John Paul StevensReseñas

A useful, if somewhat uninteresting, contribution in the genre "how to fix the country".

I want really to give it 4 stars, but don't because it is fairly uncompelling. This is serious flaw for a book that is meant to be, at least in part, an argument to change minds.

Read this as a study break. It's a quick read. Justice Stevens's discussion of major precedents are pretty much limited to 2 paragraphs per case, so don't expect to learn much about the law. However, I did like the way he organized his memoir around the position of Chief Justice of SCOTUS. Some great insight into the character and working methods of the 5 chief justices Stevens personally knew, whether as a clerk, practicing lawyer, and associate justice. Stevens also provides a good insider's view of the working environment at the Supreme Court, from the Chief Justice on down to the court police and gift shop employees.

In this book, Justice John Paul Stevens proposed six changes to the Constitution that he feels are necessary to avoid potential problems in the future of our country and in some cases correct mistakes made by Supreme Court decisions. While this book was published in 2014, I couldn't help but think of current events and how, in many cases, recent examples strengthen his arguments. A good portion of the book was spent on Sovereign Immunity and why the idea that government officials, including the President, can not be sued for breaking the law is harmful and based on misguided precedents. Many of his examples were from long ago in history (with a little bit of Watergate sprinkled in). I think a conversation about this topic with him in regards to recent history would be fascinating. I am also curious what he would think of recent developments in the gun control debate. In this book he strongly felt that recent supreme court interpretation of the Second Amendment (after starting with the Heller case) were flat out wrong and that legislatures were the appropriate branch of government to make decisions regarding gun regulations. He often referred to the tragedy of Sandy Hook and the power of the NRA. I was curious what his thoughts would be on the momentum post Parkland of groups such as Moms Demand Action towards making progress in advocating for some regulations of gun ownership.

Overall, I found it interesting reading the opinions of a former Supreme Court justice. So often, all we know about these men and women are their legal opinions that have to stick with the constitution and precedent rather than personal opinion. I liked hearing what he really thought should be done and how he acknowledges that the Supreme Court doesn't always get it right and in those cases we should remember that the legislative branch does have the power to fix it through amending a constitution that was designed to evolve.

Not sure I agree with each of his choices on the critical changes needed for the Constitution of the United States, but you certainly couldn't ask for a more knowledgable author on the topic. Great that he's so involved with current issues. His articles when the Voting Rights Act was gutted were superb.

I was hoping for a bit more from this book. I have tremendous respect for Justice Stevens and his work, I think the Supreme Court is a less interesting institution without the perspective he brought to its deliberations, and I've been looking forward to reading his memoir for quite some time. Unfortunately much of the book isn't really a memoir, but more a somewhat casual history of the Supreme Court and the men who have led it, combined with an often-in-the-weeds discussion of various cases handled during each chief's tenure.

The parts of this book that are personal in nature or where Stevens analyzes the changing Court practices and habits of each chief justice since Vinson are excellent, even if they do seem a bit stream-of-consciousness at times (the book might have benefited mightily from a slightly heavier hand from the editors). More recollections or anecdotes from Stevens about his relationships with the various justices with whom he served would have been most welcome, even if he had limited those to justices not currently on the bench. We get so little behind-the-scenes information about the Court's practices that Stevens' account of the inter-justice dynamics, the way the Court has changed over time, &c., can't help but be interesting.

It's the surveys of various cases that get to be a bit much, even for me (and I listen to Supreme Court oral arguments for fun). There's far too much, and often there just doesn't seem enough rationale for including a particular case or line of cases. Less of that (or at least a much tightly-edited selection) and more of the other would have made this a much better read.½

