I'm declaring my bias outright because I believe it heavily impacts my review. I am a left wing feminist, pro-LGBTQ rights kind of person. I am pro social changes through the courts if the legislative and executive branches of government consistently refuse to act (or indeed, act in opposition to) when rights abuses are laid bare.

Stewart is a US judge and therefore has a very strong knowledge of the cases that have emerged from the US Supreme Court since its inception. The book is well written and the outlines of the cases are clear and accessible. However, some of his suggestions about case law and the wider cultural identity of the United States are hard to swallow- particularly his suggestion that, had the courts not allowed 50 years of segregation, perhaps US society would be 'colorblind'. I would contest that the history of enslaving black people in the first place is probably what prevented 'colorblindness'.

Stewart's book, though he considers contraception and the cases of Griswold and Roe, doesn't address the significant impact of these cases on women in particular. The women's equality movement is not even an afterthought here, which is disappointing.

The author consistently refers to 'traditional marriage' and discusses 'altering the definition of marriage' in his discussions of same-sex marriage cases. These terms are frequently used by anti-equality campaigners on this topic and are quite emotionally charged- a legal scholar should be able to refer to same sex marriage rights without capitulating to using terms that inspire fear. Marriage equality has not resulted in the end of the world and ultimately, marriage as a construct hasn't changed at all, so use of terms like this are mere capitulations to dramatics.

The conclusion discusses how the liberal groupings of society have now won many rights through the court system. Stewart suggests that these liberal groups, though they are on the winning side of the cultural revolution, still present the 'moral and traditional' elements of society as an oppressive majority. He is seemingly unable to recognise that the predominantly white, male, religious groups that have founded, built, progressed and defended the Constitution and its tenets did so for the benefit of predominantly white, male, religious groups. The rest of us, many of whom now (finally) sit on the 'winning liberal' sides of Supreme Court arguments, have had to fight for every scrap of equality. Stewart's inability to recognise his own incredible privilege is a real negative for me here.

Perhaps for someone with no legal knowledge, this might be a good place to start and learn more about the cases in question and their cultural history- without being taken in by the basic personal opinions which pervade the latter half of the narrative.

Interesting read. Learning how the highest legal entity works makes fascinating reading. Briefs of the cases and what the court found is very interesting. Anyone interested in law should read this. Would recommend this book.

On the surface, reading a book about Supreme Court cases seems daunting, and certainly something that most casual readers would not aspire to do. Books about the Supreme Court tend to be reserved for those with a special admiration for history and the law. However, Ted Stewart is able to present seven cases in a laid-back manner creating a primer on the Supreme Court which is easy to understand and cultivate knowledge from.

Stewart opens the book with a quick exploration of the formation of the Supreme Court, the intentions of the Founding Fathers, and what powers the Constitution actually gives to the federal and state governments. This brief history lesson allows the reader to prepare their mind without prejudice for the legal battles which will follow.

The seven cases presented range from well-known cases such as Marbury v. Madison or Plessy v. Ferguson, that have been covered ad nauseam (and rightfully so) throughout an individual's scholastic endeavors to little known, yet vital cases like Lochner v. The State of New York. Stewart is able to convey why the case came to be, what the pertinent facts were, how the Supreme Court approached the case, and the lasting impact of each ruling. Each case is fascinating in its own right, and how the precedent established from each one has shaped our country, altered the power of the federal government, and even at times usurped the Constitution is incredible. For example, going from overtime rights of bakers to abortion rights seventy years later is a fascinating legal journey which most readers never would have made without Stewart's guidance.

This book does not condone or condemn the rulings of the Supreme Court, but rather presents the facts and impact for the reader, and then allows the audience to determine if and when the Court has gone too far.