5 comments about Indefensible: One Lawyer's Journey into the Inferno of American Justice.

1. I'm an incoming law student this fall and I bought this book because I'm considering working as a public defender after law school. The book itself didn't disappoint. It was written well and really made me feel what it might be like to endure the daily struggle of too many desperate clients and not enough time to adequately represent them. I was very shocked at how much time the criminal judicial system wastes through a variety of substandard mechanisms... Mr. Feige did a remarkable job of explaining it all.
   
   However, after finishing the book... I can't help but feel a little sad. As an ex elementary school teacher, I almost feel as if taking a job as PD would be similar (a job that is very demanding and rough for very little pay). The work of a public defender seems so noble and so important, yet after reading Feige's book... I have to say that I'm actually not inspired to do the work. I'm instead inspired to seek out to practice law in a different setting.
   
   I think I'll certainly use one of my law school summers to intern for a PD office, as I know that I can't possibly understand what the job is like until getting as close to working it as is possible.
   
   But man, is the system messed up. It's frightening. Thanks, Mr. Feige, for giving me a little insight into the world of big city indigent defense.
   
   I recommend this book for anyone thinking of pursuing similar work in the legal profession or for anyone wishing to know just how much time, money, effort, and agony is wasted daily in the process which is our criminal court system.



2. First, the book is terrific and it has been exceptionally well reviewed. The reviews focus on the legitimate and obvious reasons for which the book is great. Specifically, it is well written, riveting, thought provoking, and wildly entertaining--regardless of your predetermined views of the justice system. I agree with all of those reviews and will not repeat them here.
   
   For me, the book has made a lasting impression and it is on my required reading list for all lawyers or aspiring lawyers because it forces the reading lawyer to ask the fundamental question of "what type of lawyer do I want to be?" Most lawyers and law students confuse this question with "how much money/prestige can I accumulate over a legal career?" The book helps the reader answer this question in a profound way. For that reason alone, it is worth reading. For all the other reasons and reviews it is MUST reading.
   
   Keith J. Bruno



3. I pre-ordered this book right before I took the bar exam, but didn't get around to reading it until I visited my parents' house almost a year later. In the meantime I'd passed the bar, been sworn in as a lawyer, and spent nine months as an ADA in the Big City (not the same Big City where Feige practiced, but not much changes in the grimy world of high-volume, high-stress courthouses). I found this book when I came back home for vacation, and just finished reading it last week.
   
   I'm glad I accidentally waited so long before reading it. I think a book like this looks different from the inside than the outside. It has different benefits: rather than giving you a glimpse inside a new world, it makes you look at familiar surroundings from a new perspective. In a career where every professional relationship is adversarial and the other side is often met with suspicion (and often with good reason), it's invaluable to get an honest view of what the other side is thinking. Feige's book is an excellent reminder of the fact that we're still all human in a sometimes inhumane system, and of how it is possible for good and worthy people to stand on both sides of the courtroom. I realize that sounds incredibly basic, but it's so easy to forget in the battlefield. The book provides some reassurance that I'm not failing in my job when I cut defendants breaks, or withdraw charges when justice doesn't line up with the letter of the law. And it reminds me to be decent to the defenders who are decent in turn, because the good ones are horribly overworked and underappreciated in what they do. I'm grateful to be reminded of those things. I needed it.
   
   Of course the book has its flaws; all books do. Nothing is said about extremely pro-defense judges who are as unfeeling toward victims and their families as Feige's pro-prosecution judges are toward defendants. Nothing is said about good cops, or humane court staff, and almost nothing about inept or indifferent public defenders, or the crimes of which their clients are guilty (as, indeed, most are). But the book isn't intended as an even-handed, clear-eyed evaluation of the system; it's a heartfelt and impassioned piece of advocacy for one particular point of view.
   
   So, again, I'm grateful to Feige for writing this book. It's well worth reading. Rarely does this particular corner of the legal profession have such a skilled and passionate advocate.



