Product Description

Bestselling author Jeffrey Toobin takes you into the chambers of the most important—and secret—legal body in our country, the Supreme Court, and reveals the complex dynamic among the nine people who decide the law of the land.

Just in time for the 2008 presidential election—where the future of the Court will be at stake—Toobin reveals an institution at a moment of transition, when decades of conservative disgust with the Court have finally produced a conservative majority, with major changes in store on such issues as abortion, civil rights, presidential power, and church-state relations.

Based on exclusive interviews with justices themselves, The Nine tells the story of the Court through personalities—from Anthony Kennedy's overwhelming sense of self-importance to Clarence Thomas's well-tended grievances against his critics to David Souter's odd nineteenth-century lifestyle. There is also, for the first time, the full behind-the-scenes story of Bush v. Gore—and Sandra Day O'Connor's fateful breach with George W. Bush, the president she helped place in office.

The Nine is the book bestselling author Jeffrey Toobin was born to write. A CNN senior legal analyst and New Yorker staff writer, no one is more superbly qualified to profile the nine justices.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #368 in Books
• Published on: 2007-09-18
• Released on: 2007-09-18
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Hardcover
• 384 pages

From Publishers Weekly
It's not laws or constitutional theory that rule the High Court, argues this absorbing group profile, but quirky men and women guided by political intuition. New Yorker legal writer Toobin (The Run of His Life: The People v. O.J. Simpson) surveys the Court from the Reagan administration onward, as the justices wrestled with abortion, affirmative action, the death penalty, gay rights and church-state separation. Despite a Court dominated by Republican appointees, Toobin paints not a conservative revolution but a period of intractable moderation. The real power, he argues, belonged to supreme swing-voter Sandra Day O'Connor, who decided important cases with what Toobin sees as an almost primal attunement to a middle-of-the-road public consensus. By contrast, he contends, conservative justices Rehnquist and Scalia ended up bitter old men, their rigorous constitutional doctrines made irrelevant by the moderates' compromises. The author deftly distills the issues and enlivens his narrative of the Court's internal wranglings with sharp thumbnail sketches (Anthony Kennedy the vain bloviator, David Souter the Thoreauvian ascetic) and editorials (inept and unsavory is his verdict on the Court's intervention in the 2000 election). His savvy account puts the supposedly cloistered Court right in the thick of American life. (A final chapter and epilogue on the 2006–2007 term, with new justices Roberts and Alito, was unavailable to PW.) (Sept. 18)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

From The Washington Post's Book World/washingtonpost.com
Reviewed by Edward Lazarus

In 1979, Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong published The Brethren, an eye-popping look into the closed world of the Supreme Court under then-Chief Justice Warren Burger. Through interviews with several justices and dozens of former law clerks, the authors captured the personalities, rivalries, politics and principles that drove the court's decisions.

In the decades since, a number of writers have tried to do for the court under Chief Justice William Rehnquist (and now John Roberts) what The Brethren did for the Burger era. With The Nine, Jeffrey Toobin, a New Yorker staff writer and CNN legal analyst, becomes the latest.

The idea behind The Nine -- that the public should understand the court's inner workings -- remains vital. To a degree that would baffle the Founding Fathers, we have come to vest these unelected, life-tenured judges with final authority to interpret the Constitution as well as all federal law. Yet the justices go to considerable lengths to shroud their deliberations in secrecy, and some of them, notably the current chief justice, engage in a disinformation campaign, announcing that they are disinterested referees, like umpires in baseball, engaged in the pedestrian enterprise of calling legal balls and strikes according to a clear set of rules.

Toobin deserves credit for adding his influential voice to the chorus seeking to debunk this myth. As he observes, the justices are chosen through a political process for political reasons, and the decisions they reach are inevitably influenced by their ideological commitments, personal experiences and personalities.

(In the interest of full disclosure, I should note that my book Closed Chambers also discussed the court's inner workings. Toobin cites my earlier work as a source, and, in one brief passage, he suggests that we disagree on the subject of how much influence law clerks wield.)

Toobin guides us through the last 15 years of court history by focusing on individual justices, and his portraits are unspoiled by hagiography. Toobin's Rehnquist has little interest in the reasoning even of his own opinions; the brilliant but pugnacious Antonin Scalia alienates potential allies; Stephen Breyer is an eternal optimist with a sometimes unrealistic belief in his own powers of persuasion; and a pompous Anthony Kennedy (Toobin's least favorite) revels in his power to shape the law.

At the center of the ensemble was Sandra Day O'Connor, the former politician and Goldwater Republican who (sometimes with Kennedy) kept the court on a relatively moderate path despite the efforts of its more conservative trio -- Rehnquist, Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Toobin portrays O'Connor as a finger-in-the-wind justice: She aligned the court's decisions with her "unerring" sense of public opinion and, like the public, moved somewhat to the left out of disenchantment with President Bush (whose election, ironically, she helped to engineer by joining the 5-4 majority in Bush v. Gore.) So it is that the court cut back on Roe v. Wade but preserved a right to abortion, curbed affirmative action but did not prohibit it, mediated between claims of religious freedom and the need for a wall between church and state, and rejected Bush's claims of unreviewable executive power in the war on terror.

Court watchers will not be surprised by any of this. Almost all the vignettes that enliven Toobin's narrative -- the alliances forged and broken, the flaring tempers and hurt feelings -- have been described by other journalists. But this lack of originality could be overlooked if Toobin had used the material to give us a greater understanding of how the institution actually works. On this score, his book comes up a bit short.

