Reviews (112)

Useful but dangerous
So you take my input for what it's worth, I tell you up front that I am not yet a law student (most likely going to UCLA in the Fall but wait-listed at Columbia and others) and I have read only a third of Law School Confidential.

I fault Miller, author of LSC, for arrogance.He seems to have good insight and advice on numerous subjects but mixes fact and opinion without distinction and gives them equal weight.I would call his book 'useful but dangerous'.His instruction on briefing in particular, a central part of his overall law school advice, is worrying.

I looked at his initial discussion of briefing and attempted to apply his highlighting technique to the first case (an opinion by the famous Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.--son of the poet) in Delaney's Learning Legal Reasoning: Briefing, Analysis and Theory.It was a notable failure.

Miller forgoes ID'ing the issue, which is very clearly presented in Holmes' opinion and quotable verbatim.Yet the holding which he tells you to highlight (essentially a restatement of the issue in declarative form) cannot be marked, as it is nowhere explicitly stated but instead requires inference.And, most significantly, when we get to the reasoning, we find that Miller's method would necessitate highlighting a third of the opinion (even though he says to be sparing); whereas, traditional briefing allows succinct paraphrasing and useful categorization, e.g. itemization of points under the headings of "legislators' intent" and "policy" in this case.

By the way, I recommend the other book I mentioned (Delaney) for a few reasons: (1) Miller himself says prior skill at briefing is necessary and facilitates his highlighting method. (2) Delaney's book seems to be excellent.A former NYU professor, Delaney is good. (3) The first chapter is a summary of law relevant to the first year, and this is especially important if you lack familiarity, perhaps due to a lack of classes in government or political science.

What is going on?
Is there a gag order or is it that no one wants to come out as the one spilling the beans?

Reviews (2)

Not just for law students
This is an easy-to-read exploration of just what motivates our courts.The author provides a compelling view of what factors courts consider when they issue the decisions that affect our lives.He places his discussion in the context of some of the most influential court cases, which makes this a lively and stimulating read.

Law students will find this book indispensable in their studies, lawyers will a compelling structure of legal arguments to use in their briefs, and anyone can use it to evaluate critically the issues we see develop in our nation today.

Editorial Review

Editorial Review

Reviews (19)

A model for all apologetics!
I loved the format of the book!Scalia presents his judicial interpretative process, and honestly admits hypocrisy when he occasionally votes ideology rather than using his system.Then, rather than providing a half-hearted attack on his ideological opponents, he invites them to respond to his thesis, each with their own chapter!

You may not agree with Scalia, but you can't doubt his moral courage based on his invitation for criticism in his own book.

I also appreciated the chapter on the structure of Germany's Constitution to help us understand why principle, rather than statue, plays such a big role in American judicial interpretative processes.

Everyone that cares about the Supreme Court should read this book.I have yet to find a better book to learn the motivations and processes utilized by each ideological camp.After reading this book, my ability to understand the logic of the court, for both rulings and the opinions, has been greatly enhanced.

While unintended, Scalia also helped cement my personal belief that abstract principalism, and not Scalia's textualist approach, is by far the optimal method for judicial interpretation based on our Constitution.Not just because it is consistent with our founding father's philosophy, but also because of our country's laws that have often times contradicted the principles of the constitution and our slow progression towards fulfilling those ideals through legislation or the courage of the court to eventually strike down laws counter to the principles plainly laid-out within our beloved Constitution.

Not your father's judicial interpretation.
I'd like to mention, first of all, what this book it not.It is not for the casual observer of the American judicial system.Justice Scalia gives a probing examination of various methods used in Constitutional and judicial interpretation. If the reader is not consumed with learning law, or delineating the intent of the Constitution, this book will probably be a major disappointment.

On the other hand, if you have a solid foundation of knowledge on the judiciary and the U.S. Constitution, you will enjoy this book and will learn a great deal of what Justice Scalia has to offer.Scalia offers up a 50 page paper on the various methods of judicial interpretation, each methods strengths and weaknesses, and the how and why of whether or not each method is viable.

Scalia's paper is then cross-examined by Ronald Dworkin, Mary Ann Glendon, Amy Gutmann, Lawrence Tribe and Gordon Wood.Scalia then offers up his rebuttal and I believe, strengthens his theories of judicial interpretation.I am not going to go into my own how's and why's, as I am a fan of Scalia's and would rather allow the reader to reach their own conclusions.

