On November 29, 2009, I finished my reading of Bob Woodward’s The Brethren, which I set out to read in order to form a more perfect understanding of law. My interest in the courts has grown enormously, therefore, I am immediately preparing a draft review for circulation.

Woodward

Knowing of Bob Woodward from his involvement in Watergate and then from his recent Bush book, I knew I was getting into a quality piece of writing. Woodward pieced together all of his sources to form a beautiful, descriptive narrative that flowed sequentially from the Warren-Burger transition to the resignation of Douglas and appointment of Stevens in the 1975 term. The author’s slant is obviously anti-Burger, but some of the suggestions that made him look like a dope seem to have been originated by the other Justices rather than Woodward himself.

I love how the book travels around the bench at key junctures at least once per term. That frequent exercise illuminated the way Justices operate, the way their ideologies are involved (or not) in decisions, and the way legal reasoning works in general.

History

The Brethren attuned me further to Nixon era history in that, for example, I watched the Nixon resignation speech for the first time. I saw Vietnam from an angle other than the protest or war zone settings that have comprised the extent of my exposure thanks to popular movies and documentaries. Perhaps most importantly to my future, I saw a slice of Court history almost completely ignorant of the surrounding eras. Sowell talked about the Warren court quite a bit so I had a conservative taste of Burger’s predecessor, but now I have my sights set on The Nine, the news, and any other recommendations you might have for a more complete understanding.

Court Practice

For all the times I’ve heard SCOTUS referred to as “a club” and for all the calls for its reform or abolishment I wasn’t too surprised at some of its secretive inner workings. But I was still shocked by how much power over the outcomes of so many lives a man like Earl Warren held. This influence, the impassioned opposition to it of court colleagues among any set of disagreeing justices, and then their camaraderie afterward and in general was hard to digest.

With respect to the rules, both de facto and de jure, I see many opportunities for FDR-like exploitation. Depending on some unlikely but possible circumstances some crazy outcomes could possibly be reached. Most notably, had Nixon stayed around and Douglas and Marshall both retired at the same time, say, Nixon would have had six appointees! In a more general sense the fluid and unarticulated nature of many of the court’s internal regulations is suspicious.

Issues

The main issues highlighted across the terms included are segregation enforcement, abortion, obscenity, the death penalty, Watergate and executive privilege, and mental illness. Not sure what may have been skipped over but these seemed like a representative sample of what mattered in the early seventies.

Key Takeaways

Number one: Supreme Court Justices, while they usually arrive at their station via a fiercely political process, seem to be some of the most independent-minded people in Washington. My major support here would have to come from Hugo Black, the deep south justice who tended to vote heavily on the left. Despite his already surprising, effectively anti-deep south philosophy, he still remained to what would politically be considered “the right” on issues like busing, a stance he took for actual, logical, legal reasons. Other polar justices doing the same on other issues and the centrist justices’ unpredictability confirm the feasibility of cultivating a flexible set of beliefs. I like this.

Number two: this stuff is cool. My desire to participate in the courts either as an appellate lawyer or clerk has risen ten-fold. Maybe approaching this aspiration with Vince Lombardi’s “strive for perfection settle for excellence” in mind could propel me a long way.

In any case, I’m happy for the recommendation given by Tom at Alabama Law’s Career Services and would recommend the book to anyone interested in either law school or what happened in the judiciary in the Nixon era.