I am more than a little late to serve as an early reviewer for Five Chiefs: A Supreme Court Memoir, by John Paul Stevens, which I obtained based upon that commitment back in 2011. Still, guilt eventually inspired me to read it through, after much procrastination and several false starts. Now that I finally did my duty, albeit a long overdue one, I really do not know what to make of this odd little book.
Five Chiefs seems intended as a kind of intimate history of the Supreme Court during the tenure of Justice John Paul Stevens, who served a lengthy term on the bench from his appointment by President Gerald Ford in 1975 until his retirement in 2010. After a whirlwind chapter that takes the reader through the key moments in the history of the Supreme Court by way of its first twelve chief justices, the bulk of the rest of the book – reflecting the title – is structured by chapters named for each of the five Chief Justices that Stevens served with on the Court: Fred Vinson, Earl Warren, Warren Burger, William Rehnquist, and John Roberts. I used the word “intended” deliberately in the first sentence of this paragraph, for it is never really clear what this book is supposed to be. It is too brief for a history of the Supreme Court, too superficial for a study of constitutional law, too Spartan to pretend to be biographical of the named justices, and too parsimonious with detail to be an autobiography. Moreover, if it is really a memoir, as the subtitle insists, then it is a very lean one indeed.
To my mind, Five Chiefs is a rather lightweight but fond anecdotal accounting of the people and events encountered in the three and a half decades the author served as an Associate Justice, told in a respectful, collegial style that is friendly both to the Court and to his fellow justices. Yet, here and there the narrative is unexpectedly punctuated with a discussion of critical Court decisions, which while promising at first frequently disappoints, largely because the greater context is conspicuous in its absence. A legal scholar or member of the judicial elite could easily evaluate his comments and the attendant ramifications; for the rest of us there is only Google.
Far more paragraphs and pages are devoted to matters that may seem trivial to the audience, even if they did not to the author, such as the way offices are assigned to members, or even the unfortunate position of a conference table after a meeting room is remodeled. But to be fair it is not all superficial stuff: Stevens is signally affronted when during the Reagan Administration the swearing-in ceremony of justices is relocated from the Supreme Court Building to the White House, which he views as a consequential if symbolic violation of the separation of powers of the three branches of government. Moreover, he is singularly outraged by Reagan’s comments at the investiture of Justice Anthony Kennedy. Stevens sternly notes that: “. . . the president participated with remarks that welcomed his new appointee as a judge who would follow the law rather than make it up. I thought the president’s remarks were both offensive and inappropriate and therefore decided not to attend similar ceremonies at the White House in the future.” [p207] Later in the text, we learn of Stevens’ warm approval when President Obama moves these ceremonies back to their traditional home at the Supreme Court Building.
This slender volume often reveals more by what is not said or what is subtly hinted at. While emphasizing friendships formed, traditions of respect and decorum among the justices, and never abandoning the collegial tone, it is manifestly clear that Stevens silently objects when Rehnquist adds gold stripes to his robe upon promotion to Chief Justice, and he is just as quietly relieved when Roberts desists from that practice. He does make the point that while the various Courts are known to history by the Chief Justices, in fact every time one seat changes hands an entirely new Court is manifested, a critical reminder that each appointment bears great significance. Stevens notes, almost in passing, that much more attention was devoted in confirmation hearings for the nomination of Rehnquist to Chief Justice, a sitting Associate Justice, than to the nomination of Antonin Scalia who took the vacated Rehnquist Associate Justice seat. There is no hint that Stevens objected to Scalia, but it is loudly unsaid that he felt quite differently when the brilliant liberal Thurgood Marshall was replaced by the middling Clarence Thomas, an ultra-conservative whose votes tipped the balance of the Court in a most unfortunate direction. Stevens is clearly distraught not only by rulings that seemed to undo more than a half century of evolving jurisprudence in areas such as civil rights, the death penalty and the Second Amendment, but more significantly by the decision that denied a legitimate electoral recount and thereby made George W. Bush President, as well as the one that delivered what he clearly sees as a wrong turn in campaign financing reform in the since much-maligned Citizens United ruling.
The tenure of John Paul Stevens seems to correspond in some ways to the transformation of the Republican Party from a bigger tent to the almost exclusive province of the right. When Stevens, a solid business-friendly Republican justice was appointed to the bench by the Republican President Gerald Ford, there were plenty of moderate and even liberal Republicans, a brand that has virtually gone extinct. Hardly a political liberal as most would define it, as evidenced by his own votes on the Court, Stevens nevertheless represented a time-honored tradition that cherished the rights of Americans under the law and always put politics in second place to jurisprudence. When asked a few years ago if he still identified as a Republican, Stevens famously declined comment.
Five Chiefs is probably not a book for everyone, and I have to admit I give it less than stellar marks overall, but it contains elements that make me glad I read it. The “Appendix” contains the full text of the United States Constitution and its Amendments, something that clearly defined Stevens’ life and career and something that every American should probably read, especially in these polarized days when what our central founding document truly contains is often wildly misstated. As for Stevens, at this writing he still walks among us at ninety-five years old. His book, warts and all, characterizes a tradition that we should well cherish and a dedication to justice we should well celebrate.

http://regarp.com/2015/12/29/review-of-five-chiefs-a-supreme-court-memoir-by-joh...

