The beginning of this book seemed like just a list of the Supreme Court justices in order. If I wanted that I could just google it. Like another reviewer mentioned, there is nothing linking the stories in this book together.
Yes. I was hoping to learn a bit more about the Supreme Court, but just a random assortment of facts is not memorable.
The book was very informative, but I was hoping for a bit more entertainment and not just a history lesson.
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.
would be good for legal scholars
too historical, not enough personal story
better reader, more personal story