Whether you like this book, or hate it, one thing is for certain, you will come away with a much better knowledge of the U.S. judicial system, how it reaches some of its conclusions, and what the consequences of continuing with current methods of judicial interpretation will be on our country.

Editorial Review

Reviews (1)

Reviews (5)

Best Hornbook I Own
And I own far too many, especially for someone who actually spends time writing Amazon reviews.

This book does a great job of explaining the policy and history-succinctly-behind most of the rules and theories we've covered in class and in the casebook.

I think this is my favorite hornbook, but I give it four stars for not giving as much insight into specific cases as other hornbooks do.

VERY GOOD OVERVIEW OF U.S. CONTRACT LAW
This book is a must for lawyers and scholars from the continental law area because it provides a clear and general overview of the fundamental issues related with contract law.
For those that want to explore more in depth specific issues, then professor Farnsworth's Treatise on the subject would be the reference text. For legal students in the common law sistem it gives a very useful approach to the subject matter.

Reviews (8)

A good gloss on Dressler's casebook
This book isn't going to change anyone's life, but it is well written. It's also the perfect complement to Dressler's casebook, providing much more indepth analysis and notes than the casebook. As grizzled vets of past law school exams will tell you, it is frequently the notes and squib cases that fact patterns on exams are drawn from. If you can recognize those fact patterns instantly and have a pre-digested analysis ready to go, you will be at a distinct advantage in the exam sweepstakes.

Wonderful review book
This book explains all of the basic concepts of criminal law in a clear, intelligent manner.His explanations were so clear that I could easily incorporate them into my outline, even though the guide was not keyed into the assigned casebook.I used this book to study for my crim law exam.My professor wasn't very well organized, so I really did not feel very confident about the exam before using this book.This book helped me get one of the highest grades in the class.

Reviews (13)

Very Entertaining With A Few Missteps
I fully enjoyed this series and own each set. The first series has additional charm because of the nice packaging, which decreased in charm as later sets came out. The plastic display holder and hard cover companion book, including a transcript of each tape, is a nice touch.

The sets does have a liberal slant, though not excessive, which reflects the author. [Justice Marshall gets some play a lot, but then again, his questions often tend to be entertaining.] This doesn't hurt too much, since the commentary is relatively brief, and centers largely on the facts of the case. And, the cases are generally landmark, not leaning one way or the other per se. Anyway, the first tape's "introduction to the Supreme Court" is well done.

I don't find it too troubling that the book doesn't have the whole opinion. The book uses a typical "casebook" approach and prints important excerpts. The book would be much larger if the full opinions were printed. Nor do the excerpt style hurt too much, again it would take much more space to do so. For those interested, Jerry Goldman has a CD-ROM with complete orals of some cases. Also, Oyez.com provides many.

I must, however, note that Irons et. al. provided some sloppy editing, which he admitted to some degree later on. He has the "Reagan Administration" involved in a case before Reagan came to office. He has "Justice Marshall" asking a question in a case before he came to the Court. And, some substantive facts and explanations contain some errors. I'm not sure how some of these things were missed in editing.

Nonetheless, overall, it is a very educational series. It further suggests why we should be able to hear these things on C-SPAN.

Absolutely Outstanding!
This is probably the best item I have purchased all year long, and definitely the most intellectually stimulating. I was expecting a product that would be informative and interesting, but my expectations where surpassed by leaps and bounds.

I am currently working on a case as a Pro Se litigant that I feel may very well wind up before the high court before all is said and done, and so I purchased this item to gain insight on how the justices decide cases, the methods used to argue, how the points are made and

I was surprised at the quality of the recordings. I typically dislike narrated tapes because many narrators are overbearing and feel the need to explain every little event, usually resulting in my mumbling of various expletives at the tape player like "Shut up and let me decide for myself" and "I want to hear the justices, not you describing the paintings on the wall". May It Please the Court was different however, the narrator spoke no more than necessary and was unusually informative when he did speak.

Every citizen who wants to learn how our legal system works should listen to these tapes. I have little doubt that these tapes would prove to be invaluable learning tools in the classrooms in both public high schools and in the collegiate setting.

Whether you are a law student, pro se litigant, seasoned attorney or just an average citizen wanting to know more about how the system works, May It Please the Court is well worth the price and your time.

Isbn: 1565846133
Sales Rank: 675754
Subjects:  1. Abortion (Sociological Aspects)    2. Cases    3. Constitutional    4. Constitutional Law    5. Courts - Supreme Court    6. Education    7. Educational    8. Educational law and legislatio    9. Educational law and legislation    10. General    11. Law    12. Legal Reference / Law Profession    13. Supreme Court    14. United States    15. United States.   