I agree with Justice Stevens' proposed amendments, for the most part, though I would tweak the wording in a couple cases. But the writing is a bit too dry and arcane for a popular book, so I think it misses the mark a bit.

The first proposed change, to provide for the requirement that state and local officials enforce federal laws, I have no problem with. The second, which would prohibit political gerrymandering, I am entirely in favor of, although Stevens' proposed language may go further than necessary.

On campaign finance, Stevens focuses on regulating campaign expenditures and his proposed amendment seems like litigation-bait, as it would allow "reasonable limits on the amount of money that candidates for public office, or their supporters, may spend in election campaigns." The "reasonable limits" thing just seems like an invitation for years and years of lawsuits. I would simply provide for Congressional/state regulation of expenditures and spending and leave it at that.

The fourth proposed change, on sovereign immunity, seems unobjectionable, and likewise I have no issues with the fifth, which would prohibit the death penalty. The sixth proposed amendment would add "when serving in the Militia" to the second clause of the Second Amendment - personally I have no particular problem with this, though I can't imagine it ever being ratified; I think I would focus on other areas than the relevant Constitutional provisions when it comes to gun control.

I wish Stevens had added a bit more to each section about his own involvement in the debates over these questions during his time on the Court; it would have added much to the book.½

Learned, concise, and cogent arguments from the retired Supreme Court Justice about campaign finance, gerrymandering, sovereign immunity, the death penalty, gun control, and the "anti-commandeering rule."

A quick, interesting read that really makes me wish I lived in a country of populated with intelligent, well informed citizens. Oh well, one can always dream.

Justice Stevens offers six changes he'd like to make in the U.S. Constitution. Perhaps depending on your political orientation, some will make better sense than others, whether or not his specific working suggestions are acceptable. In addition to forbidding the death penalty and limiting private gun ownership to use in state militias, he looks also at needs for federal law to require actions by state officials, and to mandate reasonableness when drawing election districts. The most technical chapter addresses state sovereign immunity from suits by private citizens, which he would allow.½

Four stars for agreeing with former Justice Stevens more than the writing, which is of course kind of dry. Here's a screen shot of his major recommended changes:

Gerrymandering:"Districts shall be compact and composed of contiguous territory...any departure must be justified...the interest in enhancing or preserving political power is not neutral."

Campaign finance: ""Neither the First Amendment nor any other provision...shall be construed to prohibit Congress or any state from imposing reasonable limits on the amount of money..."

Death penalty: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments such as the death penalty inflicted."

Second amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of people to keep and bear Arms while serving in the Militia shall not be infringed."

So, some heads will explode, but some cooler heads will prevail someday. Thanks to the former Justice for writing this. Wish he was still on the SCOTUS, always.

I read after completing Sonia Sotomayor's memoir and found Steven's approach to the history of the Court through his eyes and thoughts very dry and academic, ultimately uninspiring. It's not a well-told story.

John Paul Stevens, long serving and now retired Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, offers a unique memoir of the highest court in the land. In "Five Chiefs," he offers glimpses of the Court gleaned from the many responsibilities of his life in the law: law clerk, practicing attorney, lower federal court judge, associate justice, and, finally, the "second among equals" as the longest serving associate justice on the Court.

In some ways, Stevens' recollections seem like an almost endless string of stories and anecdotes offered by a well-informed dinner party guest. This is not meant in any disparaging way, but rather notes that the book is not really a comprehensive memoir. Instead, it is an appealing and polite glimpse of the Supreme Court that offers a knowledgeable look "behind the curtain."

The result is that the stories related by Stevens, which date throughout the history of the Court but which focus on the eras marked by the five most-recent Chief Justices, provide a powerful sense of the ethos of the Court. While Stevens has comments on many opinions of the Court, including his disagreements with other justices, it is clear that there is a basic civility and like-mindedness among those who serve on the highest court.

More than this, it also becomes clear that it is within the Chief Justice's power to shape not only how the Court functions, but what its general ethos will be. Each of the five Chiefs described by Stevens sets a different tone for the Court, though the two most recent are noted for different ways that they espoused efficiency in how the Court handled its business. (I think it's fair to say that Stevens displays more affection and appreciation for John Roberts than for William Rehnquist.)

