This particular entry is one of the weaker ones in the "people's history" category.

It presents a rather standard establishment perspective and follows fairly standard establishment narratives.

To some extent, it leans leftwing as it views the developments in a positive light.

Conversely, the misanthropic teabaggers, no doubt, perceive (if that's the appropriate term) this history as a procession of horrors.

This divergence in viewpoints highlights the different lenses through which people view historical events.

The establishment perspective may focus on certain aspects that it deems beneficial, while the teabagger view may emphasize the negative consequences or what they see as a departure from their ideals.

Understanding these different perspectives can provide a more comprehensive understanding of the complex nature of history and how it is interpreted.

It also shows the importance of considering multiple viewpoints when studying and analyzing historical events.

By doing so, we can avoid being limited to a single, one-sided view and gain a more accurate and nuanced understanding of the past.

A deep dive into the workings of the decisions that have shaped our political environment is truly fascinating.

The author painstakingly examines all the major decisions that have had a profound impact on our society.

Not only does the author describe the decisions themselves, but also delves into the personalities and political motivations that underlie them.

It is astonishing to realize how much there is that we aren't taught in our history and civics classes.

These hidden aspects of political decision-making can provide us with a more comprehensive understanding of the forces that have influenced our world.

By exploring these details, we can gain valuable insights into the complex web of relationships and interests that drive political actions.

This knowledge can help us become more informed citizens and better able to navigate the political landscape.

Ultimately, a deeper understanding of the decisions that have shaped our political environment can lead to more meaningful discussions and a greater appreciation for the role that politics plays in our lives.

Mr. Iron's remarkable talent lies in his ability to concisely expound upon two hundred years of American constitutional law.

This feat is truly impressive, as it requires a deep understanding of the complex legal principles and historical context that underpin the American legal system.

However, what sets Mr. Iron apart is his even greater proficiency in organizing diverse legal topics and political intrigue in an intuitive manner.

He has an uncanny ability to make sense of the most convoluted legal and political issues, presenting them in a way that is accessible and engaging to a wide audience.

Whether it is through his clear and concise writing style or his engaging lectures, Mr. Iron has a gift for making the study of American constitutional law both interesting and informative.

His work has had a profound impact on the field of law, and his contributions will continue to be felt for generations to come.

This article is extremely readable and offers a great deal of fun.

However, it doesn't always manage to fully explore the life stories of the individuals on whom the famous cases were centered.

Despite this, it remains a remarkable survey.

It provides a valuable overview of the cases, presenting the key details and events in an engaging manner.

The author has done a good job of capturing the essence of the stories and making them accessible to a wide audience.

While it may not delve as deeply as some readers might prefer into the personal lives of the people involved, it still offers enough information to pique the interest and provide a solid understanding of the cases.

Overall, it is a worthwhile read for anyone interested in true crime or legal history.

A comprehensive look at our Supreme Court (SCOTUS) from its inception in the 1700s onward reveals a fascinating journey. The first half of this exploration was rather slow-paced for me. However, once I passed the halfway mark, it truly became more interesting. I was particularly intrigued by the behind-the-scenes workings of the Supreme Court. It was captivating to learn how the justices work together, deliberate, and formulate their opinions and reach a consensus. This detailed examination is not for someone who is simply looking for a quick read. It requires a patient and inquisitive mind to fully appreciate the complexity and significance of the Supreme Court's role in our legal and democratic system.

I've read a substantial number of books within this series.

I would highly recommend them to those individuals who have a passion for history.

They are truly distinct from Zinn and from one another, each possessing its own captivating aspects.

For example, the book on the Civil War is an outstanding piece of social history, mainly focusing on Southerners who were reluctant to engage in combat.

The one regarding the Mexican Revolution is simply a reprint of the leftist classic penned by Adolfo Gilly.

The volume on the Vietnam War is a reprint of Jonathan Neale's remarkable book, "The American War."

Neale also delves into the mutinies that occurred in the British Navy, thereby demonstrating his dedication to presenting a true people's history.

This particular book, however, does not measure up to any of those.

