No comments about The Style of a Law Firm: Eight Gentlemen from Virginia.

1 comments about Harry A. Blackmun: The Outsider Justice.

1. The author has written extensively on the Supreme Court, including biographies of Harlan I and II, and especially his fine book on Justice Souter (also reviewed on Amazon), as well as one of the ABC-CLIO Supreme Court handbooks on the Burger Court where Justice Blackmun served most of his tenure on the Court. The book is typical Yarbrough: comprehensive research; clarity of analysis; some suggestive insights into the subject. The book begins with Blackmun's formative years, follows him to Harvard and Harvard Law, his early friendship with Warren Burger, the critical clerkship with Judge Sanborn of the 8th Circuit;his career as a Minnesota lawyer (especially resident counsel at Mayo Clinic during 1950-1959) and his appointment to the Eighth Circuit and his service thereupon. So, by the time Blackmun makes it to the big Court, which is at the 141 page mark, readers can really feels they have a good grasp of Blackmun, his character, strengths, and weaknesses. Thereby, the author avoids a mistake frequently encountered in judicial biographies of rushing through the pre-Court career to concentrate on the years as a Justice.
   
   I found the chapter on chamber procedures especially interesting. The author discusses Blackmun's preference for clerks writing first drafts of opinions, a practice he initiated on the Circuit, and raises always the key question re Blackmun: was he the author or editor of his opinions? He analyzes the firestorm that emerged when various articles and Linda Greenhouse's biography of Blackmun, based upon his papers, disclosed his heavy reliance upon clerks. Also, of course, of great interest is his discussion of Blackmun's deteriorating relationship with Burger. The book also discusses Blackmun's key decisions, including "Roe v. Wade," although I think more attention could have been devoted to the prolonged drafting torment Blackmun endured while working on the opinion at Mayo.
   
   Blackmun emerges as somewhat a solid but not brilliant Justice, inclined to be conservative in his judgments, but willing to modify his positions (such as on the death penalty) over time. The author finds him always to have been a somewhat insecure individual, unsure of his own talents, but always a very hard worker. In the final chapters, the author returns to the issue of who "sculpted" Blackmun's jurisprudence, he or his clerks, since more studies based on his paper have emerged. The oral history interviews with former clerk Harold Koh of Yale Law School are discussed and afford some valuable insights. My only concern with the book is that the author almost totally ignores Linda Greenhouse's fine book on Blackmun, perhaps because he is upset that she was granted exclusive early access to this treasurehouse of information by Blackmun's family (see p. 341). This is most puzzling given the author's otherwise impeccable research. This is, however, but a tiny blemish--the book is a major achievement and adds substantially to our understanding of Blackmun the man and Justice and his role on the Court.

5 comments about Puppetmaster: The Secret Life of J. Edgar Hoover.

1. This great bio by Richard Hack follows the life of the long time director of the F.B.I
   J. Edgar Hoover starting with his boyhood in the Washington area and following him through his school days and onward to the seat of power. We get an interesting look at Hoover from the days of the mid-west gangsters to hilarious rants on Martin Luther King that border on paranoia.
   
   Before when I thought of J. Edgar Hoover I always had a vague picture an evil man who indulged in activates in secret that he ruined other people for. It is interesting to see the interpretation in this book; it was not the man that was evil it was just that as time went on he used evil methods to hold on to his power.
   
   While it is tempting for some to want a watershed moment where Hoover would either "get with it" or retire it never arrives. Instead Hoover goes on becoming less and less relevant and that if nothing else can be considered a form of poetic justice.



2. Before I read this I had a reasonably good general knowledge of Hoover from reading books about 20th Century US History in general. However, I had not read a dedicated biography of Hoover himself. Some reviewers have remarked that Hack's book does not add anything really new. This may or may not be true. However, I found it to be a good read and a well paced, well written, well laid out biography of a very strange and important man.
   
