|
|
|
Review
| A People's History of the Supreme Court, by Peter Irons. New York: Penguin Books, 2006. 588 pages. $18.00, paper.
|
| This clearly written volume by a distinguished constitutional scholar, lawyer, and civil rights advocate, was originally published in 2000 as an intended companion volume to Howard Zinn's leftish reformist/radical A People's History of the United States. Irons' work, however, despite his friendship with Zinn, his admiration for Zinn's approach to history, and their shared commitment to civil rights activism, is a balanced one that avoids the curse of ideological polemics. He builds his historical narrative with brief characterizations of the influences that have shaped individual justice's opinions in seminal constitutional decisions. His depictions of those who brought cases to the Court and his use of concise, relevant quotes from the arguments of those involved in litigation put a human face on the history of the institution. The work has an aura of authenticity about it which comes from a combination of intensive research into the Court's past behavior and his own actual experiences as a legal practitioner. |
1
|
|
The author argues that, most of the time, the historic Court wisely chose a broad interpretivist result-oriented approach to judging as opposed to a narrow, originalist one. This allowed the Court to adapt constitutional doctrines to the changing needs of a dynamic society, but this came with a price. As Irons reminds us, controversy over the Court's proper approach to judging is a major thread that runs throughout the Court's history. As his discussion of the Court's treatment of the issues growing out of the Cultural Wars of the last quarter century indicates, the narrow originalist approach to constitutional interpretation is now alive and well among the conservative Justices, their counterparts in the federal and state courts, and their numerous scholarly allies. |
2
|
|
The author combines the "values and interests" frame of reference developed by Robert G. McCloskey with the seminal case approach of Alfred H. Kelly and others, and the personal approach of Howard Zinn as the basis of his analysis of six major chronological periods in the Court's history. Beginning with the treatment of judicial power in the Constitutional Convention and ending with the Court's response to our contemporary Cultural Wars, Irons depicts the Court's response in these periods as the result of its symbiotic relationship with other significant aspects of American culture. Most significant here is his assumption that the court operates at the intersection of law and politics. It is difficult to challenge his conclusion that any sound history of the United States Supreme Court must consider the continuing interactions of four forces, which are: the views of the President who appoints the Justices, the composition of the Senate which confirms them, the beliefs of the Justices who are coming on the Court, and the beliefs of those who are leaving it. |
3
|
|
Irons' book lends itself to a number of pedagogical uses. Speaking as someone who has spent thirty five years trying to get often indifferent or skeptical students interested in the humanistic aspects of Constitutional and Legal History, I have found the book is a breath of fresh air, the best to date. It treats the entire span of the Supreme Court's history in a manner that should engage and maintain student interest. I recommend it as a text or for supplemental readings for advanced undergraduate courses in U.S. Constitutional law history, civil liberties, judicial process, and law and society offerings. It would also make an excellent preparation book for social studies teachers who seek more understanding of the Court's role in American development, and for general readers in search of more constitutional literacy. |
4
|
| | |
| Wichita State University, Wichita, Kansas |
James C. Duram |
|
Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder.
|