4. If you're teaching a class in law, this is an excellent introduction to the legal system...I had to discipline myself from reading it too fast...



5. I am not fond of criminals. Nor can my politics be considered left-wing. However, I do believe in the Constitutional right to due process and David Feige's "Indefensible" shows how Americans are routinely denied this right without a whimper from the elitist liberals and their mainstream press pals. Steve Bogira tried showing the nature of the criminal justice system in his "Courtroom 302" (Courtroom 302: A Year Behind the Scenes in an American Criminal Courthouse, but that came out sounding like a left-wing whine blaming everyone except the lawbreaker.
   
   Feige was a public defender in New York for more than 15 years. He tells the story of those years with a touch of humor, an understated admission of the psychic pain he suffered as the system ground down defendants, their families and their lawyers, while elevating and protecting incompetent (if not corrupt) judges, prosecutors and police. His story has the ring of truth. He talks about innocent people railroaded into pleading guilty just to escape the system. Of evil judges who gave no second thought to wrecking families and lives. (He names names.) He doesn't resort to the usual left-wing nostrums of blaming society, demanding more money to perpeptuate dependent welfare or any of that.
   
   By simply stating the facts from his perspective, Feige makes a strong argument for thorough reform of the criminal justice system. Right now the system isn't concerned with justice, but simply keeping itself going. As I said, I have no sympathy for actual criminals and it irritated me a bit to read of Feige negotiating down sentences of robbers and murderers. My attitude toward them is more like lock them up and throw away the key. But Feige reminds us that every criminal defendant has unalienable Constitutional rights - and that these rights are being violated day in and day out in New York's criminal courts. (Bogira attempted to make the same point about Chicago.) More than likely the same can be said for any criminal court system in America. The system is dysfunctional and doesn't work. So plea bargains are the currency of the day. Society suffers because bad people come back to the streets to soon. But innocent people suffer too, denied a trial, forced into pleas that may harm them or even ruin their lives.
   
   It's a lousy system, far from the promises of the Constitution, and one that must be reformed on every level. Feige makes his points without beating the reader's head against the wall and he makes them effectively. He doesn't make any left-wing, criminal-coddling arguments: he doesen't have to. His experiences as a public defender, representing the truly guilty, the innocent and just those whom life dealt a bad hand to are all that's needed to waken your conscience to the miscarriage of justice we call our criminal justice system.
   
   Jerry

2 comments about Fight Back and Win CD: My Thirty-year Fight Against Injustice--and How You Can Win Your Own Battles.

1. 
   Gloria is an inspiration she sets forth Morality, Equality, Human Rights and makes you want to stand up and FIGHT for your rights! Dont Back Down!! Let Life's lessons guide you to others awareness and resolutions!



2. I bought this book for my sister. She has five kids ( all boys) and is a elementry school teacher, so she does not have much time to read adult books. Having the book on CD let her realx and enjoy her time in the car after and before picking up the kids. She said it was very good book and was amazed at all the things Gloria Allred has over come. If I had bought her the hardcover I don't think she would have been able to enjoy the book as much as she did.

No comments about Happy Hour Is for Amateurs: A Lost Decade in the World's Worst Profession.

5 comments about Family Circle: The Boudins and the Aristocracy of the Left.

1. This fascinating book will make uncomfortable reading for committed progressives, so I am not surprised by the many negative reviews. Progressives no doubt also loathe David Horowitz's book RADICAL SON, which was a thoughtful description of the underside of the idealistic 1960s and its aftermath. FAMILY CIRCLE covers similar material and provides much food for thought.
   
   What both books make clear is that it was not a coincidence that idealistic progressives with a particular group of personal qualities and beliefs morphed into violent domestic terrorists, despite their early idealism and desire to help make a better world.
   
