The Supreme Court is a crucial institution in the United States legal system, and its cases have had a profound impact on the nation's history and development.

Landmark decisions by the Supreme Court have shaped various aspects of American life, from civil rights to business regulations. These decisions are often the result of the careful consideration and analysis of the justices, who are influenced by a variety of legal, political, and social factors.

Behind these landmark decisions are some of the most brilliant legal minds in American history. Thinkers such as Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Louis Brandeis, and Thurgood Marshall have made significant contributions to the development of American law and have left a lasting legacy.

A decent overview of Supreme Court cases and the thinkers behind landmark decisions can provide valuable insights into the evolution of American law and the role of the Supreme Court in shaping the nation. By studying these cases and the ideas of the justices who decided them, we can better understand the complex legal and social issues that face our country today.

Not bad.

Irons is interesting, and he provides a wealth of great vignettes of the cases and, in particular, the people who make up our Constitutional law. His legal knowledge and qualifications are undeniable.

However, he is not a historian, and his bias, similar to that of his mentor Howard Zinn, is blatant and overt. His heroes, especially Earl Warren, are presented in a glorified light, having a significant impact on changing the country for the better and being mourned and beloved upon their deaths. Meanwhile, his villains are often relegated to mediocrity or simply dismissed with a phrase like "He was rated a 'failure' by modern scholars."

Although my own views may align with his more often than not, he approaches history as a means to serve his own purposes and as a way to prove the virtue of his teleological perspective. History should be dealt with on its own terms. Certainly, we all read our own values back into the past to color the choices made by its participants, but historians strive to minimize this as anachronistic.

Kudos to Irons for taking on this task, for being an engaging read, and for providing one of the very few comprehensive histories available. Nevertheless, I truly wish he had made a greater effort to remove his own biases and perspectives from it.

This magnificent book documents the history of the Supreme Court and constitutional law.

Starting with the writing of the Constitution itself, Irons documents the founders' efforts to create “a more perfect Union,” after the Articles of Confederation failed to serve the country.

After the creation of the Constitution, A People’s History of Supreme Court begins in earnest the history of the Court. The book covers both notable rulings and important leaders.

People such as John Marshall, Dred Scott, Homer Plessy, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., and Warren Berger provide a human view into our Constitution, both in how it is interpreted and how it is viewed.

Peter Irons’ book masterfully shares the Supreme Court’s history, while also providing a view into the people it has influenced.

This comprehensive work not only delves into the legal aspects but also explores the social and political context in which the Supreme Court has operated over the years.

It offers readers a deeper understanding of how the Constitution has evolved and how the Supreme Court has played a crucial role in shaping the nation.

Whether you are a legal scholar, a history enthusiast, or simply someone interested in learning more about the United States, this book is a must-read.

It provides a fascinating and engaging account of the Supreme Court's history that will leave you with a newfound appreciation for the institution and its significance.

A brilliant book indeed!

It stands out not because it necessarily uncovers something that isn't already present in other works about Supreme Court cases. Instead, it has the remarkable quality of gathering a diverse range of cases. It includes both well-known and highly significant Supreme Court cases, along with a number of lesser-known ones that are equally important.

The author takes a deep and searching look at the circumstances of those involved in the litigation, as well as those who were part of the decision-making process. The book actually delves into the details of how the Justices arrived at their decisions. It does this by analyzing precedent, looking at how language was used in certain opinions to either follow or skirt precedent.

In addition, Irons offers fascinating insights into the lives of the parties involved in the cases and also into the lives of the Justices themselves. This goes beyond the typical historical snippets that one usually encounters. It's truly a great book, and one that I really wish I had read either before or during my Constitutional Law studies in law school.

It would have provided me with a much deeper understanding and a more comprehensive perspective on the complex world of Supreme Court cases and the individuals who shape them.

This book very self-consciously imitates Howard Zinn. In fact, Zinn even writes the foreword for it.

However, it is not as much of a leftist reinterpretation of Supreme Court history as it might initially seem.

While it does attempt some fundamental reimagining, it also includes elements of a comprehensive history.

This odd mix makes it a bit of a confusing read.

If you're looking for a straightforward understanding of Supreme Court history, you'd be better off reading a more traditional account.

This book's combination of radical rethinking and detailed historical narrative may not appeal to everyone.

It's an interesting experiment, but perhaps not the best choice for those seeking a clear and concise overview of the subject.

Overall, it's a book that will likely generate discussion and debate, but its value as a historical resource remains somewhat questionable.

Sometimes, this book gets bogged down in details. After all, it is a people's history, which implies that the book encompasses a background on all the players involved in cases that the author regards as landmark cases.

This aspect can make the reading a bit cumbersome at times. However, I really appreciate how the book concludes with the understanding that the court is not governed by some lofty principles but rather by what the supreme court justices themselves believe, namely power.

It is a fascinating revelation that adds depth to our understanding of the judicial system. Nevertheless, I wish the book had delved further into how the Supreme Court reflects the conflicts that are ongoing within the US ruling class.

This would have provided a more comprehensive and nuanced view of the role and significance of the Supreme Court in American society.

Overall, despite its flaws, the book offers valuable insights into the history and workings of the American judicial system.

Where's my participation ribbon for finishing this?

The forward by Howard Zinn foreshadows a truly gripping and dramatic read. Do not be misled, for heavy, clerical reading lies ahead.

Peter Irons makes it abundantly clear from the outset that he firmly believes the Constitution is a breathing document that should adapt to social change.

The book shines brightest when Irons takes a moment to deeply reflect on the structural inequalities that Supreme Court justices have unfortunately perpetuated.