The "People" mentioned in the title must pertain to the Supreme Court justices themselves.

The author leads us through each and every one of them.

If the intention is to illustrate how corrupt or racist they were, he accomplishes this task quite well (although I had already presumed such about the Supreme Court and didn't require it to be proven in such detail).

The essence of people's history should be to write from the perspective of individuals like Homer Plessy or Lillian Gobitas, which he does to a certain extent for those two but fails to capture the experiences of hundreds of others.

That being said, I truly do enjoy this book as there isn't much else that can transport you back to the origins of U.S. law and traverse through most of the landmark decisions one by one.

For a history teacher, this book is堪称 excellent.

My only gripe in this regard is that I would have preferred more coverage of the 19th century.

I sense that in order to make the book marketable, it is overly weighted towards recent events.

This is a textbook that took 4 EVA.

It is not just an ordinary textbook. It represents a significant investment of time and effort. The 4 EVA might refer to some specific units of measurement or a particular resource allocation.

Perhaps it took 4 EVA to research and gather the relevant information, ensuring its accuracy and comprehensiveness.

Or maybe it involved 4 EVA in the design and layout process, making it visually appealing and easy to understand.

Regardless of the specific meaning of 4 EVA, this textbook is likely to be of great value to students.

It can serve as a reliable guide, helping them to learn and master the subject matter.

Moreover, the investment of 4 EVA indicates that the publisher or author is committed to providing high-quality educational materials.

Students can have confidence in the content and trust that it will enhance their learning experience.

This textbook is a testament to the importance of quality education and the efforts made to ensure that students have access to the best possible learning resources.

If one were to listen closely to the speeches and propaganda of political activists, it is highly likely that one might form the impression that the Supreme Court has, throughout history, been a sacred and nonpartisan advocate for the pure ideals enshrined in the Constitution.

However, this perception is often shattered by the reality that the Supreme Court has recently faced attacks from radical elements within the party that the speaker happens to oppose.

Irons, in his work, demolishes this misconception almost from the very first page. He then proceeds to offer a comprehensive overview of the various ways in which the Supreme Court has been involved in the radical changes that the nation has experienced since its founding.

The book is thick and dense with a wealth of information. Nevertheless, after delving into its pages, the reader emerges with a more well-rounded understanding, not only of the political realities surrounding the Supreme Court but also of the social and ideological shifts that have occurred in the country.

I truly adored this book, especially in light of the recent social and political events. The book concludes with the presidential election of 1992, and in the Epilogue, there are notes regarding the appointments of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. I would be extremely interested to hear Iron's comments on cases such as Salinas v Texas or Obergefell v Hodges.

This 500+ page legal history was truly a long and arduous journey, but it was well worth it. I have learned an enormous amount, and I now feel more than ready to take the LSATs. It was especially thrilling to have completed it on the very day that the Court upheld the Affordable Health Care Act. As you can see from my status updates, that wasn't the outcome I had predicted.

I read this book to complement what I'm learning in paralegal school. With a title like A People’s History of the Supreme Court, I thought it would be more accessible than legal opinions and textbooks. Firstly, the term "People’s history" gave me the impression that it was written for the average person. Secondly, the subtitle, The Men and Women Whose Cases and Decision Shaped Our Constitution, made me believe it would tell the human stories behind the Court. Sometimes, both of these assumptions were proven correct. However, at other times, the book was as dull as any legal opinion or textbook. As another Goodreads reviewer put it, "My law school texts have more pizzazz than this."

Since it was such a laborious read, I started doing status updates to keep myself motivated. I was tracking my progress and milestones. And now that I've reached the end of the book, it seems like a lifetime ago that I was reading the initial chapters about the framing of the Constitution. So, I think the best way for me to review the book is to list all my status updates in chronological order. As you'll see, the book really was a comprehensive review of American history. I highly recommend it, but I suggest watching the PBS documentary on the Supreme Court first. It's a pleasant and easy way to gain some of the background knowledge that this book will expand on in greater detail.

