Has anyone read The Nine by Jeffrey Toobin?

[paul718]

I've read the prologue and first chapter, but am concerned that it might just be a hit piece against strict-constructionism.  I don't yet subscribe to any theory of how to read the Constitution, but would rather not read 350 pages of Scalia, Thomas, etc. getting ripped apart.  If he criticizes them here and there, that's fine.  But I don't want to waste my time reading something written with explicit political motivation.

Any insight?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I found it very enjoyable; it's not an attack on Scalia and Thomas, although it is harsh on Thomas sometimes.

[paul718]

I found it very enjoyable; it's not an attack on Scalia and Thomas, although it is harsh on Thomas sometimes.

Thanks!  I'll definitely continue reading it. 

[bullmoose88]

Read it last Christmas.  From what I remember the book didn't attack Nino so much as it was more scathing of Thomas (his lack of questions during oral argument).  I seem to remember, maybe incorrectly, that it depicted Scalia somewhat favorably if only to shiat on Thomas by comparison though nothing as vitrolic as a lot of the other usual criticisms.

[paul718]

Read it last Christmas.  From what I remember the book didn't attack Nino so much as it was more scathing of Thomas (his lack of questions during oral argument).  I seem to remember, maybe incorrectly, that it depicted Scalia somewhat favorably if only to shiat on Thomas by comparison though nothing as vitrolic as a lot of the other usual criticisms.

Yeah, that type of criticism is not unexpected and I have no problem with it.  I just wasn't sure if the entire book was based around it.  I appreciate the input. 

[A18]

I read it shortly after it debuted. It was, alas, full of errors--some of them stark. But perhaps most of them (or even all of them) have been corrected in subsequent editions.

[paul718]

I read it shortly after it debuted. It was, alas, full of errors--some of them stark. But perhaps most of them (or even all of them) have been corrected in subsequent editions.

Interesting.  I have the first edition, so I'll keep an eye out for those issues.  If it gets to be too much I'll see if I can get hold of a more recent edition.

[Jeff from NC]

I can't speak to its accuracy, but I loved the way it described each judge.  He doesn't really take ideological sides, though he does come down on the court pretty hard for Bush v. Gore.

[Jeff from NC]

I read it shortly after it debuted. It was, alas, full of errors--some of them stark. But perhaps most of them (or even all of them) have been corrected in subsequent editions.

I followed the link, and thought that that article was a pretty unjust review.  He paints of the picture of the book that I don't remember, basically pulling random quotes that are supposed to show how Toobin treats the justices with disdain.  In fact, Toobin portrays all of them as human beings with strengths and flaws.  Furthermore the reviewer complains that Toobin doesn't cite his sources.  While that may not fly in academia, in journalism (especially political journalism) without anonymous sources you don't get much news.  C'est la vie.  The fact that Toobin didn't interview Rudman - who cares?  Finally he decries an "insistent reductionism" of the Justices' views into left and right.  The book does not go into legal theory too heavily, but this is also unfair, since the reviewer mainly cites Bush v. Gore - which came down to a partisan vote.

Sorry, just had to say my piece about that review.