| Book Review | The Journal of American History, 87.2

You have not been recognized as a subscriber to JAH online. About 190 words from this article are provided below; about 369 words remain.

If you are a individual member of the Organization of American Historians, you may:: • login here if you have already registered for online access.; • Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.
• Set up your online account for the first time.
If you are not a member of the Organization of American Historians, you can:: • Join the OAH and receive many member benefits including print and electronic issues of the Journal of American History.
• Purchase a research pass to gain two-hour access to the entire History Cooperative web site. You will have full access to current issues of the Journal of American History (86.1-present). Note: the Research Pass does not provide access to JSTOR's holdings of the Journal of American History.
Instititutions can:: • Subscribe to this journal and receive print and electronic issues.
• Activate your existing subscription so that we recognize your IP number ranges.

| Book Review | The Journal of American History, 87.2 | The History Cooperative

Book Review

A People's History of the Supreme Court. By Peter Irons. (New York: Viking, 1999. xviii, 542 pp. $32.95, isbn 0-670-87006-4.)

In A People's History of the Supreme Court, Peter Irons, a political activist and scholar, focuses upon the human beings involved in some eighty-five decisions of the Supreme Court. Seeking to provide models for his readers to emulate, he acknowledges a personal and professional indebtedness to Howard Zinn, who contributes a foreword. 1

After getting the Constitution and Bill of Rights in place, Irons draws out the human dramas involved as individuals contend for their rights. He believes that the Constitution is a flexible document within which the justices have wide-ranging discretion, along with an obligation, to interpret the fundamental law to promote the dignity of the individual. 2

This review proceeds on the assumption that a viable history of the Court could be written by focusing largely on human rights cases dealing with race, class, and gender, by highlighting the litigants involved in the key cases, and by taking such an expansive view of the Court's proper role. Granting this much, Irons's treatment still is disappointing. . . .

There are about 369 more words in this article. Please log in (or, if you are not yet an authorized user, please go to the User Setup page) to gain full access rights. Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.