×

Uh-oh, it looks like your Internet Explorer is out of date.

For a better shopping experience, please upgrade now.

Packing the Court: The Rise of Judicial Power and the Coming Crisis of the Supreme Court
     

Packing the Court: The Rise of Judicial Power and the Coming Crisis of the Supreme Court

1.0 1
by James MacGregor Burns
 

See All Formats & Editions

From renowned political theorist James MacGregor Burns, an incisive critique of the overreaching power of an ideological Supreme Court

For decades, Pulitzer Prize-winner James MacGregor Burns has been one of the great masters of the study of power and leadership in America. In Packing the Court, he turns his eye to the U.S. Supreme Court, an

Overview

From renowned political theorist James MacGregor Burns, an incisive critique of the overreaching power of an ideological Supreme Court

For decades, Pulitzer Prize-winner James MacGregor Burns has been one of the great masters of the study of power and leadership in America. In Packing the Court, he turns his eye to the U.S. Supreme Court, an institution that he believes has become more powerful, and more partisan, than the founding fathers ever intended. In a compelling and provocative narrative, Burns reveals how the Supreme Court has served as a reactionary force in American politics at critical moments throughout the nation's history, and concludes with a bold proposal to rein in the court's power.

Editorial Reviews

Michiko Kakutani
Some of Mr. Burns’s proposals are bound to be controversial: for instance, he suggests near the end of the book that a president could challenge judicial authority by announcing "flatly that he or she would not accept the Supreme Court’s verdicts because the power of judicial emasculation of legislation was not - and never had been - in the Constitution." Happily for the reader, the bulk of this volume is less didactic, charting the fallout that "the passions of the day," in Justice Felix Frankfurter’s words, have had on its rulings, while analyzing the role that chance, timing and the mysteries of human personality have played in shaping the institution and its decisions.
—The New York Times
Publishers Weekly
Pulitzer Prize–winning author Burns's latest is a jeremiad against the influence and unelected power of the Supreme Court. Burns ably guides reader through a brief history of the court, concentrating on its instances of overreaching the bounds of its authority, condemning the unconstitutionality of judicial review and closing with a series of suggestions for reform that include more rigorous presidential oversight of Supreme Court rulings. Norman Dietz is as polished and assured as ever; he reads ably and clearly, eliding Burns's exasperation and laying out the facts with a minimum of inflection and understated authority. A Penguin Press hardcover (Reviews, Apr. 27). (Aug.)
Kirkus Reviews
A Pulitzer Prize-winning historian claims that John Marshall got it spectacularly wrong: "It is emphatically the province and duty of the American people, not of the nine justices of the United States Supreme Court, to say what the Constitution is."The Supreme Court's power and authority date from 1803's Marbury v. Madison, which established it as the final arbiter of any conflict between the law and the Constitution. Burns (Leadership Scholar/Univ. of Maryland; Running Alone: Presidential Leadership from JFK to Bush II-Why It Has Failed and How We Can Fix It, 2006, etc.) departs from conventional wisdom and argues that Marbury's enshrinement of the judiciary's supremacy was actually an extra-Constitutional power grab by Chief Justice Marshall. Marbury immunized the court from checks and balances, made it unaccountable within our democracy and ensured deliberate efforts by the party in power to "pack" the court with its own partisans. In graceful prose, Burns takes us on a quick historical tour of many famous and infamous decisions, demonstrating how the court, frequently imagined as the protector of the weak and powerless, has more often been the friend of the powerful and a "a choke point for progressive reforms," contemptuous of popular legislation. He comments on previous, unavailing efforts to curb the Court's power-drives for impeachment, tinkering with the court's numbers, popular votes on recall of decisions or of the Justices themselves, or fiddling with the rules, such as requiring a supermajority to strike down federal legislation. Astonishingly, Burns then proposes that President Obama, in an act of transformational leadership, announce his refusal to accept Supreme Courtverdicts overruling vital legislation because the Constitution does not mention this power. Supporters of judicial supremacy, writes the author, should then be invited to amend the Constitution to explicitly provide for a power the court has never truly possessed. The author concedes the risk of this "open defiance of constitutional customs and the myths and mysteries that have long enshrouded the court . . . There might even be demands for impeachment." No kidding. Tendentious history in service of a reform bound to go nowhere. Author events in New York and Washington, D.C.
From the Publisher
"[Dietz's] tone and pacing make it easy to follow the constitutional arguments, and he pauses at crucial intervals to allow listeners to consider Burns's ideas." ---AudioFile