Reviews (3)

Thought provoking and interesting
Like it's predecessor, "May it Please The Court", "The First Amendment" contains cassettes with edited oral arguments before the Supreme Court. The highlights of the arguments are held together by commentary from Peter Irons, who also introduces each case with a brief history and a review of the legal questions involved. It also finishes with another short talk by Irons, indicating how the Court ruled and talking a bit about the opinions. The companion book has transcripts of the cassettes, as well as highlights from the opinions in the case.

Whereas the previous book contained 23 cases and one introduction to the court, this one has only 16 cases. Moreover, four cases are in fact repeats from the previous book. The cases in this one are, with the issue involved in parenthesis: R.A.V v. City of St. Paul (cross burning); Texas v. Johnson (flag burning, included in the previous book); Tinker v. Des Moines (Vietnam protest by high school students, also in the previous book); U.S. vs. O'Brien (draft card burning as protest), Abbington v. Schempp (school prayer, included in the previous book); Barnes v. Glen Theater (nude dancing); Branzburg v. Hayes (disclosure of a reporter's sources); Cohen v. California (vulgar speech); Employment Division v. Smith (religious use of peyote); Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeyer (censorship of school papers); Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (suing for emotional distress from a parody); Hurley v. Irish-American Gays, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston (gays marching on St. Patrick's Parade); Miller v. California (obsenity), New York Times v. Sullivan (libel); and New York Times v. United States (prior restraint and the Pentagon Papers, included in the previous book).

One difference in this book from the previous one is also the period represented by the cases. Whereas the 23 cases in "May it Please the Court" were loaded towards the Warren and early Burger period (11 cases were from the Warren Court, 9 from the Burger Court, most in the early 70's, and only 3 from the Rehnquist Court), in this one most cases are much more recent. 8 cases are from the Rehnquist court, only one of which had been included in the previous book; 4 are from the Burger court, with one previously included, and 4 are from the Warren court, only two of which are published here for the first time.

As I said in my review of "May it Please The Court", it is unfortunate that the full opinions are not included in the companion book. In addition to this, whereas in "May it Please the Court" the companion book listed the cases in the same order as they appeared on the cassettes, this is not the case in "The First Amendment" which, while not tragic, is certainly somewhat annoying. There are also a number of careless mistakes that could easily have been corrected. In one case, Irons talks about the "Reagan Administration" for a case argued in 1972 (it was the Nixon administration). In that same case, in the final summary, in the cassette Irons makes a mistake, talks to the recorder operator and they agree to edit it, and he retakes the paragraph from the top; this could easily have been fixed if a bit of care had been given to the check the final product. It is unfortunate that such carelessness, easily corrected, should creep into an otherwise excellent book. It is also unfortunate that there are repeats from the previous book. Although the cases in question are certainly both important and relevant, perhaps they could have been added in addition to new cases. Four cases is the content of one full cassette, so even though the four repeats are spread through the four tapes, it means the book contains only three tapes worth of new cases.

Listening to the arguments is very instructive. It gives us a glimpse into how the Supreme Court works. Listening to tough hypotheticals and skeptical questions from Scalia, Hugo Black, O'Connor, or Rehnquist, and imagining the lawyers squirming under the glares of the justices can be quite an amusing and instructive lesson. Irons does a good job of putting the case in perspective and joining together the segments of arguments selected, even if he does let his personal liberal slant (to which I have no personal objection, it should be said) interfere every now and then. Although I am not a lawyer, I came out knowing a lot more about the constitution and about the Supreme Court than I did when I came in, and I shall listen to the cassettes and the arguments many times in the future. I recommend the book, and I hope the publisher will correct the few mistakes that appear in it when they prepare the next edition.

"May It Please the Court" Works Well in the Classroom
I teach political science at local junior colleges. As a result, I am always on the lookout for material that will be both interesting and useful in the classroom.

I recently presented the recording of "Tinker v. Des Moines" (symbolic speech; Vietnam) to one of my classes. Theentire class was focused on the voices so well that we discussed specificexchanges after the twenty-odd minute recorded session concluded with adegree of recall I have not often experienced with audio-video material,which can sometimes distract and inform in equal parts. Having a text witha transcript of the tape program, including the narrator's comments, wasvery helpful in going over and clarifying these exchanges.