   The key elements seem to be:
   
   (1) Legitimate, but blown out of proportion, social grievance
   
   The terrorists who formed the Weathermen Underground: Boudin, Dohrn and Ayers and their comrades were initially motivated by legitimate issues. Their original issue was the shameful treatment of black Americans by the white American majority, and subsequently their other major focus was their opposition to the Vietnam War.
   
   But what was the connection between the awareness of legitimate social issues and the decision to kill other human beings? The link is by no means obvious, and few individuals who shared similar outrage over the same injustices took the step of turning to violence.
   
   (2) Family values that justify treason or violent revolt
   
   One of the best predicters of an individual's political party affiliation is the political affiliation of their parents. This is a somewhat humiliating confirmation of Schopenhauer's contemptuous (but overly sweeping) dismissal of the idea of free will, and it turns out to be particularly important when the political behaviour involved is extreme. When an individual decides to set out to kill people and become an enemy to one's society and government, it apparently helps to have deep, subconscious confidence in the support of loved ones for those violent acts.
   
   Kathy Boudin's parents (like David Horowitz's parents) were Communists and her father Leonard was a famous radical lawyer who defended many Communists and traitors who have subsequently, since the opening of KGB files after the fall of the USSR, been proven to have been guilty--a fact that Leonard, who was hostile to his adopted USA, probably knew when he was defending them. Tragically, Leonard Boudin went from defending Fidel Castro in the late 1950s to unsuccessfully defending his daughter Kathy in the early 1980s from charges that arose out of her participation in the violent robbery of a Brinks truck and the murders of a Brinks guard and two policemen.
   
   So just as Microsoft founder Bill Gates' father was a prominent and wealthy Seattle lawyer, it seems that that treason and terrorism often reach full flower in the nurtured next generation.
   
   But what were the values that these families specifically inculcated in their children?
   
   (3) Heroic immortality and hedonism
   
   Boudin's father was a materialist and a Communist who was flagrantly sexually omnivorious--behaviour that was well known to his family.
   
   The great advantage of being a materialist with no belief in the after life like Boudin and her father is that one doesn't have any eternal punishment to endure for one's earthly actions. In fact, it is a very liberating philosophy.
   
   In fact, weirdly, this is creates a direct connection between the Weather Underground and today's Islamic terrorists--the mullahs and extremist Islamic theologians goading young men and women to their deaths are pushing the functional equivalent of materialism and atheism. Ironically, there is little functional difference between killing policemen in Nyack, New York because you think that after death there is nothing at all, and blowing yourself up in an Israeli shopping mall because you think you'll spend eternity having sex with virgins.
   
   The multi-partner sex that was practiced as part of their political indoctrination by the Weathermen Underground had the same function as the mullahs' loopy lure to suicide bombing.
   
   Both sets of political killers expected to be remembered for their heroic acts of violence, and to either experience extinguished consciousness after years of hedonistic sex, or to be about to embark on an eternity of hedonistic sex. A truly wierd confluence of the motivations of Western domestic terrorists and Islamic terrorists.
   
   Of course, if Islamic terrorists and materialist Western traitors and terrorists are attracted to sexual hedonism with no fear of any consequences, so are many if not most ordinary people who don't go on to kill innocent strangers. What is the final link?
   
   (4) Grandiosity and psychopathic narcissism
   
   Why was Kathy Boudin a convicted killer and pleasure-seeking Mick Jagger not a killer? (Boudin denies any active role in the murders, but other witnesses claim that she played the key role of persuading the police officers to put down their weapons just before the Black Panthers attacked with automatic weapons blazing).
   
