Judicial Process

Shakedown tells a two-part tale of government-sponsored extortion using the courts. Levy uncovers the worst of the abuses and advises to lawmakers what to do about them.

Decision days appear to outsiders as among the most dramatic events on the Supreme Court calendar. One thinks, for instance, of Chief Justice Earl Warren, reading the unanimous opinion in Brown v. Board of Education in a courtroom pervaded by tension. But the real drama of Brown and other Supreme Court cases may well have been what went on behind the scenes. Rarely do the arguments of counsel--brilliant though they may appear to the courtroom audience--dictate the decision in an important Supreme Court case. Rather, the crucial argument in a case takes place privately among the Justices after the public hearing. Decision provides a unique behind-the-scenes look at the Supreme Court and how its Justices decide cases. Distinguished author Bernard Schwartz, described by The New York Times as "one of the nation's leading legal scholars," uses confidential conference notes, draft opinions, memoranda, letters, and interviews to tell what really goes on behind the red velour curtain. Cases and anecdotes, woven into deft discussions of the Justices and how they function, provide unmatched insights into our high tribunal. We read of the conferences where the Justices cast their votes, the decisions as to who will write opinions (one of the most critical choices made by the Chief Justice), the often extensive give and take of the draft opinion, and the intense lobbying between Justices that influences vote changes (it was Chief Justice Earl Warren's pressure on Justice Reed in Brown that made the final vote unanimous). Schwartz focuses on the Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist courts, providing not just vivid portraits of the Chief Justices themselves, but also profiles of many Associate Justices in action--including Felix Frankfurter, Byron R. White, Sandra Day O'Connor, William J. Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, and John Paul Stevens. And Schwartz includes an eye-opening discussion of the expanding role of the Justices' clerks, revealing that they are no longer merely a "staff of assistants." Instead, they have evolved into a sort of "Junior Supreme Court," which performs a major part of the judicial role--including the writing of opinions--delegated by the Constitution to the Justices themselves. Decision gives readers a privileged look at countless cases throughout the Court's history, from the Dred Scott decision to Miranda v. Arizona to the controversial decision in Roe v. Wade to United States v. Nixon (the Watergate tapes case). Highly readable, yet written with impeccable scholarship, Decision shows the Justices in action as never before. Everything you wanted to know about the Supreme Court and were afraid to ask is here, in a revealing work on the institution that has had such an impact on our law and our life.

The federal courts are the world's most powerful judiciary and a vital element of the American political system. In recent decades, these courts have experienced unprecedented growth in caseload and personnel. Many judges and lawyers believe that a "crisis in quantity" is imperiling the ability of the federal judiciary to perform its historic function of administering justice fairly and expeditiously. In a substantially revised edition of his widely acclaimed 1985 book "The Federal Courts: Crisis and Reform," Chief Judge Richard A. Posner of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit provides a comprehensive evaluation of the federal judiciary and a detailed program of judicial reform. Drawing on economic and political theory as well as on legal analysis and his own extensive judicial experience, Posner sketches the history of the federal courts, describes the contemporary institution, appraises the concerns that have been expressed with the courts' performance, and presents a variety of proposals for both short-term and fundamental reform. In contrast to some of the direr prophecies of observers of the federal courts, Posner emphasizes the success of these courts in adapting to steep caseload growth with minimum sacrifice in quality.

Although the book ranges over a variety of traditional topics in federal jurisdiction, the focus is steady on federal judicial administration conceived of as an interdisciplinary approach emphasizing system rather than doctrine, statistics rather than impressions, and caseload rather than cases. Like the earlier edition, this book promises to be a landmark in the empirical study of judicial administration.

In Jurismania, Paul Campos asserts that our legal system is beginning to exhibit symptoms of serious mental illness. Trials and appeals that stretch out for years and cost millions, 100 page appellate court opinions, 1,000 page statutes before which even lawyers tremble with fear, and a public that grows more litigious every day all testify to a judicial overkill that borders on obsessive-compulsive disorder. Campos locates the source of such madness, paradoxically, in our worship of reason and the resulting belief that all problems are amenable to legal solutions. In insightful discussions of a wide range of cases, from NCAA regulations of student-athletes to the Simpson trial, from our most intractable social disputes over abortion and physician-assisted suicide to the war on drugs and the increasingly fastidious attempts to regulate behavior in public spaces, Campos shows that the mania for more law exacerbates the very problems it seeks to remedy. In his final chapter, the author calls instead for a humbling recognition of the limits of reason and a much more modest role for our legal system. Clearly written and laced with a delicious wit, Jurismania gives us a CAT-scan of the American legal mind at work. It reveals not only that the patient is even worse off than we imagined, but also clarifies the many reasons why.

This book asks how federal court judges decide cases when faced with unsettled issues of law. Specifically, how much and why are their decisions influenced by higher court judges or other judges at the same level as themselves? To answer these questions, the author relies on statistical analyses of decisions and interviews with court of appeals judges. The key findings are that judges give serious attention to the work of colleagues of equal authority, but demonstrate substantial independence from the Supreme Court.

Anyone who has sat on a jury or followed a high-profile trial on television usually comes to the realization that a trial, particularly a criminal trial, is really a performance. Verdicts seem determined as much by which lawyer can best connect with the hearts and minds of the jurors as by what the evidence might suggest. In this celebration of the American trial as a great cultural achievement, Robert Burns, a trial lawyer and a trained philosopher, explores how these legal proceedings bring about justice. The trial, he reminds us, is not confined to the impartial application of legal rules to factual findings. Burns depicts the trial as an institution employing its own language and styles of performance that elevate the understanding of decision-makers, bringing them in contact with moral sources beyond the limits of law.Burns explores the rich narrative structure of the trial, beginning with the lawyers' opening statements, which establish opposing moral frameworks in which to interpret the evidence. In the succession of witnesses, stories compete and are held in tension. At some point during the performance, a sense of the right thing to do arises among the jurors. How this happens is at the core of Burns's investigation, which draws on careful descriptions of what trial lawyers do, the rules governing their actions, interpretations of actual trial material, social science findings, and a broad philosophical and political appreciation of the trial as a unique vehicle of American self-government.

Long considered one of the most important books on the role and operation of the law, THE POLITICS OF LAW offers a provocative, intelligent critique of traditional jurisprudence. This third edition has been extensively updated to respond to the latest changes in judicial trends. THE quintessential critique of our modern judicial system that belongs on the bookshelf of every law student, judge, politician, and interested citizen. Index.

Philips looks at the languages of judges in the courtroom to show that, while judges see themselves as impartial agents of the constitutional right to due process, there is actually much diversity in the way that judges interract with defendants due to their interpretations of the law, their attitudes toward courtroom control, and their own political-ideological stances regarding due process. She uses courtroom transcripts, interviews, and the written law itself to show how ideological diversity is organized in legal discourse.

This highly informed selection of readings on judicial ethics is singular in the authoritative commentary and experience offered by the editors. The work considers the various ways in which moral problems arise for judges. The three sections examine: the ideal, corrupt, and over-zealous judge; the "judging" role as it is affected by tensions rising from not only the facts of a case and legal precedents but also from personal beliefs and social expectations; and, in the final section, the judge's need for independence and its relationship to accountability and the avoidance of abuse. This work is a balanced, comprehensive, and constructive volume reflecting on the moral issues involved in sitting in judgment.