Like Noonan (see accompanying review), Garbus sees the Rehnquist Court as undermining the ability of both the Federal judiciary and especially Congress to play a prominent role in the progressive evolution of the modern state. A trial attorney who has appeared frequently as a legal commentator on NBC and CNBC, Garbus decries the Court's recent tendency to overturn congressional legislation by declaring unconstitutional the provisions of various bipartisan acts across a wide range of social, economic, and political spectra. Carefully explicating the conflicting Court perceptions of federalism, he paints a vivid picture of internal conflict among the justices. For each major point of constitutional contention, he considers how and where the case originally arose, issues at trial, appellate review, arguments before the Court, the nine justices and where they stand, the majority opinion, and the minority dissent. The author also properly assesses the impact of the dissents, should these someday become the majority viewpoint of the narrowly divided Court. In the current context, the ability of the federal government to exercise its Article I powers is rigidly constrained. As Garbus shows, attempts by Congress to assert its power over gun control, as in the Brady Bill, or to help rape victims, as in the Women Against Violence Act, will be, and have been, struck down as unconstitutional when legislated under the pretext of interstate commerce. Garbus spends more time analyzing case law, while Noonan emphasizes the Court's resolution of constitutional disputes, so the two books complement each other nicely. Highly recommended.-Philip Y. Blue, New York State Supreme Court Criminal Branch Law Lib., New York (c) Copyright 2010. Library Journals LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Media Source, Inc. No redistribution permitted.

Garbus, a leading First Amendment lawyer and TV commentator, believes the U.S. Supreme Court, rather than protecting American democracy, poses a grave threat to it. He argues that the conservative bloc of the Court, driven by the ideological vision of William Rehnquist and intellectual vigor of Antonin Scalia, is "seizing power" and seeking to eviscerate individual freedoms most Americans assume to be their birthright. He fears even more that conservative Bush appointees would give the Rehnquist bloc the necessary votes to rewrite the Constitution and severely limit the right to abortion, significant First Amendment rights and protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Garbus doesn't dumb down his subject; he discusses Supreme Court cases and the underlying judicial philosophy on the level of a law school class. The analysis of the Court's decisions on women's rights, race, affirmative action and religion will be familiar to sophisticated readers, but the discussion of the constitutional development of economic regulation will be new to most. Still, despite the density of the material, Garbus's writing is clear and comprehensible. Sympathetic that is, liberal readers will find his message chilling and will welcome his call for citizens to use their political influence to convince moderate senators, who will provide the pivotal votes on the next Supreme Court nominees, to insist on the appointment of more moderate justices. (Sept. 17) Forecast: Garbus's reputation should earn him reviews; his audience will consist primarily of the already converted. (c) Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved

Garbus dispels the myth that the U.S. Supreme Court and its composition are apolitical and places the High Court within the context of partisan political strategizing. From the strong political shift to the Right during the Reagan administration, when the plan to stack the federal judiciary was initiated, through the Supreme Court ruling in 2000 that declared George Bush president, trumping the Florida Supreme Court, the American public has seen a level of political activism that most conservative judiciaries have rhetorically opposed for years. Garbus objectively addresses this turnaround, reviewing the irony of the mid-twentieth century, when the Left sought refuge from state's rights by seeking out the U.S. Supreme Court. Garbus concludes that the current court is primarily result-oriented, with justices who are relatively comfortable with exerting conservative influence for the foreseeable future. As the Supreme Court takes fewer cases, circuit court decisions gain in significance, heightening the importance of the conservative strategy to secure appointees at the circuit level. Garbus advocates a counterforce to function in the political and public legal arenas to ensure a more evenhanded judiciary. --Vernon Ford

Prominent New York lawyer and television commentator Garbus (Tough Talk, 1998, etc.) lucidly examines the threat he sees developing from an increasingly conservative judicial system. Since 1980, Republicans have controlled the legal system more and more, the author contends. Reagan's Supreme Court appointments and the ascendancy of the Federalist Society, founded in 1982 and now the country's most powerful legal organization, have succeeded in reversing the liberal Warren Court's decisions. Although Miranda v. Arizona (1966) guaranteed constitutional protections to criminal suspects, 60 related cases have subsequently been decided with only two rulings benefiting the defendant. In Atwater v. City of Lago Vista (2001), Gail Atwater, driving with two infants in her car, was arrested, handcuffed, and jailed for a seatbelt violation. Bringing her suit to the high court, she lost on grounds that policemen cannot immediately tell whether a suspect is jailable. Chief Justice Rehnquist openly opposes the Court's decision in Roe v. Wade (1973), which granted women a legal right to an abortion, and in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989) and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Robert P. Casey (1992), he came only one vote short of denying women that right. Any nominee of George W. Bush will probably reverse the 5-4 decision. For 30 years, asserts Garbus, the religious right has successfully pressed to blur the separation of church and state. In Mitchell v. Holmes, argued in 1999, the Court voted 6-3 to uphold a Louisiana law that permitted the state to loan computers and books to parochial schools. Dissenters Souter, Stevens, and Ginsburg saw the implicit danger that religious schools could benefit from taxpayer money. Garbus reviews cases covering environmental issues, employee rights, affirmative action, and federal versus state sovereignty. His portraits of the nine justices are most scathing in the cases of hardhearted Rehnquist and incompetent Thomas. He concludes by urging his allies to fight the present prevailing powers. An openly liberal polemic, but nevertheless a brilliant summary of the important legal trends of the last 20 years.