Sandra Day O'Connor

This collection examines the record of current and recent Supreme Court justices in fashioning the Constitution and looks at the larger political context in which their work occurred. Eight distinguished Supreme Court scholars focus on current Justices O'Connor and Rehnquist as well as on several from the recent past--Justices Douglas, Black, and Harlan. Stephenson's introductory essay presents an overview of the Court's role in American government today. The volume makes a complex subject both accessible to general readers and interesting to experts.

A fresh and provocative perspective on the judicial process and the transmission of ideas into law. Professors McIntosh and Cates demonstrate, through the actions and writings of such diverse jurists as Louis Brandeis, Sandra Day O'Connor, Jerome Frank, and Hans Linde, how judges' pet intellectual projects become the fodder for new ideas in the law.

Perry offers a detailed look at the impact of religion, race, and gender on appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court, and places the factors that have influenced presidential decisions into their historical and political contexts. Analyses of the appointments of eight Catholics, five Jews, one black, and one woman reveal a history of decision-making based on the recognition of specific groups. Perry draws on numerous sources, including interviews with seven Court members, in addressing the question of whether "representative" factors should play a role in nominating justices.

This collection brings together, for the first time, the key primary documents in the history of the abortion controversy in the United States. Organized by historical period, these 92 documents tell the story of this highly charged issue. An explanatory introduction geared to the needs of high school and college students accompanies each document. The collection emphasizes the political and social aspects of the debate, and many voices and conflicting views resound--in congressional hearings, Supreme Court decisions, government reports, party platforms, position papers, statutes, biographical accounts, and news stories. The heart of the work is the drama of Roe v. Wade--the cases that led to it, the Supreme Court decision and dissenting opinions, the reaction in Congress, public opinion, political consequences, and the most recent court tests. Each chapter includes a list of suggested readings. The book concludes with a chronology of events in the abortion controversy and a list of decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court relating to abortion.

When the landmark Supreme Court case of Brown vs. Board of Education was handed down in 1954, many civil rights advocates believed that the decision finding public school segregation unconstitutional could become the Holy Grail of racial justice. Fifty years later, despite its legal irrelevance and the racially separate and educationally ineffective state of public schooling for most black children, Brown is still viewed by many as the perfect precedent. Derrick Bell here shatters this shining image of one of the Court's most celebrated rulings. He notes that, despite the onerous burdens of segregation, many black schools functioned well and racial bigotry had not rendered blacks a damaged race. Brown's recognition of racial injustice, without more, left racial barriers intact. Given what we now know about the pervasive nature of racism, the Court should have determined--for the first time--to rigorously enforce the "equal" component of the "separate but equal" standard. By striking it down, the Court intended both to improve the Nation's international image during the Cold War and offer blacks recognition that segregation was wrong. Instead, the Brown decision actually enraged and energized its opponents. It stirred confusion and conflict into the always vexing question of race in a society that, despite denials and a frustratingly flexible amnesia, owes much of its growth, development, and success, to the ability of those who dominate the society to use race to both control and exploit most people, black and white. Racial policy, Bell maintains, is made through silent covenants--unspoken convergences of interest and involuntary sacrifices of rights--that ensure that policies conform to priorities set by policy-makers. Blacks and whites are the fortuitous winners or losers in these unspoken agreements. The experience with Brown, Bell urges, should teach us that meaningful progress in the quest for racial justice requires more than the assertion of harms. Strategies must recognize and utilize the interest-convergence factors that strongly influence racial policy decisions. In Silent Covenants, Bell condenses more than four decades of thought and action into a powerful and eye-opening book.

Millions of Americans were baffled and outraged by the U.S. Supreme Court's role in deciding the presidential election of 2000 with its controversial ruling in Bush v. Gore. The Court had held a unique place in our system of checks and balances, seen as the embodiment of fairness and principle precisely because it was perceived to be above the political fray. How could it now issue a decision that reeked of partisan politics, and send to the White House a candidate who may have actually lost the election? In Supreme Injustice, best-selling author and legal expert Alan M. Dershowitz addresses these questions head-on, at last demystifying Bush v. Gore for those who are still angered by the court's decision but unclear about its meaning. Dershowitz--himself a former Supreme Court clerk--argues that in this case for the first time, the court's majority let its desire for a particular partisan outcome have priority over legal principles. As in his other bestselling books, Dershowitz clarifies complex legal issues, explaining concepts such as "equal protection" and "irreparable harm." Digging deeply into their earlier writings and rulings, Dershowitz proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the justices who gave George W. Bush the presidency contradicted their previous positions to do so. The most egregious ruling since the Dred Scott Decision, Bush v. Gore has shattered the image of the Supreme Court as a fair and impartial arbiter of important national issues. The resulting loss of the American people's respect, Dershowitz concludes, has severely compromised the Court's role in national affairs. And yet Dershowitz sees some benefit emerging from this constitutional crisis--if we understand its lessons and take action to prevent it from happening again.