The origins of a court where political bias holds sway

This is a fascinating and informative overview of not only the origins of SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States), but also its interplay and clashes with the US constitution and other branches of government. In addition, it sets out the process by which justices are chosen, which any student of English constitutional law must still find astounding for its inherent political bias. The book also provides an overview of the court at work, discussing some very high-profile and interesting cases.

The book is well written and easy to understand and would be a useful tool for any law student studying comparative constitutional law, or anyone simply interested in the US legal system and its final court of appeal.

As an English lawyer, I could not help comparing SCOTUS with the UK Supreme Court (UKSC, formerly the House of Lords).I found myself digging out my first-year constitutional law books to remind myself about the concept of separation of powers and judicial appointments, among other things. In the UK, for example, justices are appointed by the Judicial Appointments Commission and must be legally qualified, whereas in the US the book tells us that the constitution does not have any formal requirements. Theoretically, anyone who is nominated by the president and confirmed by a majority vote of the Senate can be a Supreme Court Justice.

Presidential nomination, of course, brings with it a political bias not present in the UK system. However, unlike the UK, where judges must retire at 75, US Supreme Court justices have life tenure.

The book contains excellent historical and more recent photographs, including one of the first four women ever to serve on the Supreme Court, and of Chief Justice Taft, who was the only person to have served as both president and as a member of the Supreme Court.

I would highly recommend this book.

Michelle Gresty has been a local authority lawyer for over a decade, practising in a number of areas of law