
Without Precedent: How Chief Justice Roberts and His Accomplices Rewrote the Constitution and Dismantled Our Rights by Lisa Graves
My rating: 3 of 5 stars
3.5 stars rounded down. 3.0 stars period at the end of my thoughts, per the bottom. Little new for a deep reader. I hadn't before read the details of Gorsuch's frat-boy college life, but could have found them elsewhere, and didn't know that Barrett, as well as Roberts and Kavanaugh, was involved with Bush v. Gore work.
And, that's it.
It's written from the left hand of the duopoly.
And, as a non-duopoly voter (and no, I didn't "really" vote for Trump; shut up), it's got holes.
Take the "god" chapter. Never mentions the Bladensberg Cross case (technically American Legion v American Humanist Association, nor Breyer's disastrous concurring opinion (with Kagan riding along), written in part, IMO, to make his opinion in Van Orton into precedent.
Or, beyond "god," take the "First Amendment" chapter.
I'm sorry, there is none. So we don't get to read the reality of Ginsburg bagging on Colin Kaepernick and other issues.
Beyond that, Democratic-appointed justices past and present have at times been squishes on civil rights and related issues, especially if they involve people arrested for crimes. So far, Ketanji Brown Jackson has been pretty good, but who knows if that will last. (Related? Don't forget that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act was passed while the Slickster was prez. The Senate could have easily overriden a veto, but he might have gotten enough representatives to change their minds to sustain. That, of course, was just one of several issues where Clinton squished out in 1996.)
And, IMO, contra the author, this is as serious issue as Congress, in 1988, passing the Supreme Court Case Selections Act of 1988 that, as cited by her, lessened the Supreme Court's mandatory cases. But, Reagan was president in 1988, so from a duopoly framework, it's easier to bag on this than bag on Clinton.
This Wiki page shows a decline in rulings before 1988 that moderately accelerated for a few years after that, but looked like the decline might be slowing down again, until after 1996.
Finally, per her epilogue, and the background to it, Trump v United States, one can indeed argue it was wrongly decided, but the ruling was not 100 percent de novo. Related? Blame the Nixon Administration's Office of Legal Counsel within the DOJ for wrongly claiming that sitting presidents can't be indicted, and blame John Sirica and Leon Jaworski for accepting that idea. See here.
In other words, the idea of the president as king has a longer history than Graves presents, and the left hand of the duopoly, or at least people touted by it, have played their part in making that what it is.
I could rate it lower than 3.0 stars, and I could give it the mendaciousness tag, but I'm holding off. Graves believes these things sincerely, so I won't accuse her of conscious mendaciousness. Yes, I could say "Mendacity," but I used the other word for my bookshelf and besides, I'm an editor; I can invent that word. For similar reasons, it didn't get the "disappointment" tag but it DID get the "meh" tag. Otherwise, I won't rate it lower than 3 stars because it's good for showing how the left hand of the two-party duopoly can go down a tribalist road.
Yes, the left hand of the duopoly is better than the right hand, but that's small potatoes. And, per what I said early in the review, it wouldn't surprise me if Graves saw my takes and did claim that I "really voted for Trump."
And, all of the above is once again why the annual four-year cry of #BlueAnon, "Oh the SCOTUS," sways me not.
View all my reviews