On May 24, I reached page 66 and was learning about the framing of the Constitution. The 3/5 compromise was truly abhorrent. The small Southern states wanted to count slaves towards the population but wouldn't grant them human rights. These were the seeds of the Civil War. And all the arguments! It was almost like today, except that now, nobody seems willing to compromise.

By May 29, I had finally finished the section on the framing of the Constitution and moved on to the Marshall court. I'm very glad I watched the Supreme Court documentary TV series beforehand. I don't think I could have made it through this book without that background knowledge.

On May 30, I completed the case of McColloch v. Maryland, which established the Federal Reserve and asserted the "elastic clause" of the Constitution. Then it was on to Dartmouth v. Woodword.

On May 31, I finished with the Marshall court, and my admiration for it has somewhat diminished. While Marbury and McColloch were great decisions, Marshall often ruled in favor of property rights. As the author pointed out, a man in Marshall's position, who was not afraid to use his power, could have done more to end slavery. He had the opportunity in the "The Antelope" case.

On June 1, I reached the Dred Scott case, which was by far the quickest part of the book to read. Since the author was a civil rights activist, slavery received special attention. I feel so ignorant. I never knew about the Amistad, and now I need to read up on it!

By June 4, the Civil War was over, and Lincoln was dead. I remember seeing the film "The Confederate States of America," which singled out Judah Benjamin for inventing the legal concept that slaves were property, not people. But it turns out this idea is much older than him, and Chief Justice Taney, who wrote the opinion in Dred Scott, seems just as bad, if not worse.

On June 6, I was happy to have passed page 200, but American history just keeps getting worse. It's post-Civil War, and the Klan is terrorizing the South. Cruikshanks, a Klansman, actually got away with murder because of a Supreme Court ruling. Outrageous!

On June 7, I reached Plessy v. Ferguson, but in fact, there were several Civil Rights cases that preceded it. In one case, involving a black woman on a train between states, Justice Harlan wrote that keeping her in a segregated car was an interference with interstate commerce, the same defense that was ultimately used in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It took 100 years! (More comments to come soon.)

Also on June 7, I learned that Justice Harlan wrote the dissent in Plessy, for which he is celebrated in history. However, the author compares him to Lincoln. Both men fought for the legal rights of blacks but still saw them as inferior. Additionally, another discrimination case, Yick Wo. v. Hopkins, should have served as precedent to defeat Plessy, but it's a case that is largely forgotten today.

On June 15, I made it through the tenure of Oliver Wendell Holmes, the justice I was most interested in learning about. Unfortunately, it turns out he had his flaws. I didn't realize that the "falsely yelling fire in a theater" example was his. And the case he applied it to was a protestor of WW I, and it's debatable whether it really applied. I also read about the Schecter brothers' case, involving kosher butchers. Shameful!

On June 17, I finished with the J- Witness cases, which received a fair amount of detail since the author was able to interview Lillian Gobitas, whose refusal to pledge allegiance to the flag became so famous. Ironically, the first J Witness to do that was in Hitler's Germany, and then the people of that religion began doing it as a whole, refusing to pledge allegiance to any national symbol.

On June 18, I read about how the Supreme Court upheld the internment of Japanese Americans in World War II. After all this, I guess I shouldn't be surprised if they strike down the Affordable Health Care Act. After all, this is the age of Citizens United.

On June 21, I read about Thurgood Marshall's pre-Brown strategy, which was to focus on higher education and housing cases first. Now I'm in an interlude about the Red Scare. I can't wait to reach page 400 and celebrate!

On June 21, I said I'd celebrate at page 400, but I'm not quite there yet. Meanwhile, I'm reading about Brown and the school cases that accompanied it. This is the quickest part of the book to read; you can tell that this is the part that the author is really passionate about. Part of their argument was based on self-esteem. They gave black kids brown-skinned and pink-skinned dolls and asked, "Which is the nice one?" Most kids chose white.

On June 24, I read about the large crowds of people, mostly blacks, who attended Chief Justice Earl Warren's funeral in 1974. Brown v. Board of Ed was the best decision the Court ever made. I wonder what they'll do with health care. My hopes aren't very high.