   One thing that was jarring about Hack's book is that occassionally he will delve into internal dialogue that is clearly speculation on his part. For example, he will describe what Hoover was thinking as he lay in bed at night, or what he was thinking in the shower. Without sources, such as a diary entry, this is clearly just speculative embellishment. Hack also describes some personal lunch conversations that appear to be speculative as well. The speculation seems reasonable, however, and is not salacious or scandalous.
   
   In fact, one thing that probably sets this biography apart from others (not that I have read others, but I am familiar with accusations in other biographies of Hoover), is that Hack concludes that Hoover was probably not an actively homosexual man and that his strange relationship with Clyde Tolson was platonic. More accurately, he claims that there is no real evidence that the relationship with Tolson was non-platonic.
   
   Hack provides a very balanced portrait of Hoover, giving credit to his incredible drive, patriotism, and loyalty to his ideal of the American Way. Hack also presents a Hoover who was constantly self-promoting, paranoid, and who used his office for personal gain in the form of book royalties, government paid vacations, graft from "friends" and government paid improvements to his house. While Hoover's disregard of civil liberties is clear to all, Hoover's lack of financial integrity somehow left a deeper impression with this reader.
   
   I recommend this book. In understanding Hoover's long life as a civil servant, the reader gains a deeper understanding of America from before the First World War to just before Watergate.



3. None of these reviewers seem to have been in the circus. No mention of Judge Williaml Webster in 1950 in Hack's book. Surprise that JE was friendly to Robert Kennedy and the others in that clan, other accounts had it that they did not work together well. Hack's book id a sort of aerial view of Mr.Hoover's career.



4. This book was exactly what I wanted...to learn about J. Edgar Hoover's life. It was interesting!



5. I knew nothing about Hoover before reading this book, but Hack does a comprehensive job in this bio. Hoover is portrayed as a higly intelligent, organized man, who had too much power for his (or the country's) good.
   
   Hoover's need for fame was a double edged sword: It helped promote the FBI and it's intentions, but it also put public image over real substance. The most interesting parts of the book were Hoover tracking down old-time mobsters, and his obsession with Martin Luther King Jr. and his ties to the communist party.
   
   The biggest problems with the book were lack of technical details (Hack throughout mentions illegal wire taps and "black bag jobs", but never goes into details of how they were implemented), and apparent embellishment of the truth. For example, Hack goes into detail in converstaions between 2 people which there are no sources for. This is confusing and detracts from the overall authenticity of the book.
   
   Overall, this was a great book to learn about this unusual leader. I think it paints a farily balanced picture of him, not as an evil man, but of a smart control freak and media hound that was given too much power for too long.

No comments about The International Judge: An Introduction to the Men and Women Who Decide the World's Cases.

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.

1 comments about David Hackett Souter: Traditional Republican On The Rehnquist Court.

1. Writing judicial biography can be a challenging undertaking. How much of the judge's family history should be included?; what elements of the judge's pre-court career merit careful examination?; how extensive should the discussion be of how and why the judge was selected for the position?; and finally, how many of the judge's decisions should be reviewed to round out the picture? It is a pleasure to report that Professor Yarbrough has mastered the craft well, having written prior biographies of both Justices Harlan, Judge Frank Johnson, and District Court Judge Waring.
   
   This an enormously valuable resource for understanding Justice Souter. It gives just enough attention to his family background and his pre-Court career. Many judicial biographies rush over the process whereby the subject is selected; not so here. This chapter is particularly of pertinent interest given the current Roberts' hearings. It is surprising to see Souter, labeled by many as the "stealth nominee," being far more candid with the Judiciary Committee than Judge Roberts in his testimony.
   
   It is a particularly difficult task to discuss the judicial philosophy of a subject who is still on the court. In fact, Justice Souter will finish out 15 years in October, 2005. Once again, Yarbrough is up to the task. Much attention is devoted, and rightly so, to Souter's "common law" adherence to precedent. Over the 15 years so far, the Justice has developed a position of moderate liberalism (with the exception of criminal justice) on such issues as establishment, maintaining Congressional authority, limiting "state sovereignty," restricting the reach of the "taking clause, Bush v. Gore, and protecting the right to privacy.
   
