Majority rule or minority will : adherence to precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court /

This book by two distinguished political scientists makes a bold claim: Supreme Court justices rarely adhere to precedent, and when they do, it is usually in cases of no great importance. The authors write crystal-clear prose and sustain it with copious and careful research. They review the pull of precedent--or the lack thereof--from John Marshall in the early 19th century to Thurgood Marshall in the latter part of the 20th. Drawing on huge data sets of Supreme Court voting patterns, they show that those in the minority virtually never feel bound by the majority's views, and that new justices do not adhere to precedents they do not like. The authors use a dramatic converse example to illustrate their point; Justices Souter and O'Connor surprised many conservatives by not taking the opportunity to help form a majority to overrule Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court case that established a constitutional right to abortion. Although Souter and O'Connor defended their positions by insisting they felt obligated to follow precedent regardless of their personal views, the authors present powerful evidence that these two justices personally supported abortion rights and thus voted for their personal preferences and for precedent. This landmark book should be read by all serious students of the judicial process. M. M. Feeley; University of California, Berkeley