Reseñas proporcionadas por Syndetics

Library Journal Review

Bork portrays the Senate's rejection of his nomination to the Supreme Court as one skirmish in a broader battle over the political role of American judges. For a journalist's account of the nomination uproar, see Ethan Bronner's Battle for Justice: How the Bork Nomination Shook America ( LJ 9/1/89).-- Ed. On one side, Bork claims, are those who--regardless of personal convictions--adhere to the intentions of the Founding Fathers in interpreting the U.S. Constitution. Arrayed against them are various liberal groups and their allies in the law schools, who disdain the political process and promote judicial lawmaking to achieve their goals. Bork convincingly demonstrates that some opponents of his confirmation distorted his record and his views. However, in refusing to admit the good faith of opposing scholars, he does little to encourage dialog on constitutional interpretation.-- G. Alan Tarr, Rutgers Univ., Camden, N.J. (c) Copyright 2010. Library Journals LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Media Source, Inc. No redistribution permitted.

Publishers Weekly Review

Bork, whom Reagan nominated unsuccessfully to the Supreme Court in 1987, combines here a history of the Court, a theory of how it should operate and a lengthy defense of his judicial record. He claims that virtually all Chief Justices, from those of the New Deal to Earl Warren--with his ``unprincipled activism''--and beyond, have attempted to insert a ``modern liberal agenda'' into their decision-making. He argues that justices should apply the Constitution as its 18th-century ratifiers understood it, and that areas beyond federal powers should be left to the states to decide. Although Bork insists that the Court must apply judicial principles in a neutral, nonpolitical way, he acknowledges that his theory of constitutional praxis would probably favor the conservative policies promoted by Reagan and Bush. Conservatives will applaud this book, while those who opposed Bork's nomination will find here more reasons for having done so. (Nov.) (c) Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved

CHOICE Review

Bork is a partisan: a learned, articulate, clever, and even-tempered partisan to be sure, but a partisan nonetheless. He seeks to prevail in the durable political debate in which he played a brief prominent role. The dispute began years ago and promises to continue after all the current combatants have retired from the fray. Bork's work deserves attention because it is of such quality, not because it is definitive. In a systematic, logical manner he attempts to demonstrate that the "liberal left" has taken over the federal judiciary to implement through the courts the agenda it has been unable to achieve through legislation. Bork believes that his nomination to the Supreme Court marked a shift in control that deteriorated into a "circus" because the opposition sought to protest its weakening hold on its fortress. Whether one subscribes to the "original understanding" school of Constitutional interpretation or the "liberal revisionist" school, there is much to learn from Bork's balanced book. Despite the personal pain he endured, he is fair and instructive throughout. -T. P. Campbell, Northeastern University