   The book is especially valuable in discussing Souter's interactions with other members of the Court, particularly as regards the critical Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision. Yarbrough here relies heavily on Justice Blackmun's now public court files to trace the maneuverings that occurred in this case. As I explained in my Amazon review of Linda Greenhouse's Blackmun biography, I am still a bit uncomfortable with the private memos of sitting justices being studied, even though they add enormously to the value of Yarbrough's discussion. His chapter on Bush v. Gore is also very strong in terms on explaining exactly what motivated various of the Justices in that case.
   
   I would have liked Yarbrough to have included a bibliography, to compliment his extensive notes. He also apparently has made little use of the professional literature (such as law review articles) on Souter, although I was surprised to discover that there is not that much attention that has been devoted to the Justice. All the more reason to be appreciative of this fine judicial biography that admirably fills the gap.

5 comments about Supreme Discomfort: The Divided Soul of Clarence Thomas.

1. In Supreme Discomfort the authors Merida and Fletcher try hard to create a biography of Justice Thomas based on interviews with childhood associates, former classmates, extended family, and former law clerks, in addition to crafting a social science construct to his background. However, using this approach produces a book that tells the reader less about the purported subject than about how he is viewed. More effort is spent trying to put Thomas into a category of being angry and resentful of slights than seeking to flesh out the nuances of this very complicated figure.
   
   The authors delve into the fact that Thomas is reviled as an Uncle Tom in the black community, but do little to explain either Thomas' views or his antagonists other than a for or against basis. In a late chapter they bring Henry Louis Gates Jr. into the discussion to argue that affirmative action is good, but do not look at Thomas' writings and speeches where he argues for an approach based on merit and economic factors over race.
   The authors seem to want to stress what they think Thomas should be, rather than examine their subject's own views. There is more of a discussion of Justice Scalia's pizza preferences than the nuances of Textual Originalism that in many cases leads both justices down different paths. Jan Crawford Greenberg does a much better job looking at what the justices actually do and their legal philosophies in Supreme Conflict.
   
   The narrative flow of the text is somewhat choppy going forward and backward chronologically without warning, as if the two authors were writing different sections. There are a few nice anecdotes, such as the gag eyeballs tossed to clerks "keep an eye on things", but otherwise the authors seem to accept the consensus views of the media. Ken Foskett in Judging Thomas does a better job explaining the work of the EEOC and the Court, goes into extensive genealogical and historical background of Pin Point, and had more access to the subject. However, of the three biographies Supreme Discomfort, Judging Thomas , Thomas' own My Grandfather's Son, the autobiography is by far the best written and edited, although by necessity it stops when Thomas joins the court.



2. I am sure the authors did the best that they could without interviewing the Justice and the book is well written. However, I am not even sure I would read Thomas' own book which came out after this one. Justice Thomas is complex and you are never really sure where he is coming from. Friends argued a case a year or so ago at the U.S. Supreme Court, and I remember one attorney mentioning that Judge Thomas never said a word or asked one question. At least the authors had that part right. I will be donating this one to our local library.



3. I am glad I read the book by Thomas before knowing about this book. I will take away from the reviews that I rather read what Thomas says of his own life, than read some reporter's opinion on who he is. After reading Thomas' book, I see no need to read what they think.
   
   I read his book and feel Thomas' take on who he is is enough for me. I am proud of this Justice for who he is and what he stands for. I am a black woman who has lived and worked in America. I am successful in my own right, not because of affirmative action or preferences. Justice Thomas is on the supreme court because he is qualified, smart and deserving of the office.



4. This is a difficult book to rate. It's easy reading -- obviously written more to entertain than to inform -- and it's highly biased against the subject yet presented in such a way as to pretend to be balanced. It is character assassination in print.
   