The most intriguing part of the book, though, may be the perspective Stevens gains when he becomes the most senior justice on the Court, which gave him particular responsibilities. When the Chief Justice votes with the minority, it is the senior associate justice who assigns which of those in the majority will author the Court's opinion. And, after Rehnquist's sudden death, it was Stevens, as senior justice, who fulfilled the Chief Justice's responsibilities until Roberts was appointed by President George W. Bush and confirmed by the Senate.

While those with an interest, but little knowledge, of the Supreme Court could learn much from Stevens' book, these same readers will likely find the shorthand identifications of certain Court cases and opinions, sometimes by name only, frustrating. Perhaps this book will only be appreciated by those familiar with Constitutional Law or well versed in the history of the Court. But those willing to look up the cases, or simply skim over them, will be rewarded by seeing how the Supreme Court functions so differently from most political and government institutions.½

Associate Justice Steven's memoir, Five Chiefs, was a short memoir from his time on the court, which covered a span of five chief justices.

If anything, I think the book could have been a bit longer. Justice Steven's treatment of his personal experiences both on and off the court were very enjoyable, but when it came to the various legal issues he discussed, I often felt like more explanation of the underlying principles was needed. I think Stevens at times assumed a tad too much prior legal knowledge from his readers.

Overall though the book was very enjoyable, and I'd recommend is highly.

The U.S. Supreme Court is in the news these days, this time with the health care law. And along with the case itself, renewed debate over the role of the Court and the impartiality and even the intelligence of its members. A recent column by Maureen Dowd ("Men in Black", NYT April 3, 2012) is illustrative of the debate at its extreme - "It is run by hacks dressed up in black robes." Comments to the column further show the intensity of opinions.
In contrast to today's 'loudness' is the 'quietness' of retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens' book "Five Chiefs". In this brief narrative Stevens shares memories of Chief Justices Vinson, Warren, Burger, Rehnquist and Roberts and famous ( or maybe infamous depending on your view) Court opinions over the years. There is controversy involving individual ideology, political bias, and conflicting judicial philosophy and Constitutional interpretation. But the discourse is reasoned and civil, written as the book jacket states with humility and grace. There is little rant, no rage, no fury. Just it seems Steven's memoirs and opinions colored by the human side of the judges.
And that makes it a good book worth reading. In addition to the reminiscences on the five Chief Justices and historical summary opinions, Stevens supplies details regarding the Court's opinion making processes and interesting tidbits on the organization, customs and daily activities of the Court.
I have one suggestion. Before reading the book look up Steven's bio. It will provide an orientation to Steven's judicial philosophy and enhance your own opinions that will inevitably form along the way.

Got the feeling that this book could have been so much more. Stevens was a great Justice. It's clear that he had little respect for Clarence Thomas (rightly so). I wish he would have given us more example of Thomas' incompetence. I was surprised by his admiration for Scalia. Not particularly well written; prose sounds like a court decision.½

I thought I was going to get some insider insight on each of the five Chief Justices under whom he served. For each of these distinguished gentlemen, I got about a paragraph's worth of non-legalese. The rest would probably make interesting reading to law clerks, law students, and maybe constitutional lawyers. There was way too much personal opinion about whether so and so made a good decision, what lead up to the case coming to the Supreme Court, and whether he (Justice Stevens was on the pro or con side of a decision).

The writing was obviously from someone used to writing legal briefs to uphold a particular point of view, and to enumerate cogent arguments. I have trouble even assigning it the genre "memoir" because it was too apologetic (in the Greek "apologetics" sense of the word). It was more a political or sociological exposé of court procedures, and even these boiled down to a recitation of who assigned the decisions to be written, and who changed the schedule. Aside from Justice Rehnquist's gold stripes on his robe, there was very little that gave me any feel for the personalities of the five.

Perhaps readers with differing expectations will find it more to their liking. It was well edited, and there were lots of illustrations, but I would have much preferred some more informal shots of the five featured subjects than the constant "class photos" that are sprinkled throughout. I guess it just wasn't my cuppa.½

“Five Chiefs” by former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court John Paul Stevens is a short memoir of his connections to the last five Chief Justices of that body.

