A People's History of the Supreme Court

Peter Irons is an ardent patriot. He believes passionately in the founding promises of America as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights: "all men are created equal" - "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" for all people - "justice for all" - "promote the General welfare" - "no law respecting an establishment of religion....or abridging the freedom of speech." With these ideals always in mind, Irons is not hesitant about passing judgement on America and the Americans, in this book on the Supreme Court, when actions are committed or decisions made which fail to fulfill these promises. In other words, Irons is not an impartial, neutral historian. If the reader has dissimilar understandings of the founding promises, she or he may react hostilely to A People's History of the Supreme Court. But that reader especially should make the effort to suspend judgement and read on. This is a very fine book even if you disagree with it. Irons knows his judicial history well, and he explains the issues of important Supreme Court decisions with amazing clarity. He also treats the key personalities of Supreme Court history with respect, recognizing the greatness even of Justices whose opinions had unfortunate consequences. The only justices he scorns are those who made no contribution. The first seven chapters of the book describe the battles and compromises that went into the writing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and thereafter into the establishment of the first Supreme Court. We hear a lot about the "intentions" of the founding fathers these days; Irons analyzes what we can and can't be sure of, concerning those intentions, with masterful support from the available sources. He establishes very convincingly that from the start America has been polarized over the intertwined issues of racism and the proper balance of federal authority versus states' rights. Irons clearly defends his interpretation of the Constitution as a document establishing federal authority, but yielding fatal compromises with the usually less-than-admirable demands of states with peculiar institutions. Slavery is of course the biggest and most fatal such compromise, the one that most threatened to destroy the efforts of the Constitution-writers, and the one that the Supreme Court failed to resolve in keeping with the founding promises for the longest time - not making much progress until the Warren Court. Irons plainly believes that "states' rights" has most frequently been a pretext for reneging on those founding promises of justice and equality. He makes a very good case throughout the book that the federal government has frequently operated just as Madison hoped in his Federalist essays, eventually though painfully imposing justice for all when one or several states denied justice to some. The implication is that the federal government, with its awkward checks and balances, is indeed the guardian of the Co

As a retired Judicial Officer I was very pleased with the presentation by Professor Irons. The book is written in a manner that regardless of your understanding of the law and Supreme Court decisions it will hold your interest. Since that reading I have bought his other books and even a course of his on DVD through The Teaching Company. We are not only presented with crucial decisions but the reasons, good or bad, for that conclusion. This occurs with the additional reward of what social and poltical forces help shape these decisions. The book is easily readible and extremely informative. I suggest this for those interested in quality writing, history, sociology and the law.. I wish this was required reading for all high school students.......

This book is not nearly as poignant as its inspiration, Zinn's A People's History of the United States. While Zinn's title will anger friends of the corporate world, millionaires, and the hopelessly-stuck-in-the-middle-class individuals who amazingly follow them, Iron's book is more objective.The major strengths of the book are: the short biographies and stories of the people involved in the cases and the justices (how many people actually know who Plessy was?); a professional and informative, but not academic, writing style that will not alienate 99% of the public (hint: if you see a history book written by a professor, put it down and look for another - they write for other professors and themselves, not to add anything significant to the field of history); and the introduction detailing how the Constitution was created -- quite possibly the best telling of the story I have ever read.Overall, a very good book and an ideal introduction to a history of the Supreme Court.

Peter Iron's book, A People's History of the Supreme Court, was a joy to read through all the many hours I was engrossed in this immense book. He puts his ideological cards on the table in the introduction and then, if you have any spark of liberal spirit inside you, you go along for the ride as Irons takes the reader through over two hundred years of siginificant cases of the Supreme Court. The great pleasure of this book is that it also allows the reader to see the personalities of both the court and the petitioners before the court. Dred Scott becomes more than the name of the decision. It is fascinating, too, how politics and legal decisions are weaved together in this epic book as they are in the actual decisions themselves. It was a wonderful book that demonstrated that the Constitution is for the people and the story of the Constitution is the story of the people.

While Irons' book may not hit every key case we're taught to revere in ConLaw, he puts together an interesting and readable history of the Court that helps put faces with the names we've been hearing since high school history class. While he's political in his writing, Irons also acknowledges the political nature of the Court and presents the facts in as unbiased a manner as anyone else might. His presentations of each justice are especially interesting, particularly the way he examines Earl Warren thundering at lawyers arguing that the governor of Arkansas could dissent from a Court ruling, William Brennan's long career of upholding human rights, and the way he reveals Chief Justice Rehnquist's shameful lack of respect for human dignity. Should be a must-read this election season and beyond.