Most authors should not read their own books, and Judge Day-O'Conner is no exception. Her tempo and breathing is out of sync with the material, reminding me of a grandmother reading nursery rhymes to a grandchild on her lap. While the content of the book is interesting, the presentation style of date-event, date-event is tiresome, and many of the date-events are repeated in separate chapters, some more than once.
Her first book, "The Majesty of the Law: Reflections of a Supreme Court Justice" was much better written and read, as well as containing more interesting material.
Those interested in the history of the court will be much better off listening to "The Great Decision" by Cliff Sloan and David McKean.
This book lacked insight into the Court and how they make decisions. (What I expected I guess.)
It was an elementary history of the Court and offered little new insights to the history. I had expected much more out of Justice O'Connor, someone I admire greatly.
Justice O'Connor narrates the book and may have been the most compelling aspect of the enterprise. It seems her strength and toughness come through from her "style" of speaking.
Hard to say what you'd leave in.
I don't believe she will get a second chance nor do I believe she had any desire to expose the inner most views on the Court or individual justices. I was not looking for a "tell all" or "snarky" details of personal habits. Rather, I felt short changed on insights of how the Court worked, decision making process or application of legal "logic".
How about showing two opposing interpretations of the Constitution and how an attempt to reconcile may have happened. For example, is Gay marriage equal protection? If not, why not. All in the context of the Constitution.
She could have left us with a better understanding of how reasonable people could disagree or whether predisposition of ideas and concepts cannot be changed.
That did not happen; it was "paint by numbers" sadly.
Totally enjoyed this book! It was simple to learn a bit more about the Court thorugh this light presentation.
would be good for legal scholars
too historical, not enough personal story
better reader, more personal story