In The Nine's best moments, Toobin links the justices' backgrounds to their views. Few commentators, for example, have connected John Paul Stevens's military intelligence service in World War II to his legal opinions. But Toobin makes the link persuasively in discussing Stevens's skepticism toward claims of military necessity in the Guantanamo cases.

Unfortunately, Toobin is also prone to significant overstatements. He describes O'Connor as a justice who liked most matters to be settled through the political process rather than by courts. Yet between 1995 and 2001, O'Connor upset the political process to an extraordinary degree by voting to use judicial power to strike down 50 state and federal laws, more than any justice except Kennedy. Toobin couples Rehnquist with Scalia as practitioners of "original intent" -- a conservative doctrine of interpreting the Constitution according to the intent of the framers rather than in light of experience. Rehnquist, however, was not an originalist, and this rift with Scalia sometimes weakened the court's right wing. Toobin also describes Scalia's jurisprudence as uniquely consistent. Actually, a big knock on Scalia is that his "consistent" originalism conveniently disappears in some important contexts (such as affirmative action and state sovereign immunity) where originalism would lead to liberal results. And Toobin describes Souter as modeling himself after the second Justice John Harlan, which is true with respect to due process and a few other issues but misses the important point that Harlan was a devotee of states' rights while Souter is a devotee of federal power.

Even more important, Toobin does not give us a coherent framework for thinking about the court. He tends to applaud compromise, particularly when it yields middle-of-the road decisions that accord with public opinion, but he does not offer any explanation for why judges interpreting the Constitution should see compromise or public approval as their goal. Nor does Toobin explain how this view of judging fits with acclaimed decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education, where the court stepped out in front of public opinion, or with abominable decisions, including cases from the McCarthy era, where the court condoned gross injustices while catering to popular opinion. As a result, he sheds little light on how the public should evaluate the justices.

In the absence of explanation, one gets the sense that Toobin favors centrism not because it gives coherence to the court's role in our democracy but because, with O'Connor having been replaced by the very conservative Samuel Alito, Toobin dislikes last term's rightward lurch and fears worse ahead. As Toobin emphasizes, when it comes to the court, presidential elections and the ideology of our justices really do matter. As he puts it, we get "the Court we deserve."

Copyright 2007, The Washington Post. All Rights Reserved.

From Bookmarks Magazine
The Nine is a welcome addition to the spate of recent Supreme Court histories (see Jan Crawford Greenburg's Supreme Conflict, ***1/2 May/June 2007). Informative and authoritative, Jeffrey Toobin's account draws on exclusive interviews with the principals (one critic cited a possible breach of secrecy) and offers colorful anecdotes about the members of the Court. The most important parts of the book explore Sandra Day O'Connor's critical swing votes, Clinton's impeachment hearings, and the Court's role in Bush v. Gore. "The tragedy," Toobin concludes, "was not that it led to Bush's victory, but the inept and unsavory manner that the justices exercised their power." Only David J. Garrow, a Supreme Court historian, faulted Toobin's "debatable opinions" and disdain for various justices. Well written, though chronologically disjointed, The Nine is, overall, a timely and important examination of the Court's past-and its future.

Copyright © 2004 Phillips & Nelson Media, Inc.

Customer Reviews

good, fast read
Toobin's book provides an interesting perspective on the personalities at play in the Supreme Court, while also providing a window into some of the countries most influential cases. The book is balanced in its approach. His focus is primarily on more recent justices, starting with the Rehnquist court.

I found his description of Souter to be among most interesting and comical due to Souters unique personality. Toobin writes, "At first Souters eccentricities drew more notice around the court than his jurisprudence. Fifty-two years old and a lifelong bachelor, he has the habits of a gentleman from another country...He ate the same thing for lunch every day: an entire apple, including the core and seeds, with a cup of yogurt. When the justices sat together in their dining room, the two items would be delivered to Souter on the same fine china that served his colleagues; Souter was familiar with Coca Cola, but he had never heard of a beverage that several of the others justices favored - Diet Coke" (p. 43)

He goes on to describe a successful date Souter had with a woman that Justice O'Connor set him up with. "She thought the evening had gone very well - until the end. Souter took her home, told her what a good time he had, then added 'Let's do this again next year'" (p. 244)

Very knowledgeable but too one sided
While I have admired Mr. Toobin, I found the text to be very unbalanced. I actually listened to the audio version of the book and I don't know if that had a big impact on how I "heard" the book or not. But there is a troubling slant against the more "conservative" judges. At times, it really seems very hostile (especially to Thomas and Scalia). I do not say this because I always subscript to the justices I just named (often times I don't.) I realize that an author approaches his work with a certain frame of mind, but it made the book much less credible for me. I enjoyed the portions on O'Connor and Breyer but again, I would have preferred a more balanced view of the court.

The Nine
Anyone who watches much cable news is familiar with Jeffery Toobin. As the chief legal analyst for CNN, and a frequent guest on other networks, Toobin is one of the experts who provide commentary on crime, trials, and other aspects of the law. He has written books about O.J., the Clinton Impeachment, and the 2000 Recount, and now turns his skills to the modern Supreme Court. There are other books about the Rehnquist-era court, but this one is probably the most accessible for the layman. Toobin is not a particularly lively writer, but he produces an easy to follow profile of the justices and some of their more important decisions, and the politics behind their appointments. Worth mentioning are his chapters dealing with the Thomas nomination, the daily life of the justices and the effects international law can have on their opinions. As a lawyer, he can provide more insight than the average journalist, and he certainly has a gift for putting legal jargon into terms the general public can understand. No doubt critics will accuse him of `dumbing down' the material, but they cannot argue with the result: a sympathetic, honest, and readable history of the Court during the late 20th and early 21st centuries.