Finally, on June 28, I reached page 460 and read about Justice Harry Blackmun. He is most famous for writing the Roe v. Wade opinion, but I also like what he said on Bakke, a challenge to affirmative action: "In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way. In order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently. We cannot - we dare not - let the 14th Amendment perpetuate racial supremacy."

The review "5/5; fantastic overview, really concise but in-depth history" provides a highly positive assessment.

It indicates that the work under review offers an excellent and comprehensive view. Despite being concise, it manages to present an in-depth exploration of history.

This suggests that the author has done a remarkable job of condensing complex historical information into a manageable and engaging format.

The use of the rating "5/5" further emphasizes the reviewer's high regard for the work.

Overall, this review serves as a strong recommendation for others to explore the reviewed material, as it appears to offer a valuable and unique perspective on history.

Whether one is a history enthusiast or simply looking to expand their knowledge, this work seems to be well worth considering.

It combines the best of both worlds - brevity and depth - making it an accessible and enlightening read.

Because it's mentioned in The Supremes' Greatest Hits, Revised & Updated Edition: The 37 Supreme Court Cases That Most Directly Affect Your Life. However, it's probably not worth bothering with, (for me), as it's not any newer.

Ok, I've carefully looked over a copy and read several pages (specifically in the middle, about cases that interest me). And it has become evident that the reason it doesn't particularly hold my interest is because it focuses more on the people rather than the cases themselves. I might be a bit strange in this regard, but I truly do prefer my lessons to be more 'dry.' I'm more interested in the legal aspects, the details of the cases, and the implications they have, rather than the personal stories and backgrounds of the individuals involved. While those can be interesting in their own right, for me, when it comes to a book about Supreme Court cases, I want the emphasis to be on the cases themselves.

This is an exceptionally comprehensive book that delves into the entire history of the Supreme Court, spanning from 1787 to 2006. Every single Supreme Court Justice is mentioned within its pages. With a total of 531 pages, it is not a book that can be read quickly. However, it is a rather good one. The only issue I had was with the last 130 pages, which dealt with the more recent years of the Court. Having read several books on that period, it was less revealing for me. That being said, the material on the early days of the Republic is truly engaging. In fact, it is quite hilarious.

The Supreme Court under George Washington was situated in New York City and was filled with miscreants. "The men Washington placed on the Court, in contrast [to Franklin Roosevelt], were a thoroughly undistinguished lot. One spent time in debtors’ prisons for defaulting on loans; one returned his commission after five days to serve in state office; one never attended a single Court session; one was impeached for political bias on the bench; one was insane; and another was senile."

Things started to change with John Marshall in 1801. However, Marshall's successor, Justice Taney, is harshly criticized throughout the book as a racist. (Marshall, too, regarded black people as slaves, property.) Grappling with the early history of the Court regarding race is both fascinating and depressing, especially when Irons examines the Dred Scott decision in great detail. Taney wrote the opinion, and Irons asserts that "it is fitting to speak ill of the dead when they committed acts of infamy." His disdain for Taney is palpable. I cannot think of an author who has criticized a dead, historical figure with more vehemence. Perhaps ultimately, this is to show that contemporary infamous Justices are quite different from that, and it demonstrates how, despite our seemingly insoluble divisions, we have made significant progress. Later, when discussing Plessy v. Ferguson and Justice Harlan (the first one - his grandson would later hold the same position), comparisons are made. Although unlike Taney, Harlan was not a racist, like Marshall, he was a man of his time. His famous phrase "our Constitution is color-blind" is often emphasized, but some of the other language in his opinion has been conveniently overlooked by the masses.

This is an excellent book for incoming law students, and it is both entertaining and informative. I have not read "People's History of the United States," but I attempted to do so a couple of years after reading this one. While that book focuses solely on the have-nots, this one views the Court through the lens of historical injustice. This book endeavors to cover absolutely everything, and it does a fairly good job at that. However, it may be a bit overwhelming for anyone without a great deal of time on their hands or anyone who is not studying law.

http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2013...