   The answer is contained in a statement that Kathy Boudin made during her ultimately successful quest for parole after 20 years' imprisonment, which was not included in FAMILY CIRCLE but is still available on the Web. She wrote,
   
   "Sitting with young women dying of AIDS, creating a quilt for those in our community who are no longer with us, I face the deaths for which I am responsible. As I work with mothers on rebuilding their relationships with the children they left, I am overwhelmed by my own responsibility for leaving a group of children with no hope of ever seeing their own fathers again. Now I can ask: what if it were my father, my husband, or my son who had been killed or hurt? What would I feel? I understand the rage that the victims' families may feel towards me. "
   
   Terrorists have no regard for the feelings and sufferings of the human beings they are about to maim or kill, or for the grief of the loved ones of their victims. This is a key component of the psychological make-up of psychopaths--an inability to emphathise with other human beings, or an evil pleasure from inflicting pain. Most terrorists probably do not derive pleasure from inflicting pain--although their controllers and motivators may well be psychopaths in this sense--but they are so narcissistic that the are indifferent to the pain inflicted on others by their murderous actions.
   
   An ordinary human being may be narcissistic, but only a criminal or a terrorist is psychopathically narcissistic to the point that they are indifferent to the suffering of the people whom they kidnap, maim or kill. This is the realisation that Kathy Boudin has apparently come to through her years in prison.
   
   Bound up with this psychopathic narcissisim is grandiosity. This is a belief that one is so special, so gifted, such a distinguished and great person that one can affect the course of history by one's daring actions--even though those actions are condemned by one's government and society. It is interesting that Boudin pursued increasingly extreme measures precisely when it became objectively obvious that her interpretation of history was absolutely incorrect--or at least it was obvious that almost all support for her interpretation had vanished.
   
   Boudin had started out in the protest movements of the 1960s, and she lived underground during the 70s as the US made steady progress on civil rights and the Vietnam War ended. It became clear that whatever public support for the violent Left had evaporated, and Weathermen founders Dohrn and Ayers had even turned themselves in to the authorities and escaped punishment. But Boudin persevered through the early 80s, getting mixed up with Black Panthers who were little more than pimps and drug dealers, and it was a pure criminal act that Boudin was involved in when she abetted the violent robbery of the Brinks truck and the murders of the two policemen.
   
   Grandiosity was an element in the mental outlook of Boudin--she was so sure of her greatness, or at least the greatness of her cause, that she couldn't accept the plain evidence of reality all around her.
   
   Taken together, FAMILY CIRCLE and RADICAL SON reveal very interesting truths about the ultimately tragic vision of the most extreme wing of the idealistic Left, despite the originally good intentions and the many sacrifices of some its most committed practitioners.



2. I enjoyed this study of the colorful, unconventional Boudin family. I agree with other readers that there was too much space given to the father, Leonard Boudin, an intense, civil rights attorney, who specialized in representing the radical left. So it's not surprising that his daughter, Kathy Boudin, became a radical protestor of the Vietnam War and a loud, snarling member of the Weather Underground. While other members of this pathetic group finally threw in the towel and turned themselves into the law after careers as bombers, killers and trouble-makers, Kathy Boudin stuck it out. You read in horrified fascination how she became a key member of the killers who murdered two police officers in a foiled Brinks truck armed robbery. Even behind bars for 21 years, she played the role of wronged martyr. I remember during the sixties, when the Weather Underground was at its peak of fury. My college roommate dubbed them, The Marx Brothers of Terrorism. He hit the nail on the head. No one knew really what these rich, wealthy white kids were protesting. None had ever worked anywhere in their lives. Even when they supposedly went underground, their wealthy parents and friends supported them and gave them safe houses. Yet, you caught occasional glimpses of them on television as they shrieked and cursed and acted like lunatics. In their own pathetic little reality, they dramatized themselves as great revolutionaries who would foment a nation wide revolution to destroy America's values. No one knew what they wanted to replace them with.



3. I enjoyed reading this book very much, and recommend it to all readers. It was a fascinating look at Kathy Boudin and those radical student leftists known as the Weather Underground who declared war on America in protest to the Vietnam War.

   Kathy Boudin's treachery resulted in the killing of two policemen, for which she served 22 years in prison. That may not matter to the leftist readers who have given this finely written book low ratings. Ignore their hateful rantings, and judge for yourself how a bright young woman of privledge could make such a bad choice to pursue terrorist goals.

