A growing chorus of officials and commentators argues that the Supreme Court has become too political. On this view the confirmation process is just an exercise in partisan agenda-setting, and the jurists are no more than “politicians in robes”―their ostensibly neutral judicial philosophies mere camouflage for conservative or liberal convictions. Stephen Breyer, drawing upon his experience as a Supreme Court justice, sounds a cautionary note....

As the Supreme Court continues to rule on important issues, it is essential to understand how it operates. Based on exclusive interviews with the justices themselves and other insiders, this is a timely "state of the union" about America's most elite legal institution. From Anthony Kennedy's self-importance, to Antonin Scalia's combativeness, to David Souter's eccentricity, and even Sandra Day O'Connor's fateful breach with President George W. Bush,...

"Seidel examines some of the key Supreme Court cases of the last thirty years— including Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (a bakery that refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple), Trump v. Hawaii (the anti-Muslim travel ban case), American Legion v. American Humanist Association (related to a group maintaining a 40-foot Christian cross on government-owned land), and Tandon v. Newsom (a Santa Clara Bible group exempted...

Publisher's description: An insider's account of the momentous ideological war between the John Roberts Supreme Court and the Obama administration. From the moment John Roberts, the Chief Justice of the United States, flubbed the Oath of Office at Barack Obama's inauguration, the relationship between the Supreme Court and the White House has been confrontational. Both men are young, brilliant, charismatic, charming, determined to change the course...

"Can the federal government make you eat your fruits and vegetables? Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan seemed to think so when asked if she thought Congress possessed the constitutional power to force every American to "eat three fruits and three vegetables every day." Kagan laughed and said that while it sounded like "a dumb law," that did not make it an unconstitutional one. In other words, if you don't like what your lawmakers have done, take your...

Argues that the supreme power of judges over political, social, and economic policy is one of the greatest threats to American democracy in the twenty-first century, revealing how judges have used their own power as a way to overturn the Constitution and the rights it guarantees American citizens.

"Anthology of diverse viewpoints exploring the Supreme Court's politicization across history, whether it is realistic or useful to expect it to be insulated from politics, and possible means of depoliticizing the court"--

Historian Edward Lazarus, a former clerk to Justice Harry A. Blackmun, guides the reader through the Court's inner sanctum, explaining as only an eyewitness can the collisions of law, politics, and personality as the Justices wrestle with the most fiercely disputed issues of our time.

"The Supreme Court has always had the authority to issue emergency rulings--halting an execution or preventing a law from going into effect until lower courts could rule on its constitutionality--but until recently, it did so only in exceptional circumstances and issued only narrow rulings. Yet in the past decade, the court has expanded its use of the behind-the-scenes 'shadow docket' dramatically, handing down major decisions that impact millions...