The Dirty Dozen: How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom

Only a libertarian, or the authors' mothers, will truly agree with all 12 of the Supreme court cases featured in "Dirty Dozen." So what. It is thoroughly fun to read. As stated early on in the book, the authors picked the 12 worst cases decided since the New Deal, the period they define as the modern era of eroding freedoms and of government expansions. Most cases also have a "dirty dozen honorable mention" case to hold hands with it's main "dirty" case. They explain how the cases were selected, and the substantial legal assists they asked for and received in making the selections. Commendably, the authors prefaced their book with a legal expert who did not fully agree with their picks - how often does that happen!

"Dirty Dozen" reads smoothly for the non-lawyer, this reviewer included. The reasoning for all the cases was especially easy to follow, and the analyses were uniformly organized. Warning to future readers: three cases over the last 70 years pop out as naturals for a book like this: Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, and Bush v. Gore. All are mentioned, but none show up in the dirty dozen! Roe and Bush, though, appear as postscripts, with explanations why they may have been bad law, but not included. Buy the book just to see these!

The gem which charms this entire book is its reference to, and love of, our US Constitution. This document with all amendments - plus dates ratified - show up at the back of the book. Get "Dirty Dozen" along with three bookmarks: one for the page where you stop for the day, one for the endnotes, and one for the Constitution.

This book is a good complement to Randy Barnett's _Restoring the Lost Constitution_. _The Dirty Dozen_ looks at twelve bad Supreme Court decisions that have effectively erased some of the explicit constitutional limits on the federal government and reduced individual freedom. The preface by Richard Epstein expresses a few minor disagreements about some of the cases chosen, and the end of the book explains why Roe v. Wade and Bush v. Gore didn't make the cut. Those that did include Korematsu v. United States (1944), which said that the U.S. program of internment for Japanese Americans was constitutional, Kelo v. City of New London (2005), which said that governments can seize private property in order to give it to other private hands, Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell (1934), which said that the government can unilaterally void parts of private contracts despite Article I Section 10's explicit language to the contrary, and Bennis v. Michigan (1996), which said that government can use civil forfeiture to take property without compensation that is involved in a crime even if the owner of the property has no involvement in that crime.

I listened to Robert Levy on Harvard Book Club. The man is brilliant. To the extent that the book claims that the Supreme Court failed to interpret the constitution in a reasonable manner, the book is one-man's opinion of what the constitutional law should be. Levy criticizes the notion of a "living, breathing" constitution because it encourages "judicial policy-making." Yet, this is what the law interpreters have done since Roman and Norman times. Law has never been a fixed rule, in our common-law system. The law is a reasonable interpretation within the established structural and doctrinal framework to fit the evolving standards of decency. This book is just one political opinion of what the constitutional provisions are. My fear is that a non-lawyer, reading this book, will inevitably get an idea that the Supreme Court is not upholding the constitutional principles. Nothing could be farther from the truth. For those non-lawyers, that are intrigued by the book, I can not stress enough the following: You must read many more judicial opinions to get a glimpse on how the Supreme Court operates and how laws evolve and devolve. For example, legal students have a benefit and duty of reading casenotes and comparing many opinions on a narrow topic; which the non-lawyer readers of this book do not.

I have read the Constitution several times and it has always been a mystery to me how many (if not most) laws are permissible by our courts and deemed congruent with our founding fathers vision. This book no only addresses my confusion but does it in a clear entertaining style free of Latin and other confusing "legalese". I highly recommend this well written engaging book.

The Supreme Court is governed by humans, and humans do make errors."The Dirty Dozen: How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom" is an examination of these mistakes that have cost America dearly. Pointing out cases in which the Supreme Court has bumbled and allowed the federal government to interfere with private contracts or political support, detain prisoners charge, wrongfully seize property, and other misdeeds of the court, "The Dirty Dozen" is an expertly crafted and harsh criticism of the courts. Highly recommended for community library law collections.