The Nine

 I heard about Jeffrey’s Toobin’s book The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court from the Assistant Director of Alumni Relations from Willamette University with whom I had lunch in July.  He said the book presented an interesting picture not only of the Supreme Court justices during the past 10-20 years but the entire court including the law clerks, the building, procedures, important cases, and the Presidential and Congressional tasks of appointing and confirming the justices.  It roughly covers the time period from the late eighties to present day, though it skips back to explain each justice’s background, interesting anecdotes, and the origins of ideological trends.  In addition to writing books, Jeffrey Toobin is a staff writer for the New Yorker and a legal analyst for CNN.  We just saw him on CNN TV give his opinion of John McCain’s speech at the Republican National Convention.  He thought it was boring and lacked substance on the issues.  However, he did praise vice presidential nominee and current Alaska governor Sarah Palin’s speech from the evening before.

The Nine focuses primary on the Supreme Court from 1994 to 2005, the longest period in history without a change in justices.  Toobin describes the justices, their backgrounds, personalities, judicial philosophies, and how they change over their tenure.  He writes a lot about Sandra Day O’Connor who was arguably the most powerful justice on the court and most powerful woman in America.  Her moderate stance often made her the swing vote between the liberal and conservative justices.  She collaborated with either sides depending on how they aligned with her judicial philosophy and often her opinions reflected those of most of America.
 
Toobin describes both the justices’ rulings and judicial philosophies.  He goes through several of their most important cases dealing with issues such as abortion, gay rights, treatment of terrorism suspects, affirmative action, and the historic case that decided an election:  Bush vs. Gore.  His analyses reveal the complexities of the laws while still being understandable and interesting.  He also writes about the ongoing trend toward more conservative values on the Supreme Court and in American Law.  Toobin describes this trend grudgingly as he subtly betrays some of his liberal leanings in his writing.

Despite being about an important and serious topic, the book contains a lot of humor.  I believe the nearly satirical humor reflects Toobin’s experience writing for the New Yorker.  He makes the justices almost seem like caricatures with their big egos, faults, and idiosyncrasies.  He recounts amusing anecdotes such as when Justice Scalia told his driver he could run red lights even though justices don’t really have the power to do so.  Toobin use some irony in his writing.  He describes the career of Religious Right lawyer Jay Sekulow as a “classic Washington trajectory: he came to the capital to do good (as in make a positive difference) and stayed to do well (as in make a lot of money).”  In a later chapter, Toobin writes, “(Justice Clarence) Thomas, probably the most famous beneficiary of affirmative action, wrote a passionate opinion denouncing the practice.”  He just can’t help inflicting such jabs at the conservatives.  A less vindictive anecdote concerns Justice Souter meeting a couple who believe he is Justice Breyer.  Souter plays along and they ask him, “What’s the best thing about being on the Supreme Court?”  He answers, “Well, I’d have to say, it’s the privilege of serving with Justice David Souter.”  Breyer himself has an amusing quote.  Describing the work of the court he says, “All we do is read and write . . . if you’re really good at homework, you get to do it for the rest of your life.”

As stated, Toobin’s prose is easily understood despite some topics being complex.  He makes clear how former Justice Blackmun originally justified Roe vs. Wade as part of the Right to Privacy but Justice Ginsburg rejects this argument and justifies it with the Equal Protection Clause.  Toobin also uses some obscure forms of words.  “Originalism” is the philosophy of interpreting the Constitution only as the Framers intended it to be read.  He also uses a known word in a less common adverbial form when he writes about Justice Thomas, “There was no one on the Court remotely like him—philosophically, personally, or jurisprudentially.”

 The latter part of the book focuses on the appointment of the two newest justices to the Supreme Court: Chief Justices John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito.  It was interesting to learn about George W. Bush’s administration’s methods of selecting and vetting the potential appointees.  Overall, I learned a lot from reading the book and have a greater appreciation for the Judicial Branch of government, a branch we don’t hear about as often as the President and Congress.  It was also enjoyable reading, though a bit biased in parts.  I now understand how the president can have a great effect on the balance of the court.  Up to three justices may retire in the next 4-8 years and their replacements will determine the direction of American law for many years to come.