   The subtitle, "The divided soul of Clarence Thomas" is not proven by the discourse. It is obvious that Thomas has a very clear idea of who he is and what the law should be. He is staunch in his beliefs and true to his conscience. There is nothing divided about him.
   
   Justice Thomas seems to have figured out what most of his peers (and definitely the authors)haven't: That affirmative action has proved to be a double-edged sword, as harmful to blacks as it has been useful. It is obvious that Thomas simply considers himself a man, neither black nor white, as he gazes at life and law through clear glasses. To many blacks (and obviously to the authors) this is the Unforgivable Sin.
   
   Thus they portray Justice Thomas as almost manically introspective, weak and flawed. They emphasize the pain he endured over the years from racial slurs and imply that he is almost useless on the court because he can't forget Anita Hill's attacks during his confirmation trial before Congress. I use the word trial intentionally here.
   
   I had wondered why Justice Thomas was publishing a memoir at this time since it would necessarily bring Hill to the forefront again. This book must be the reason. He knew this would be what it is when he refused the authors access to himself and his memorabilia. He was right. The prejudice against him here is almost hysterical.
   
   One of the points the authors belabor again and again is their contention (and yes, it has been said by others) that Thomas is a lackey to or clone of Justice Scalia because they vote the same way. I believe it was Jan Crawford Greenburg (whose new book, "Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States," is just published) who said in an interview on Book TV just last weekend that she had gone through all the records specifically to determine whether there was truth in that particular assumption. She says in most cases Thomas voted first and that it might be more accurate to say that it was Scalia who followed in Thomas's footsteps. That research should have been done by these authors.
   
   Since their prejudice against Justice Thomas is so pronounced and their indictments of his character so repetitious I can't help but wonder what material they left out from their massive second-source research. It would not be presumptuous to assume that they were highly selective in order to prove their thesis that Thomas is so flawed that he is ineffective on the Court (something that isn't said but is strongly implied in these pages).
   
   One of the things they object to most about him is the fact that he seldom asks questions during court sessions. They don't seem to realize that when one is talking, s/he isn't learning. Justice Thomas says someone always asks the questions he would, so he just listens until the answer surfaces. That is wisdom.
   
   What they object to most, however, seems to be that Thomas is a Constitutional originalist. That is, he believes in the Constitution as written and is suspicious of re-creating it "to fit" contemporary times. He is less inclined to use stare decisis (respect for precedent) when considering cases and he believes strongly in the rights of states to handle most social issues. That conservatism truly irks the authors and I believe these are the reasons they have chosen to emphasize the negative and present such a biased smear.
   
   Almost every page and certainly every chapter belabors the anger and pain that Justice Thomas presumably harbors from his growing up years (in addition to the Hill episode). He would be have to be insane if he wasn't hurt and the fact that he has risen above the destiny presumed by his birth and has served so honorably at various levels of government, including the highest court in the land, shows the mettle of the man.
   
   Justice Clarence Thomas is a great American and a noble jurist who is doing his best. We can ask no more of anyone.



5. As a person who has followed Justice Thomas'S career, I can say this book is not worth the paper it is printed on. Merida is trying to make money by slandering a wonderful man and a very honorable Supreme Court Justice. Justice Thomas is a credit to his race and his country. We need more great men like him. Men who do what is right and just in the eyes of God and man. Shame to those like to Merida who would try to destroy him. Don't buy the Merida book. It only tries to impune the integrity of a great person like Justice Thomas. Buy Justice Thomas's book instead, "My Grandfather's Son." Get the true story from Justice Thomas himself.

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 Scoundrels to the Hoosegow: Perry Mason Moments and Entertaining Cases from the Files of a Prosecuting Attorney.

