The Supreme Court's Greatest Hits 2.0

I listened to this title on Audible. The narration by Jonathan Yen was clear and bright, making it far more entertaining than one might expect to listen to, given the subject matter. The truth is, before digesting this book, I had little knowledge on the SCOTUS, the justices who preside over it, and the impact the decisions it has made have had on the daily lives of Americans. This book provides some of that, but leaves quite a bit to be desired.

Firstly, the book focuses heavily on cases in recent memory. Quite a few of the cases selected have been decided by the Roberts court—the fact of the matter is that many of the cases this court have decided have been so recent they have had no time to produce a corresponding change in most people's lives. There are exceptions to this rule, of course, such as the landmark decision of Obergefell v. Hodges, but I found myself wishing while listening to this book that it focused more on earlier decisions the Supreme Court made as opposed to railing on modern-day decisions.

That is the other issue with this title: slant. The book has a very obvious bias against the Roberts court and, in particular, against a specific judicial philosophy. The author portrays liberal (in the judicial context, not necessarily in the political context) justices who employ broad interpretations of Constitutional Law as bold and courageous. Contrarily, he portrays conservative justices who employ stricter interpretations of Constitutional Law, or alternatively, who base their opinions on the context of prior Supreme Court decisions, as dangerous and behind the times.

Indeed, this bias shows most strongly when the author is covering the context behind the most recent decisions it highlights. He often goes on tangents describing the threats that these decisions pose to daily life, none of which, as far as I can tell, have even remotely surfaced since the 2nd edition of this book was published.

The author also continuously stresses how divisive the Roberts court is compared to previous courts; however, data from SCOTUSblog, an independent website that characterizes the context of decisions the court makes, clearly shows this not to be the case. Average agreement between justices has been, indeed, exhibiting a slow downward trend since the 1995 Rehnquist court. However, the ratio of 5-4 decisions to unanimous decisions has also been decreasing since that time. This is including the several "conservative" appointees to the Supreme Court that many have proselytized would bring the end times to the American way of life.

The reality, in spite of what the author wishes to portray, is that while the Supreme Court is certainly divided on ideological lines, it is no less capable today of delivering unanimous verdicts than it has been over the last three decades.

In spite of these criticisms, I would recommend this book to anyone who wishes to get their feet wet with respect to the workings of the SCOTUS. It does provide some interesting insights on the justices themselves, including some fascinating tales from days gone by of how these figures—who much of the media complex would wish us to believe have been and are currently bitter, mortal enemies—have profound respect for one another and the importance that their branch of government has in maintaining the balance between the Executive and the Legislative.