   Kathy left her baby with a sitter to drive a getaway van full of Black Panthers who robbed a Brink's armored truck, and actually expected to return on time to pick up her child! Instead, she was captured after the two policemen were killed, and her child was abandoned.

   The picture on p. 353 of one of the Weathermen stomping on an American flag gives the reader an indication that these radical leftists have no remorse for their past behavior.

   There is ample material on the internet concerning how leftists were able to get Kathy released on parole in 2003. Her victims left behind families that will never forget her treachery.




4. This book has all the flaws of a poorly written biography - unsubstantiated claims to understanding characters' thoughts and motivations, lots of irrelevant details, broad generalizations, inferences treated as facts, and amateur-psychologist diagnoses. Perhaps with serious editing, this could be a decent book. As it is, learning about the people and the times keeps me going, though my annoyance at the author's careless approach to a serious story makes me want to stop. I am not surprised Kathy Boudin did not cooperate.



5. This story of a leftist/progressive family and their radical daughter is a microcosm of the intertwining social and political trends that helped shape the 60s. Nice insights into family dynamics and generational friction, the search for "authenticity" (black panthers, bomb-making) by white, middle class kids, and a glimpse of what life was like among the radical fringe. For a West Coast take on the same period, look at Peter Coyote's "Sleeping Where I fall." Both explore the confluence of the personal and the political in a volatile era.

2 comments about Uncommon Sense: The Achievement of Griffin Bell.

1. Excellent writing by someone who obviously lived and played with Bell. Very interesting to a new "Southerner".



2. A well-written account by a Southern journalist who was there of a time in history and one uncommonly gifted lawyer's often underrated pace through it.

5 comments about Chief Justice: A Biography of Earl Warren.

1. Earl Warren was Chief Justice for 16 years, from 1953-69. he presided over Brown v. Board of Education, the most important case in US history. this book brilliantly portrays the Chief Justice.



2. Earl Warren grew up in Bakersfield, California. To those of you who've been there, it seems an unlikely place to beget one of the great justices of the 20th century who was known for his ability to continue to mold and change his ideas. However, this comprehensive and excellent biography of Earl Warren, Governor of California and 14th Chief Justice of the United States, shows that he turned out far from where he might have been expected to wind up.
   
   The book starts with Warren's childhood, where he was an above-average student who went into the county courtroom every day because it was too hot outside and became entranced with the law. He would go to UC Berkeley for his undergraduate and law degrees, and after a few odd jobs would wind up as the Alameda County DA, where he made a name for himself by cleaning out organized crime, gambling, and prostitution from the county. His work gave him high visibility, from which to launch his campaign for Attorney General of California, where he would be responsible in the infamous forced internment of Japanese and Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor (as the author notes, only near the end of his life did he come to terms with this act). Then, as now, State AG was merely a stepping stone to the Governor's Mansion, to which he won three terms. Although a Republican, he pushed for progressive reforms in many areas: he tried to get all Californians covered for healthcare (and failed), he tried to make college in California excellent and inexpensive (and succeeded), and he tried to pass worker safety and environmental protection legislation (and did both). He was extremely popular in the state, in fact, in 1946 he won the primaries for the Democratic, Republican, and Progressive parties (Under California law at the time, you could file for the nominations of all parties). His reputation as a moderate consensus-builder in a Democratic state who had still accomplished most of what he wanted made him a lock for the Vice-Presidential slot alongside Tom Dewey, which seemed as sure a thing as possible. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) for Warren, the 1948 election was won by Harry Truman in the biggest surprise in American politics. He would run again four years later, in 1952, hoping to be able to become a consensus candidate for President. Instead, he ended up having to surrender his chances due to an insufficient budget and lobbying by Dwight Eisenhower. Ike, however, knew what Warren had given up and promised him the thing that he really wanted: an appointment to the Supreme court, which happened less than a year later, with the passing of Chief Justice Fred Vinson. This is where the book heats up. The book makes clear that Warren was neither an intellectual, nor a brilliant writer nor the possessor of a natural legal intuition. What he did have, though, was the willingness to work very hard, as well as the ability to persuade colleagues to vote with him. His leadership became apparent when the Brown decision was handed down, unanimously. Brown was nearly evenly divided before, however, Warren went to work on his colleagues one at a time and managed to wrangle agreement on what is, aside from Roe v. Wade, the most famous and without a doubt the most celebrated court case of all. Never one to settle with small or half measures, Warren proceeed to establish a broad interpretation of the constitution, guided by a simple moral compass. He knew that any decision could be backed up by reasoning and precedent, so he picked the side he felt was morally right and let his clerks sort it out. The major cases, including Gideon v. Wainwright (establishing a right to an attorney), Miranda v. Arizona (ever seen a cop show?), and Mapp v. Ohio (ensuring state legislatures were determined by population and not by land) were controversial, but now they seem almost natural. Occasionally the court went too far for the public: banishing school prayer sparked a debate that continues to this day, but again, Warren was looking out for fairness--in this case, he wanted no ill-will toward non-believing schoolchildren. As the book notes, very few of the Chief's vast pronouncements have been rolled back by the Burger and Rehnquist courts, and it seems certain by this point that they will have long life in the republic. The book also goes over his involvement in the Warren Commission to investigate the JFK assassination, in some detail. However, some of the most interesting material involves his ability to lead the other disparate justices on the court: moderating the continuing feuds between the liberal activist faction, including Hugo Black and William Douglas; and the judicial restraint supporters like Felix Frankfurter and Robert Jackson.
   