The text alsocontains edited versions of the majority decision written by JusticeFortas, as well as nearly two pages of Justice Black's dissent. The latteris a significant dissent that was subsequently cited in another case,"Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier," which is also includedin this volume.

My only complaint is that the material is on cassette andnot on compact disk. I find this a minor inconvenience, in that it requiresthat I remember to "queue up" the cassette prior to beginning theclass on those cases, such as "Tinker", that are in the"middle" of a side of a cassette.

But if you're curious to geta "feeling" as to how the Supreme Court "sounds", thisbook-and-cassettes combination is for you. If you teach this material, saveyour money and buy it.

Reviews (32)

Icing on the cake
This is an entertaining book with good insights on taking law school exams (I particularly liked Fischl & Paul's hilarious debunking of that stupid old IRAC bromide that professors like to give to all those foolish 1Ls). But some Amazon reviewers seem to think that Getting To Maybe is some sort of magic cure-all. It ain't. Unless you have spent a year or two perfecting your writing and analytical skills through continual practice, merely perusing this book will do nothing for you come exam time. If, however, you are already well versed in basic lawyerly analysis, this book will give you an edge.


Here's what you need to do in order to score well on a law exam:

1. Extricate the key facts from a fact-dense problem. (Watch out for red herrings!)

2. Spot and specify all legal issues that arise from these key facts.

3. Intelligently apply all applicable legal rules to the issues.

4. Interweave key facts into elements of the applicable rules.

5. Insert appropriate policy discussions that support the rules. (Take notes and study up on each prof's particular hobby horse and demonstrate extensive familiarity with it on your essay exams.)

6. Integrate ALL of the above skills with succinct, first-draft legal writing skills within the allotted time (usually about 50 minutes per problem). Think fast, write fast--and do both well.

Getting To Maybe is particularly good at developing point number 5. It is somewhat spotty at most of the others. But what it does, it does very well indeed. And, as far as law-related books go, it's a fun and funny read. So, after you have mastered the basics of black-letter law and learned to think clearly and write well, what this book has to teach you will be yet another arrow in your quiver. Just don't think it's your entire arsenal.

Further recommendations: Pre-law and 1L students should read all the books in the Examples & Explanations series and carefully work through ALL the problems. The single most useful book on exam-taking is John Delaney's How To Do Your Best On Law School Exams, which you can purchase directly from Professor Delaney. And for heaven's sake, don't forget to take Wentworth Miller's LEEWS program early in your first semester.

Lastly--and it's sad to have to say this--learn some friggin' logic and some essay-writing skills before you even think of setting foot on campus. It's amazing and pathetic how few 1Ls can write clear, coherent, grammatical prose.Law school ain't the time to be taking Freshman Comp and Logic 101. Remember, the first year is crucial. Don't blow it.

Alright book
not all its hyped up to be helped a little go get a gilberts or an emanuels if you want to do well don't waste time on this

Isbn: 0820553689
Sales Rank: 350501
Subjects:  1. Civil Procedure    2. Law    3. Legal Reference / Law Profession    4. United States   

Features

• Abridged

Reviews (13)

Court junkie

Overall this book is a good read. It is heavily biased against Chief Justice Rehnquist -- I really got the feeling that Dean despise's the Chief Justice. It portrays Nixon as a horrible president (Dean quotes Nixon as saying that no women should work in government).
Enough of the negative aspects of the book. It goes into detail the vetting process of Court appointments. The author's direct relationship to the president and to Rehnquist makes the book even better.
This book is not for people who only "like" to study the Court. I highly recommend this book to people who love to study the Supreme Court or William Rehnquist. Worth the read!!

Perfect for Supreme Court Junkies
If you love reading about the Supreme Court and the story behind the Justices and how they got there, then this book is perfect.John Dean was in the Nixon White House when Tricky Dick was looking to make two Court appointments at the same time.The first appointment, Lewis Powell, wasn't too hard.He was a distinguished lawyer.But what about the other appointment?Nixon couldn't find anyone suitable for the position.His choices were either not qualified or didn't want the position.As a last resort, he picked an obscure White House lawyer who went on the change the face of constitutional law, William Rehnquist.

John Dean explains how Rehnquist was chosen and quotes Nixon saying some very unsavory things about women as well as other intemporate comments.This was the real Nixon -- a foul mouthed political animal who placed ideology over everything else.The book also talks about Rehnquist's unsavory past, including a memo he wrote as a Supreme Court clerk in 1954, when the Court decided Brown v. Board of Education, the seminal ruling outlawing separate but equal schools.The future Supreme Court Justice proposed affirming Plessy v. Ferguson, which affirmed racial distinctions in schooling.John Dean talks about this controversial memo and takes apart Rehnquist's position that it did not reflect his views.

An Insider's Look at the Bungling Behind a Historic Choice
During his first presidential term, Richard Nixon had the unusual opportunity to appoint four justices to the supreme court. This book tells the inside story of how the nominees were selected, focusing almost entirely on the selection of the latter two: Lewis Powell, a prominent Virginia attorney, and William Rehnquist, then the Assistant Attorney General to John Mitchell. Not counting the book's introduction and afterword, its main story covers just 35 days in the fall of 1971.

The book begins by telling how Nixon virtually created the first two vacancies. Essentially, Nixon encouraged Senate republicans to fillibuster the elevation of Abe Fortas to the Chief Justice position. Once in office, Nixon's men then staged a PR campaign to discredit Fortas, causing him to announce his retirement. Ironically, the legal precedent for investigating Fortas' business dealings was based on a memo written by Rehnquist.

If anyone should be entitled to write this story, it is John Dean. At the time, Dean was Council to the President, and it was he that first brought up Rehnquist's name, mostly as a fanciful suggestion. He recounts his experiences vetting candidates and some of his conversations as reconstructed from notes and memory. Primarily, however, the book is based on Nixon's tape recorded conversations in the oval office. Dean has done a good job editing these transcripts so as to maintain sufficient context without dragging them out too long.

What emerges in these conversations is a series of bungled operations and imprudent decisions. Before Lewis and Rehnquist were finally selected in the final two days before their names were announced, the administration actually selected four other candidates. Two were rejected by the Senate, and the other two (including a woman) were deemed unqualified by the ABA (although from the sounds of it, the female candidate, Mildred Lillie, was fairly qualified but discriminated against by the all-male panel). John Mitchell and his assistant Rehnquist did an abysmal job vetting candidates, so much so that Dean and another lawyer were sent by John Ehrlichman to independently interview the candidates in more depth. And Nixon himself seemed to base his choices on hearsay and surface biographical snippets, like the candidates' class rank or the school they graduated from. He paid very little attention to the candidates' actual writings or opinions.

One of the incidental but nevertheless shocking revelations in the book is the deep extent of Nixon's sexism. Recent tapes have revealed his racism and anti-semitism, but his low opinion of women is repeated time and again in the transcripts. For example he is quoted as saying "I don't even think women should be educated!" and "I don't think a woman should be in any government job whatever."

In the book's afterword, Dean makes a compelling case that Rehnquist lied under oath during his confirmation hearings, both when he was initially confirmed in 1971, and then again in 1986 when Reagan nominated him to Chief Justice. At issue were Rehnquist's activities in Arizona during the 1960's preventing minorities from voting, and a controversial memo he wrote while clerking for Justice Robert Jackson in which he urged Jackson to vote to maintain segregated schools in the historic "Brown vs. Board of Education" case. Dean argues that if Rehnquist had been better vetted and prepared for his initial confirmation hearings, he would have had ready answers to these questions. Instead, he was caught off guard and ended up lying in 1971, and then lying again in 1986 to maintain the original lies.

Reviews (11)

Philosophy in historical dress
Grant Gilmore, the late professor of contracts at Yale, got The Common Law right when he wrote in The Ages of American Law (1977) that Holmes' lectures have "long since become unreadable unless the reader is prepared to put forward an almost superhuman effort of will to keep his attention from flagging and his interest from wandering." (52)I also agree with Gilmore that Holmes is attempting to disguise a philosophic statement in historical dress.The Common Law may even be "an elaborate joke" that Holmes was amused to play on his audience.Influential, yes; worth reading, no.

The Philosophical Basis For Our Legal System
This book is a little tedious for us non-lawyers, but it does illustrate some interesting points:
Law emerged from the need to get away from revenge/feud dynamics.And it originated during times when most people couldn't write, so the issue of proving a case (such as in a agreement) is troublesome (especially in times when plagues and such could kill witnesses at any time).The world is a fuzzy set, and yet the law needs to set a finite set of rules in place, so exceptions constantly challenge.The needs of the state can supercede the issue of fairness, such as in the rule that "ignorance is no excuse".Judges are generally friends of the wealthy and not compatriots of the commoner.If a man has large debts, and dies, how can his children, who were not party to the agreements, be held liable via the estate?Many such questions arise and Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. tries to address the fluid basis for our legal system.