Review by Choice Review
In his introduction Perry (Harvard) declares he will attempt to refute prevailing doctrine that the Supreme Court's method of deciding what cases it will hear is impervious to meaningful generalization. He succeeds with a vengeance. Using interviews with Supreme Court justices, former law clerks, appellate judges, and Solicitors General as his primary source, Perry has produced not only a penetrating analysis of the case selection process but one of the best treatises to date on how the Supreme Court operates. Perry concludes that very little bargaining and strategy are involved during the certiorari granting process, and emphasizes that the primary function of the Court is not to ensure justice, but to clarify and unify the law so that the entire judicial system can ensure justice. Perry also rejects the characterization of Justices as "ideologues," "activists," or "restrainists" and proposes a more sensible and convincing model for decision-making. He maintains that at one time or another all justices will be found in an "outcome model" (i.e., the judge's decision to take a case will be based on his/her special interest in the outcome), or in a "jurisprudential mode" in which the decision to grant certiorari is based on legalistic grounds (e.g., split by two or more circuit courts). An insightful and illuminating book, written in straightforward, unencumbered prose that will stimulate uninitiated as well as expert readers.-R. J. Steamer, emeritus, University of Massachusetts at Boston
Copyright American Library Association, used with permission.
Review by Choice Review