   John Roberts should read closely how Warren managed to provide a model for being a Chief Justice: kind but firm, willing to compromise but continually steering the court in his own direction. Love him or hate him, Warren is rightfully considered among the best Chief Justices, and this book tells why. After reading, it is little wonder that after Warren's departure, and the arrival of the super-political hack Warren Burger, justices like William Brennan, Black and Douglas regarded him as the real chief. Warren was a man who transcended his times: his total lack of prejudice and dedication to preserving the American dream gave him a greater impact on America than Eisenhower or Nixon, his arch-enemy. We could use more men from all persuasions like him.



3. For those who have even heard of Earl Warren he is solely identified as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Ed Cray's wonderful biography clearly shows that he was much more than simply a judge, he was a seminal political figure during the mid-20th century. Cray presents Warren's rise to political stardom in clear and lively terms. Warren represented the progressive wing of the Republican party and was so popular as Govenor of California that he defeated FDR's son after the war and was even the nominee of both parties in one of his elections. Beyond his service in California, Cray also demonstrates just how close Warren came to the oval office when he ran as VP with Thomas Dewey, who would likely have won the election had he followed Warren's advice.

   Cray does a more than adequate job in detailing how Warren got on the Court through a back room deal with Eisenhower. Warren was hardly a great judge in the sense of a brilliant legal mind, he typically decided cases based upon what was fair and left it up to his law clerks to come up with the technical theories to support it. But Warren was a great chief justice in a time when the Court needed a brilliant politician to heal the deep divisions that existed between different members of the Court. In the end Warren lead the Court through its single most creative period and it is amazing, regardless of your opinion on the outcome of this period, just how much this liberal Court accomplished.

   Cray's work is hardly ground breaking, it presents no significant new additions to our knowledge of Warren, but he does present a huge life in a relatively concise work. This is a book that is well worth reading if you are interested in either the Court or American political culture in the mid-20th century.




4. This is probably the best book out there on Earl Warren, covering his life in politics and at the Supreme Court. Ed Cray does a good job explaining the roots of Warren's political beliefs and how he used his political background to exert such a strong influence on the Supreme Court.

