David E. Marion offers a careful review of Brennan's opinions that clarifies his defense of libertarian dignity and illustrates the profound political and constitutional impact of Brennan's opinions on public discourse and government policy.

"Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., was both a radical egalitarian and a prime mover on the United States Supreme Court. From 1956 to 1990 - through the Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist eras - he effected both judicial and social change via decisions on racial desegregation, pornography, the application of the Bill of Rights to the states, privacy, and abortion. Brennan's stamp is on nearly every contemporary American social issue. A Justice for All, the first biography of Justice Brennan, gathers his considerable achievements in the context of his times and his life." "Brennan had been the original "stealth" nominee to the United States Supreme Court. Having served eight years as a state court judge in New Jersey, Brennan was a total unknown on the national stage when President Eisenhower limited his search for a new justice to a Northeastern Catholic currently serving on a state court. In a rancorous confirmation hearing that foreshadowed events of the eighties and nineties, Brennan tangled with Senator Joseph McCarthy. Taking his place on a Supreme Court bench surrounded by such towering figures as Earl Warren, Felix Frankfurter, Hugo Black, William Douglas, and John Harlan, Brennan observed, "I felt a little like the mule at the Kentucky Derby."" "But in a career that would span one-third of a century, Brennan proved to be one of the most visionary and influential justices in the history of the Supreme Court. Not content merely to interpret the Constitution, Brennan rewrote American law in the fields of obscenity, criminal rights, affirmative action, and privacy." "This account of the life of an extremely private and little-understood man brings the reader face to face with the clash of intellectual forces that created the landmark rulings of the Warren court. In the midst of these colliding giants was an unpresuming lawyer from Newark who took Warren's broad concepts and wrote them into law; who convinced a firebrand like William O. Douglas, that, at times, it paid to compromise; and who willingly braved personal and professional confrontations with his former Harvard University law professor, Felix Frankfurter." "In his three years of research, author Kim Isaac Eisler utilized the private papers of Justices Brennan, Douglas, Harlan, Warren, and Black, among others; interviewed dozens of former Brennan clerks; and found childhood friends and onetime law partners to reveal what lit the fire inside this history-making judicial activist." "A Justice for All is the remarkable tale of a man who operated within the marble walls of the Supreme Court with the consummate skills of a dealmaker, creating majorities, writing laws, and all the while steering clear of political fire. In so doing, he succeeded in changing American law and society."--BOOK JACKET.Title Summary field provided by Blackwell North America, Inc. All Rights Reserved

The American legal system today is the most significant in the world, yet until the publication of Fundamentals of American Law, there has been no book that provides both the basic rules on the theoretical understanding necessary to comprehend. This book is not simply the work of a singleauthor, but a collection of especially written essays, each by an expert in the field, all of whom are on the faculty of New York University School of Law, which is recognized as one of the elite law schools in America and which offers this book as an element of its unique Global Law SchoolProgramme.The book is written specifically for foreign lawyers and law students who have a need to deal with American Law generally, but are not seeking to become specialists in any one area. For them, it is vital to understand the basic principles of a wide range of American legal fields so they can act asinformed intermediaries between their public or private clients and their American counterparts. The book not only provides the reader with a solid foundation in American law, but will also serve as a basic reference book for the fundamentals, even as some of the details change over the years.Although initially conceived to fill a void for foreign lawyers, the book is also ideally suited for others who have a significant need to understand the basic principles of American Law and to interact with American lawyers. For this reason it will be an ideal course text for students of business,accountancy, political science, or public administration, where the enquiring student will constantly find intersections with the law.The book is more than a compendium of legal principles. Each chapter explains not only what the law is, but why it is that way. It sets forth the policy considerations in institutional factors that produce a particular law so the reader can make an independent judgement about its wisdom and perhapsits adaptibility to other cultures.

Judging Free Speech contains nine original essays by political scientists and law professors, each providing a comprehensive, yet concise and accessible overview of the free speech jurisprudence of a United States Supreme Court Justice.

While many recent observers have accused American judges—especially Supreme Court justices—of being too driven by politics and ideology, others have argued that judges are justified in using their positions to advance personal views. Advocating a different approach—one that eschews ideology but still values personal perspective—H. Jefferson Powell makes a compelling case for the centrality of individual conscience in constitutional decision making. Powell argues that almost every controversial decision has more than one constitutionally defensible resolution. In such cases, he goes on to contend, the language and ideals of the Constitution require judges to decide in good faith, exercising what Powell calls the constitutional virtues: candor, intellectual honesty, humility about the limits of constitutional adjudication, and willingness to admit that they do not have all the answers. Constitutional Conscience concludes that the need for these qualities in judges—as well as lawyers and citizens—is implicit in our constitutional practices, and that without them judicial review would forfeit both its own integrity and the credibility of the courts themselves.

We see these two men serving together for two momentous decades, the leaders of the Court's liberal and conservative factions. We come to know them, their characters, their personalities, their beliefs.

The courts and, indeed, the law itself are under assault from both right and left. By analyzing the most pressing controversies of our day, No Litmus Test defends the possibility of principled legal decision-making against the attacks of both the right and the left. From Bush v. Gore to the war in Iraq, No Litmus Test demonstrates that even when the law provides no clear-cut right answers, it offers tools for distinguishing good arguments from bad ones.