1. Having spent 5 semesters at Southeast Missouri State University in Cape Girardeau, and being a native of Jefferson County, I recognized some of the people and trials Morley Swingle wrote about and found them hilarious, entertaining, informative, and sometimes disgusting. It is a book worth reading and shows just how low some people will go or how honorable they will be. While the book doesn't necessarily flow from one chapter to the next, it makes it easier to be able to pick up anywhere in the middle of the book and read about a specific case. I only wish Swingle had referenced case and law numbers more. His simple explanations of legal lingo made reading easier and educational. Morley, if you're reading this...I sure am glad I never met you. :-)



2. Disclaimer: I am not objective on this topic. I bought this book, but I only read one chapter, "The Case of the Millionaire Murder", that related the murder trial of Bill Pagano. The CSI officer on the case, Jan Vessell, is my mother. As I was away at college at the time of the crime, investigation, and trial, I had never read a complete and objective telling of what happened. Now that I have, I must thank Mr. Swingle for his tenacity and talent at successfully prosecuting a case that nobody in Jefferson County expected him to win.
   
   Sadly, I wish Mr. Swingle had stayed in town, because the story has a typical Jefferson County ending. Were the ones who investigated this crime rewarded for their efforts? No. Wally Gansmann, Jan Vessell, and three other Jefferson County detectives were demoted. In my mother's case, with 13 years service to the department as the first female law enforcement officer in Jefferson County (and all the harassment you can imagine came with that), in spite of 8 years as crime scene investigator, attendee of the same FBI Academy Mr. Swingle attended, she was demoted first to dispatcher, then to jailor. My sister and I finally talked her into resigning from the department in 1993 after she was diagnosed with a bleeding ulcer, no doubt brought on by her attempts to salvage her career from what was left of the machinery left behind by "Boss Hogg".
   
   And this is why Jefferson County is still the laughingstock of the St. Louis Metro area. My hat is off to you, Morley Swingle, for exposing what you could. You did an indescribable service to us. I only wish you could have helped us with the aftermath.



3. Swingle hits a home run with these stories of the interesting cases he's handled in South East Missouri.
   
   Ranging from the hilarious to the not-funny-at-all, Swingle proves with his intelligence and wit why he's been re-elected as Cape Girardeau Missouri's prosecutor for many years, and will continue to be so.
   
   The stories would be appreciated by Mark Twain, and bear a Twain-like edge along with the humor.
   Ranging from a hilarious account of how a rough looking felon tried to pass a check stolen from a State Senator and got a face full of pepper spray for his trouble, to a story about a total monster who killed with no remorse, the stories are intensely interesting.
   
   It's one thing to read a dry news paper account of the check passers efforts to cash in and something quite else to read Swingle's humorous account of a jaded pawnshop worker and a policeman with a sarcastic humor versus versus a hood who's not the brightest bulb in the criminal world but who's very willing to "discuss it" with the police.
   
   Then too, the story of an unstoppable killer takes on a different color when I remember my frightened wife telling me that she heard something under our porch, when we lived in sight of the county jail the killer had just escaped from.
   To say the least, the neighbors were not to sure what was going on while I was peering under our porch with a flashlight in one hand and an assault rifle in the other.
   There's nothing at all funny about this case, but Swingle gives a good account of how he stopped the "unstoppable" murderer.
   
   Swingle writes with skill and the ability to hold the readers interest, not the easiest job for many writers.
   I've had the pleasure of both reading Swingle, reading about Swingle, and actually sitting on a jury in a trial he was prosecuting.
   
   Swingle does the best job yet to date of describing just HOW a county prosecutor decides whether to prosecute, what to prosecute FOR, and how he prepares and presents his case.
   Of particular interest is the information on why an honest prosecutor will not prosecute a case.
   
   The man does it all with flair, and I heartily recommend reading his work.
   I've been told that he hates to waste time, and when he has a few minutes on his hands, he writes.
   Here's hoping there's more to come.



4. To the writer I say hats off and what a lot of fun I had reading this treasure. Great stories that keep you glued and also make it humorous at the end of each short story to give it that neat zing of laughter. The wanting to finish the next unfortunate event for some----but the fulfillment of gratitude for others-----also to see at the end of each story what the outcome of the next Scoundrel will be and how they get themselves a room at the Hoosegow. Thank You