   Unfortunately, Ed Cray doesn't follow up on at least two issues: Warren's friendships with J. Edgar Hoover and William Knowland. According to the book, when Warren was in California state government he became such good friends with J. Edgar Hoover that he called Hoover "Jay"- yet it seems hard to imagine that Warren's friendship with Hoover survived some of his court decisions. Perhaps it did, but Cray doesn't address the issue. Similarly, it seems that Warren's liberal court decisions would have impacted his friendship with conservative Senator William Knowland, but the book doesn't talk about this, either.




5. To write a comprehensive book on the life of Earl Warren and include the numerous controversial court decisions would produce a volume so thick, reading it would be exhaustive-and probably boring. Ed Cray has successfully limited this biography to the details of Warren's life without dragging the reader through the typical grandparent and parent's life stories. His overview of the major court decisions, their impact on society and some of the Court's inner battles have been successfully handled.

   The reader should know however, that this is not an unbiased book. Cray worships Warren and is very reluctant to criticize him. (The author takes Warren to task over Warren's support of Japanese internment in WWII but I suspect this criticism early on in the book is due to Warren later regret in his involvement.) Among the dedications, is "To Civil Libertarians All"-while there is nothing wrong with that, it points out the author's political bias that is so evident in his writing. Conservatives on the court and in Warren's earlier political life come across badly (especially Felix Frankfurter) and by the end of the book I was cynical as to why Cray constantly referred to Hugo Black as the Alabaman. (Isn't it Alabamian?) None of the other justices were so oft named by the State's origin.

   If you love Warren, you'll love this book. If you want an objective and critical look into Warren's life, you might end up frustrated at the author's attempt to over-glorify his subject. Nevertheless, it's still an excellent book.

4 comments about Getting a Winning Verdict in My Personal Life: A Trial Lawyer Finds His Soul.

1. Gary Gwilliam's story is a compelling tale of self-disclosure and personal growth. The simple sincerity of his friendly voice keeps you turning pages. He's a role model for what's good and right about lawyers: how they can serve; and the compassion that drives them. This book is filled with lessons for everyone, but especially lawyers and their clients. If you need a champion you can find a template of what to look for in this book! Stewart L. Levine, Esq. , author, "Getting to Resolution;" "The Book of Agreement;" co-author "Collaborate 2.0."



2. In sharing his unique story, Gary provides an insightful, inspiring and motivating read. This book perfectly captures the thoughts and feelings that so many trial attorneys have on a daily basis, and it demonstrates just how a dedicated and caring attorney can overcome adversity and personal difficulties to pursue his clients' causes with zeal and passion. The book has left me more inspired and it has strengthened and reaffirmed my commitment to my family, to my clients and to a trial lawyer's work. I thoroughly enjoyed it. It is a must-read for every trial attorney and for anyone who genuinely wants to understand the heart, mind and soul of a trial attorney.



3. Most great trial lawyers bare their client's souls in their quest for
   Victory, but few bare their own in their personal struggle be real. Gary lays
   it all out in the dramatic story of his life - the good, the bad and the
   ugly. His pain throbs as he reaches the bottom, and his joy abounds as he
   learns to live with success and the love of his life. This journey, one
   that few of us have the courage to travel, much less admit, has made him a
   greater champion of the powerless and a better person.



4. I just got this book, and I've enjoyed reading it so far. I like being a voyeur into the life of an attorney, and reading about Gwilliam's experiences is really encouraging and optimistic. I'll post an updated review when I'm done reading the book.

No comments about Thurgood Marshall: Justice for All.

3 comments about Texas Tornado.

1. This book is very boring. This book neither works as a biography nor as legal journalism.

   Raggio's life story is boring. Louise Raggio had a unremarkable and typical early 20th century life. The only exciting fact is that Grier Raggio her husband was accused of "unamerican activities" and was Lee Harvey Oswald's appointed attorney for several hours. Otherwise the stories of Louise Raggio growing up on a farm, going to college, getting her first job are tedious and without literary merit.

   As legal journalism, it is way too high level. There are no specific legislative stories, no landmark legal battles, no interesting legal cases. If Raggio revolutionized Texas family law it is not documented in this book.