For the most part his assessments of the Chief Justices are fair as he discusses their particular strengths and weaknesses and how they influenced major court decisions. Stevens, however, does not hold back criticism from where he feels the court made monumental errors and how wrong those disagreeing with him are. His insights into the daily functions of the court are a unique topic that outsiders rarely get to hear.

Though not as extensive and detailed as other volumes about Chief Justices, the difference here is the insiders view and for those with an interest in the legal system it is worth the time to read.

Supreme Court justices are enigmas. We depend on them for their judgment, but we rarely know much about their thought process until they are spun into action by specific issues.

Retired Justice John Paul Stevens’ memoir, [Five Chiefs], is a personal rumination on a course of a judicial career, examining the colleagues and court cases that shaped it. Stevens starts with a quick overview of the first twelve Chief Justices for the Supreme Court. Then, he devotes chapters to the last five Chief Justices, all of whom he worked with at some point in his legal career. As he describes the professional and private personalities of these five men, Stevens also critiques the cases that defined their courts and their careers.

Woodward’s [The Brethren] is a much more extensive and thorough examination of the inner workings of the Supreme Court. In many ways, Woodward presented a better and more detailed understanding of the story behind the robe than Stevens is able to portray with [Five Chiefs]. Even though Stevens worked intimately with the men and women he describes, Woodward’s account is more personal, more enlightening.

[Five Chiefs] also turns out to be a bit of a bully pulpit for Stevens, giving him the last word on case holdings that he disagreed with over the years. Stevens is not shy about his opinions on the five Chiefs that are his subject, nor are his other colleagues spared the sharp edge of his sentiments.

Still, for those interested in the backstory of the Supreme Court, Stevens’ memoir is a rarity. Not only is he able to comment on little known procedures of the Court, he often is able to comment on the reasoning behind the rules or the stimulus for changes in the Court’s workings. Stevens is at his best when he drops the focus of his legal mind and recounts the personal, day-to-day interactions of the people who make up the Court and who work in the Court.

Bottom Line: A rare personal memoir where few have been written; it suffers from a lack of personal touch and an inclination to have the last word. Read it for the unique and often untold perspective.

3 ½ bones!!!!½

4883. Five Chiefs A Supreme Court Memoir, by John Paul Stevens (read 2 Dec 2011) This memoir, written after Stevens retired from the Court in 2010, is a lucidly clear account of Stevens' experiences and knowledge of the last five Chief Justices of the Supreme Court. He says mostly good things about all of them, though he sharply disagrees with some of the decisions they were responsibie for, especially Rehnquist and Roberts. Stevens' discussions of cases are so clear and convincing that one is really grateful that he was on the Court as long as he was. It is the best memoir by any Supreme Court justice that I know of, and reading it was a joyful experience indeed.

It is not often that we are able to get a glimpse into the inner workings of the Supreme Court but Justice John Paul Stevens has give us this opportunity in his memoir( Five Chiefs) of his almost 35 years on the Supreme Court. However, don't expect a tell-all block buster. Stevens' approach to a memoir and writing style reflects an entire career set in the decorum of the court room. Stevens summarizes life in the court at the end of the chapter on his service as senior justice. He refers to President Ford's 1976 State of Union address where Ford refers to the US as a place where Americans can disagree without being disagreeable. It is too bad that we have seemed to have lost this prospective in current political discourse.

Stevens starts his book with a short historical perspective on the first 12 Chief Justices of the Supreme Court. While only providing the briefest discussion of key events, this introduction is important since it sets the stage and foundation for much of modern workings of the court. For example, under the tenure of Taft significant opinions were written interpreting the word 'liberty' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment. These opinions still influence current interpretations. Stevens also makes it clear that intellectual bar was set very high by early court justices and Chief Justices such as John Marshall.

Stevens then goes on to describe the duties of the Chief Justice as the "first among equals". Interestingly, unlike the the qualification to be President, the Constitution provides no qualifications for being a Supreme Court justice. You don't have to be a citizen, a lawyer, a voter, or even an adult! Congress over the years has legislated additional duties for the Chief Justice and provided a mere 4% added salary!

The main body of the Stevens' memoir provides a perpsective on his relationship with each of the five Chief Justices under which he served. In each chapter, he singles out significant court decisions of that Chief's tenure. Stevens selects the decisions based their impact to society, judicial precedent, or soundness of argument. He approachs each with a VERY brief summary of the issues and then discusses the court deliberations and context of the decision. Some decisions he decided with the majority and with others he dissented. With each discussion we get a small peak into who John Paul Stevens is.

