The Majesty of the Law: Reflections of a Supreme Court Justice

I love Sandra Day. I love the simple language and easy way she eases the non-lawyer into her love of the Constitution and the beauty of the structure of our law. I love her voice. She does a wonderful job of narrating her own book. She's relaxing to listen to and she presents the material as if she were reading to a group of elementary school students. Oddly, this doesn't feel at all condescending. In fact, she presents her material and her remarkably high position with shock and awe and such humility that doesn't seem to be talking down to anyone. She simply shares with the listener her love of the law and her admiration for the Constitution and the great Justices that came before her and those that she worked with. This is wonderful book for a non-lawyer.

Justice O'Connor is a class act...PERIOD. Although the few reviews posted are generally positive, the posting by "A READER," clearly was written by an individual with a total lack of understanding of the law in general, the courts, and of the barriers women have overcome to reach higher positions in the legal field. Justice O'Connor is a woman among women; a great legal mind, a fine jurist, a great mom and grandmother, and a devoted wife. This book is a treasure trove of information for those who love the law and its rich history in the United States.

If I ever teach an introductory-level course on the American judicial system, I plan to assign this book as required reading. For one thing, it was written by one of the foremost jurists of our time -- a true insider, who is intimately familiar with the inner workings of the US Supreme Court -- and someone who is respected and admired by conservatives and liberals alike for her moderate, pragmatic, non-ideological approach to the law. But the main reason I would recommend this book for students of the American legal system is that it is well written, easy to understand, highly informative, and filled with insights that are not found in most legal texts. It's a short, highly readable book; divided into short, easy-to-digest chapters (many of which are reprints of papers that O'Connor had written for various law journals). The book begins with an inside look at how the Supreme Court operates. It then turns to an examination of the history of American law. Then it profiles some of the most important Supreme Court Justices of the past (including a few of O'Connor's former colleagues on the Court). After that, it looks at the history of women and the law in the United States (including an excellent overview of the women's suffrage movement, and an examination of the history of women in the legal profession). Then it turns to an overview of the structure of the US court system, an examination of the legal profession in the United States, and some suggestions for how our legal system can be improved. The book concludes with a defense of the core principles of constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the role of the courts in safeguarding our civil liberties. This is a must read for anyone interested in American jurisprudence.

Indeed that there are very few books like this one for which you feel that every minute you spend reading is well spent. She writes in plain and simple English and every sentence has content, logic and weight. She also writes in a tight and balanced structure, so you can always unfailingly find each of her opinion illustrated and evidenced fully and succinctly. Therefore, even just by the writing style, it is an enjoyable book. Much more than that, it is an inspiring book for anyone interested in the impact of institutions, because it points out many interesting aspects about the government institution that worth attention and deliberation. Just to give an example, she notes in her book that many countries have something similar to Constitution or Bill of Rights that intends to uphold liberty and democracy, but many fail to enforce it nearly as well as United States, a country that enshrines "the right of its unelected Supreme Court to use the Bill of Rights to declare illegal the actions of the democratically elected legislature or executive". The book does not attempt to give a theory about how institutions influence development or how institutions itself evolve, but it shows that these are very interesting and potentially very important questions to answer. For someone out of the legal profession, this book also provides the very necessary basic knowledge in balanced width and depth. (However, I can understand if a person well acquainted with law may find it too elementary.)

As other reviewers have noted, this book is not an in-depth analysis of legal issues. Rather it's an attempt to provide an informal, backstage glimpse into life on the Supreme Court from the perspective of the first woman justice. Some of her points will loom large with women who, like me, were "firsts" on a much smaller scale. For instance, she notes the significance of changing the nameplates from "Mr. Justice..." to simply "Justice..." As we might expect from a down-home woman who was brought up riding horses in Arizona, O'Connor remains modest and matter-of-fact. She recognizes her role and the respect she deserves. She describes the difficulties of women in the law, frankly and without self-pity, and acknowledges the preference for sharing experiences with other women in law. And her behind-the-scenes glimpses reflect her perspective as a woman who cares about people as well as principles. She shares wonderful anecdotes about Thurgood Marshall. And she says absolutely nothing about Clarence Thomas, even when discussing the process of confirmation to the Court. In my favorite chapter, Justice O'Connor raises strong, provocative questions about jury duty. Established 900 years ago, she says, the concept remains sound but the implementation is due for an overhaul. Why shouldn't jurors take notes? Why should they be subjected to long waits in uncomfortable rooms? And jurors surely deserve better compensation, she says. O'Connor compares US juries with those of other English-speaking countries -- England, Canada, and Australia. She notes that other countries do not send civil cases to juries as frequently, so jurors do not have to sit through days and weeks of complex testimony that leaves them so bewildered they may as well flip a coin. (Actually a coin flip would be fairer than trying to sort through half-remembered facts!) And lawyers spend so much time psyching out jurors they want to challenge that jury selection can take weeks. In Europe, says O'Connor, juries are selected in minutes! If anything, Justice O'Connor doesn't go far enough. Paying for jury service won't help a self-employed or sales person who could lose an account worth thousands of dollars. And jurors often experience serious emotional symptoms following a difficult case. However, it is refreshing to hear such honesty from a distinguished member of the legal profession. O'Connor even recalls the New Yorker cartoon where a jury foreman tells the judge, "We find the defendant guilty and sentence him to jury duty." So true! I'm told that some juries begin to identify with criminal defendants -- they're treated in more or less the same way! If you know someone who's called for jury duty, buy him or her this book -- good reading for the interminable, senseless waiting time.