   I would not recommend this book.




2. I thought that Colin Edwards was the Texas Tornado?? MotoGP ring a bell!?? Good Luck at Brno CEII!! This book on women's rights is great by the way, except for they shouldn't have any!! ;) For the guys on the Drizunken forum!



3. The book is not only a rich history of the fight for women's rights in Texas and the US but a wonderful look into the life of an incredible woman. The story is told with such warmth that you end up loving this tough, spunky, little woman. The book is a must read for every lawyer in the state of Texas while also a wonderful example of a dedicated wife (under often horrid circumstances) and a devoted mother.
   Louise Raggio is definitely a Texas Tornado.

2 comments about The Great Justices, 1941-54: Black, Douglas, Frankfurter, and Jackson in Chambers.

1. A short book that falls between pure court history and pure judicial biography. It is for readers deeply interested in the U.S. Supreme Court as an institution, and highlights four famous justices as they interacted in a period now over a half-century past. Using this time and these justices, William Domnarski gives his view on how the high court really works.
   
   Douglas is given the highest marks, with Black, Frankfurter, and Jackson all found wanting in balance. The degree of national elective office political ambition alive then on the court will be a surprise to those more familiar with present day standards--as will the degree of animosity amongst the Brethren.
   
   While good for anyone in the legal or political science professions, I think most general readers will find this book a journey too deep into an ocean of past constitutional and personal battles.



2. This book is comprised of profiles of four leading Supreme Court Justices during the (roughly) 1940's through 1970's period. The author suggests he is dissatisfied with judicial biographies because they do not focus on the "dual nature" of the Court--i.e., the Court speaking through not only majority opinions but also via the individual justices involved in contributing to its opinions. Instead, the author posits the idea of "assessment-seeking judicial profiles" as a superior technique.
   
   The author's approach is highly biographical, with some attention to substantive legal developments, and heavy emphasis is placed upon patterns of interaction, agreement, and dissention. Each profile runs around 40 pages. Domnarski pays particular attention to the language of opinions, a task for which he is eminently qualified given his previous important work, "In the Opinion of the Court," which analyzed opinion patterns. I found that this perspective added considerable value to his discussion. After all, opinions are more than just words, but constitute attempts at persuasion and justification as well as explanation.
   
   The profiles vary in quality and impact. One problem is that so much has been written already about Black, Frankfurter, and Douglas. As a result, I found the Black and Frankfurter profiles, while interesting, did not provide new information or perspectives on the Justices. The profile of Robert Jackson, however, is quite impressive, since so little real analysis of Jackson has been written. Students of Jackson await the promised new biography of him by John Q. Barrett since a suitable judicial biography has been lacking up to this point. Domnarski has dug deeply in the record and produced quite a perceptive portrait of Jackson, though one that is perhaps too critical. It is hard to believe that Jackson became much more conservative and combative (as to Black and Douglas) after he was passed over by Truman to be Chief Justice and that this affected his voting patterns. We shall have to await Barrett's analysis to consider this thesis.
   
   I found the strongest profile to be, surpringly, that of William O. Douglas. Here the author had to face the problem of so much already having been written on WOD. Nonetheless, he has produced one of the most interesting discussions of Douglas that I am aware has appeared anywhere. His reliance upon the Douglas/Walter Murphy oral history interviews, done in the early 1960's, is highly effective; it is delightful to discover that all these transcripts are available on the internet. While Douglas certainly had his shortcomings, he stands pretty tall after Domnarski's analysis.
   
   The research is quite solid; the notes extensive; an appendix of voting agreement/disagreement statistics is helpful as well. I think the principal value of the book is for those not familiar with the existing literature on the four justices, because each study packs a lot of information and understanding into a relatively brief amount of space. But even experienced Court watchers can benefit from the author's perceptive discussion of Douglas and especially his suggestive analysis of Jackson.