Particularly enlightening in this regard is Stevens' views on the constitutionality of capital punishment in the chapter on Chief Justice Roberts. Stevens candidly expresses "regret" on a Texas statute vote. A couple of pages later we read that Stevens holds capital punishment to be "the pointless and needles extinction of life with only marginal contributions to any discernible social or public purpose". Later in the same chapter Stevens describes the courts approach and reliance on history (aka original intent) to address "proportionality" in the context of the Eighth Amendment (aka cruel & unusual punishment).

All in all, Five Chiefs is a very interesting and worthwhile glimpse into the workings of the Supreme Court and the mind of one its most influential justices.

While this book had some interesting information about a field I hadn't studied about, I was a little disappointed. I felt the author was trying to defend his positions and votes too much. He too often pointed out that some of the votes of the other justices were "wrong". Too often he referred to Scalia's "characteristically lucid opinion". I just felt reading this he felt he had something to defend about his record and I would have preferred a more historical rather than opinionated approach toward the book.½

Most of the book is devoted to Justice John Paul Stevens’ reminiscences of each of the last five Chief Justices of the United States, whom he knew in different capacities and thus viewed from different perspectives: “that of another justice’s law clerk for [Fred] Vinson; of a practicing lawyer for [Earl] Warren; of a circuit judge and junior justice for [Warren] Burger; of a contemporary colleague for [Bill] Rehnquist; and of an observer of superb advocacy before [John] Roberts became a colleague.” [p. 8] A separate chapter is devoted to each of these Chief Justices; the chapters begin with brief biographical sketches and include Stevens’ evaluations of selected cases in addition to his descriptions of their administrations of the Courts. Stevens gives very fair evaluations of these men. The chapters about Burger and Rehnquist are especially strong since he served many years on the Supreme Court with them.

However, Stevens does more than just discuss the last five chiefs. In the introduction, Stevens explains what he will cover in the book; he provides brief comments about the first twelve Chief Justices the first chapter; and describes the duties of the Chief Justice the second chapter. In the last chapter, Stevens discusses the role of the “Second among equals,” the most senior associate Supreme Court justice, which Stevens himself was from 1994 until his retirement in 2010. He includes a short epilogue, and gives the text of the Constitution in the appendix.

An excellent book.½

This is a short barely 70,000 words memoir of Stevens' memories of the five Chief Justice is of the United States Supreme Court he has known. There's also a discussion of the famous cases that have taken place. I'm a Canadian however I frequently follow American politics. Politically my views are different then Stevens' I was prepared to be irritated by the book but I was happily mistaken. He does defend his positions but there done with logic and without hyperbole. I don't think it's changed my mind on anything but it is comforting to know that there is a sort of logic behind some of these decisions. Perhaps most interestingly is the discussion of the internal workings of the court. Something which I have never heard discussed before. The book ends with the text of the US Constitution which I suppose is always nice to have a copy of.

Recommended.

Description:
Five Chiefs is memoir detailing John Paul Stevens' life and career as a Supreme Court Justice, which includes sections about the Chief Justices he served under.

Review:
I have never been a "politics-junky", but as I have gotten older I've realized the importance of politics in today's society. So when I read the blurb, I decided to try reading it. Thankfully, John Paul Stevens writing style and organization wasn't as dry and boring as I thought it would be. Sure, some sections seemed to drone on, but many times it was because I was not associated with the cases and legal terms described. It took me longer to read because I had to look up several law definitions, which could have been avoided if there was some kind of side-note for those of us without background in law studies. I liked the inclusion of the photos, comics, and the copy of the Constitution of the United States; they made the material a little bit more enjoyable. I am glad that it was written like more of a down-to-Earth conversation than a full-blown law textbook, minus those few definitions. It is obvious that John Paul Stevens is very passionate about what he wrote, and he definitely knows what he is talking about. The length was also desirable for a person who isn't a political studies or law major; I would have expected a much lengthier memoir for all that I learned he, and his colleagues, accomplished. Overall, I would recommend Five Chiefs if you are really interested in The Supreme Court and politics because it is filled with facts, stories, and gossip about many of the past Supreme Court Justices.

Rating: Bounty's Out (3/5)

*** I received this book from Little, Brown and Company, (Hachette Book Group), in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.