He adopts a "no excuses" mentality towards notable figures like Chief Justice John Marshall, boldly calling them out for their neutrality in civil rights cases that had extremely damaging consequences for marginalized communities.

Admittedly, some chapters were rather dry, such as those dealing with contract cases, estate, and property law cases. However, his sociological perspective on precedent, judicial nominations, and the country's ever-changing political landscape more than compensated, making the book well worth the read.

It offers valuable insights into the complex and often controversial world of the Supreme Court and its impact on American society.

The book concludes with the determination in Casey v. Planned Parenthood and the election of '92.

To summarize - the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has predominantly been a reactionary element in American existence, with the exception of a few dissenting opinions, certain rulings during FDR's presidency, and the Warren Court.

Essentially, any decision that conferred rights to individuals who were not white, wealthy, straight males emerged from the Warren Court. With the exception of Roe v. Wade, which was largely formulated to safeguard doctors who carry out abortions.

After that, the years of backlash ensued. The book finishes with Justice Blackmun expressing apprehension for the future.

The subsequent years under the Rehnquist and Roberts Courts demonstrate that his concerns were, for the most part, justified.

This book offers a comprehensive overview of the history of the Supreme Court and the significant decisions it has rendered throughout history.

Initially, I had a great liking for the book and was truly intrigued by its premise. It seemed to promise a fascinating exploration of the court's evolution and its impact on society.

However, as I delved deeper into the text, I began to feel frustrated. The author repeatedly emphasized how everyone, including Lincoln, was a racist. While it is important to recognize and understand the historical context of past attitudes and beliefs, I don't believe it is either constructive or insightful to judge 19th-century people by 21st-century values.

Instead, I would prefer to take a more empathetic approach and try to understand the factors that influenced their thinking. By doing so, I can gain valuable lessons that I can apply to my own time and values.

Unfortunately, I couldn't bring myself to finish this book because I grew tired of the author's one-sided and overly critical perspective. It felt as though the author was more interested in making a political statement than in presenting a balanced and objective account of history.

In conclusion, while the book had some interesting aspects, its constant focus on labeling everyone as a racist detracted from its overall value. I would recommend that readers approach this book with a critical eye and look for other sources that offer a more nuanced and comprehensive view of the Supreme Court's history.

This book offers a highly detailed and information-rich history of the Court. It is filled with the minutiae of the Justices' backgrounds and the cases under consideration.

The title, "The People's History of the Supreme Court," clearly indicates the author's perspective on the Court's operations. Its foreword is penned by the author's mentor, Howard Zinn, leaving no doubt about his approach.

Irons contends that the Court's mission has always been to safeguard "liberty and justice for all," albeit it has frequently fallen short. Similar to Zinn's "People's History of the U.S.," the emphasis here is on the fates of slaves, workers, women, and others.

However, I'm skeptical of Irons' belief that the Court in the early days of the republic would have done anything other than defend property rights, given that this was a crucial issue, if not the key one, of the American Revolution.

It slightly irked me that he framed his objections to the Marshall Court in terms of its interference in state affairs, yet this didn't seem to be a concern for him when the Warren Court was overturning state Jim Crow laws.

My most significant gripe, though, was the presence of numerous historical errors in the book. For instance, Marshall's tenure ended in 1835, not 1833. The "Jay Treaty of 1783" is incorrectly labeled as the Treaty of Paris. The Battle of Antietam was a Union victory, which led to the Emancipation Proclamation. The Sunday School bombing in Birmingham occurred in 1963, not 1964. And the Federalists did not simply transform into the Whigs or the Republicans.

There were other errors too, causing me to question the accuracy of all the facts regarding the court cases. Nevertheless, I suppose the overarching message of the book is that the Supreme Court, which was intended to be "above" politics, has always been a political entity, mirroring the views of its members and popular opinion on contemporary issues.

It was a long and complicated read.

Right from the very beginning, I was shocked to discover that the author had been in jail for resisting the draft.

The book contained several remarkable passages. Firstly, George Mason had foretold the Civil War due to the compromises made regarding slavery at the nation's founding (Irons, 33). Secondly, John Marshal had chosen liberty over property in the XYZ Affair (Irons, 140). Thirdly, it appears that there was an anti-vaxxer sentiment even at the start of the 20th century (Irons, 270). Fourthly, during the Great Depression, almost one-third of all Americans were unemployed (Irons, 294). Fifthly, in Brown, Earl Warren stated that, "To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone.... A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. (Irons 398)." Finally, Thurgood Marshall wrote, "The position of the Negro today in America is the tragic but inevitable consequence of centuries of unequal treatment. Measured by any benchmark of comfort or achievement, meaningful equality remains a distant dream for the Negro. (Irons 456)"

This book offers a comprehensive and thought-provoking look at various aspects of American history, highlighting important events, ideas, and the struggles for equality and justice. It makes one reflect on the past and consider the implications for the present and future.

The author admits to being a progressive Liberal, while I am a Constitutionalist.

That being said, I still enjoyed the book. As a young Police Officer 40 years ago, I held the Supreme Court in high esteem and read every criminal decision, believing that they had the best interest of the country in mind. However, I later realized that they are a political organization, just like the rest of the so-called "SWAMP".

PS. The Miranda decision was a poorly reasoned one that protected the guilty at the expense of the victim. It failed to properly balance the rights of the accused with the rights of the victim and the need for justice. This decision has had far-reaching consequences and has been a topic of much debate ever since.

Overall, while I may have different political views than the author, I can still appreciate the value of the book and the insights it provides into the criminal justice system and the role of the Supreme Court.