Product Details

ISBN-13:
9780143117414
Publisher:
Penguin Publishing Group
Publication date:
06/29/2010
Pages:
336
Sales rank:
883,012
Product dimensions:
5.50(w) x 8.40(h) x 0.80(d)
Age Range:
18 Years

What People are Saying About This

From the Publisher
"[Dietz's] tone and pacing make it easy to follow the constitutional arguments, and he pauses at crucial intervals to allow listeners to consider Burns's ideas." —-AudioFile

Meet the Author

James MacGregor Burns is the Woodrow Wilson Professor of Government Emeritus at Williams College and Distinguished Leadership Scholar at the James MacGregor Burns Academy of Leadership at the University of Maryland. He is the author of more than two dozen books, including Roosevelt: Soldier of Freedom, which won both the Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Award, and Leadership, which is considered a seminal work in the field of leadership studies.

Customer Reviews

Average Review:

Post to your social network

     

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

See all customer reviews

Packing the Court: The Rise of Judicial Power and the Coming Crisis of the Supreme Court 3.9 out of 5 based on 0 ratings. 10 reviews.
pcutler More than 1 year ago
I learned a tremendous amount about the Supreme Court and its dramatic and colorful history from this book. It's very readable, written with verve and lots of humor. Burns highlights the problems that a Court of unelected, lifetime appointees can present when it opposes the democratically-elected branches of Congress. His arguments are fresh and controversial, and always interesting and challenging. I felt that I was taking a most enjoyable course in history and American politics. A first-rate read! Highly recommended to all.
GSorenson More than 1 year ago
This book is beautifully written (as only Bruns can write) and highly originial and provocative in its approach. I couldn't put it down.
LEHFH More than 1 year ago
The book deals with some of the Court's most prominent jurists: John Marshall, Roger Taney, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Louis Brandeis, Hugo Black, Earl Warren and William Rehnquist; and some of its noteworthy decisions: Marbury vs. Madison, Dred Scott, The Slaughterhouse Case, Plessy vs. Ferguson, Griswold vs. Connecticut, Brown vs. the Boad of Education, Roe vs. Wade, Bush vs. Gore. Through these personalitues and decisions, it becomes clear how influential the Court has been in shaping Americs's destiny. A good deal of that power came through John Marshall, 4th chief justice, who declared that the exclusive duty of the Court was to say what the law is, and that the Constitution was nothing more and nothing less than what a majority of justices said it was. Among others, Burns cites three problems with such authority: (1) A judge can never be "objectively detached" in one's interpretation of what the law is or should be...one's upbringing, loyalties, values and passions do and will influence such decisions; (2) Most justices have been political activists before joining the Court and--with notable exceptions--do not easily abandon their party doctrines, but become "politicians in robes"; (3) A judge's life tenure (averages 26 years since 1972) often perpetuates political ideologies/attitudes that Americans have already repudiated at the ballot box, resulting in a critical time lag. The final chapter spells out the author's proposals to end "judicial supremecy." In it he calls for the American people, not 9 justices to say what the Constitution is. Lawrence E. Holst Retired Pastor of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
WordsofTruth More than 1 year ago
While Mr. Burns gives a dramatic interpretation of the Supreme Court history, it still remains his interpretation, influenced by his own "upbringing, loyalties and passions". Gifted writers can become guilty of attempting to persuade readers to their own opinion rather than artistically presenting truth from which a reader can honestly form their own opinion.  And that can be done effectively without flippancy and without dryness. 
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Save you time and money and don't bother with this scatter-brained snooze fest. I love history and politics but i had 80 year half dead professors that were more interesting than this book
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
madler28 More than 1 year ago
Packing the Court serves as an excellent primer on the history of the Supreme Court. Before I picked up the book I had been very eager to learn about the fundamental role and famous rulings of the court, and I was not disappointed. I can now talk intelligently about Justice Marshall, Justice Warren, Marbury v. Madison, McCulloch v. Maryland, Dred Scott, etc. But Burns does much more than merely walk his reader through the history. He also offers a sharp critique of and a push for overhauling the institution. His central argument is that the founding fathers never intended to put in place a judicial branch with absolute and final authority to overrule congress and determine what is and is not constitutional. As such... (check out my blog for full article: http://scholarlywritingreviewed.com/)
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago