PositiveWashington PostIn this short and very accessible work, Millhiser focuses on four facets of the court’s current and future jurisprudence: the right to vote, the dismantling of the administrative state, religion and the right to sue. It is a bit surprising that Millhiser, a senior correspondent at Vox, does not address such issues as abortion rights, gay rights and affirmative action ... In light of the current makeup of the court, this trend toward allowing manipulation of the electoral process to benefit Republican candidates is likely, Millhiser predicts, to escalate. The new Georgia law on voting, which has generated a great deal of controversy, is an example of what Millhiser anticipates and fears ... Millhiser analyzes what he sees as a cynical and unprincipled approach by Republican-appointed justices to manipulate the law to serve their own and their party’s interests by overruling prior Supreme Court decisions and dismantling federal agencies dealing with such issues as clean power, health care and homeland security, on the theory that it is unconstitutional for Congress to delegate such responsibilities to the executive branch.
Ruth Marcus
RaveThe Washington Post... extraordinarily detailed and highly insightful ... With Kavanaugh replacing Kennedy, who was perceived as a moderate on some of these issues, the Supreme Court would have five justices who would form a majority that would be more politically conservative than at any time in living memory. This is the most dramatic meaning of supreme ambition. Marcus does a superb job of explaining and setting forth the details of this part of the story, including the often fascinating conflicts among Republicans about how best to proceed ... As in the rest of Supreme Ambition, Marcus does a terrific job of unpacking the complex conflicts and interactions within the Senate Judiciary Committee and the FBI to present a fair-minded and evenhanded account of what went on behind the scenes ... Marcus’s take on all this is instructive. She knew Kavanaugh for a quarter-century before his nomination and had always found him to be \'open and gracious\' ... Although Marcus believes that the Senate Republicans were irresponsible in not investigating the other allegations against Kavanaugh that came to light, the central point for her is that, unlike a criminal defendant, who has a presumption of innocence, a nominee to serve for life on the highest court in the land \'shoulders the burden of persuasion,; and \'Kavanaugh did not meet this test.\' That he was confirmed amid such circumstances, she concludes, will be \'a blot on Kavanaugh\' and on the Supreme Court that is \'indelible.\'
Joan Biskupic
RaveThe Washington Post\"Like Biskupic’s previous books about Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Antonin Scalia and Sonia Sotomayor, The Chief offers an extraordinarily insightful, thoughtful and accessible analysis of Roberts’s personal life, professional career, judicial experience and approach to constitutional interpretation. It is essential reading for anyone who truly wants to understand this pivotal moment in Supreme Court history ... Biskupic, who has known Roberts for more than 20 years, sat down with him for seven interviews totaling 20 hours for her book. She was therefore well-positioned to offer often stunning insight into Roberts’s life and thinking both on and off the court.\
