drives the large number of deprecatory reviews: people who hate Roe v. Wade will hate anything written about Blackmun with the slightest degree of fairness, deriding the author unfairly and underscoring his claims that closed, prejudiced (or at least, pre-judged) minds dominate, and only a few are willing to stand up to them.

Particularly telling is the origin of the 'centrist' coalition - O'Connor, Kennedy, and temporarily, Souter - which stood against Marshall/Brennan/Stephens (the liberal wing) and Rehnquist/Scalia (the conservative wing).

All of which is dull, tiresome reading for those looking for journalistic treatments of wheeling and dealing. Those looking for such writing should turn to Woodward/Armstrong's 'The Brethren.' Those looking for more informed history should turn to Morton Horwitz's treatises.

But for understanding the role of a clerk - the power and limits - as well as precious insights into Blackmun, an enigmatic jurist unloved by liberals or conservatives, and to read these treatments along with concise, and quite balanced legal history - this is a fine book.

A Riveting and Thoughtful Story of Law and Politics
I approached CLOSED CHAMBERS in response to hearing that a Supreme Court Clerk--a coveted one-year position as assistant to the Justices gained by a handful of top law graduates each year--had written a book about the experience and the Court reacted by tightening its rules. Instead of scandal, however, in CLOSED CHAMBERS I found a profound analysis of burning legal questions, primarily the death penalty and abortion. The author does not use the clerk's vantage point to sully the reputation of the Court or to give the impression of arbitrariness in the process by which the Supreme Court reaches its decisions. This unique perspective is used to show the reader the human side of the process, and show how the democratic decisions of the electorate came to influence policy through the persons that the elected, mostly Republican, Presidents could get approved by the mostly Democratic Senate. Of course, this seems genuinely interesting to me, because I realize the unavoidably subjective and political nature of much legal decision-making. Others might see the same text as debasing the sanctity of the objectivity of the law. The decisions of the Supreme Court have not been considered objective application of the law' in many decades--but, yes, the few who might read CLOSED CHAMBERS believing in objective application of the law might be surprised to find acknowledgment of subjectivity, here as in practically every other book about law written in the last 100 years.

The book offers little, if any, gossip and much legal reasoning. The history of the death penalty litigation occupies the greater part of the book, and is given in rich historical detail. Somewhat less time is spent on abortion, but the analysis there is even stronger--perhaps because the author does not overextend his arguments in reaction to the outcome.

The outcome in the death penalty litigation is that the Supreme Court has not only considered the death penalty proper from the perspective of constitutional law, but has also curtailed the appeals process, has approved 'victim impact statements', and has accepted the disproportional application of the death penalty. All this runs strongly against the author's beliefs and sense of justice. His response is to document each expansion of the application of the death penalty extensively and to make it appear as a morally contra-indicated political decision. While I agree that it is a political decision, I cannot see that any argument based on 'objective legal reasoning' could be made either way. The content of the Constitution's 'cruel and unusual' punishment clause is defined by the Supreme Court, and the electorate who elected a string of tough-on-crime, Republican Presidents, caused the definition of 'cruel and unusual' to not preclude the death penalty. While this may contravene the sense of morality of a large minority, it is the result of persistent democratic will, which is well nigh unassailable. The political Left would be well advised to accept the majority's decision and avoid squandering political capital on a closed issue.

The author's strongest argument against the death penalty is based on statistical evidence. The death penalty is imposed more frequently if the victim is Caucasian than if the victim is African American. From this, the author concludes that prosecutorial discretion drives the difference. This would mean that prosecutors are racially biased, the same way as an employer with disproportionate hiring biases. But that is not necessarily the case. My view is that the disparity is consistent with the acceptance of victim impact statements. Juries and more generally the criminal justice system should impose different penalties for different harms to society. The statistics and the victim impact statements suggest that juries adjust deterrence by the social harm and the disruption caused by different murders. The identity of the victim matters for the degree of disruption suffered by a society and for its deterrence. It is telling that the statistical study shows that the racia bias diminishes (without disappearing) when all factors are included in the multiple regression.

With this caveat that the book wails a bit much about the death penalty, its analysis is extraordinarily appealing. The reader gets history, law, facts, the social environment between the Justices and the clerks at a politically charged time. The legal scene of the eighties and early nineties is transmitted as high drama.

Then, just as dramatically, the author produces the same synthesis for abortion. After the fall of the liberal cause in the case of the death penalty, the book's abortion narrative is truly suspenseful. Still, the author shares the resentment of the left at the restrictions placed on reproductive freedom and its unequal availability, as a result of the Supreme Court's upholding of federal and state refusal to finance abortions. In the abortion segment of the book, the analysis is stronger. In addition to the privacy concern, the author reveals the much more recent and persuasive argument--and an argument that appears to be the author's own--that abortion is not only about privacy but also about equality between the sexes. A policy that forces the gestation of embryos burdens women but not men. Only women must give their body, time, and freedom. The recent statistical findings of Donahue and { that legalized abortion reduced the crime of offspring without reducing the number of children that women had, adds a crucial additional argument that has recently surfaced.

To conclude, CLOSED CHAMBERS is a fascinatingly thoughtful book, a rivetingly dramatic account of a tumultuous period of the legal history of the nation. If you are interested in these legal battles, you will love the book.