COURTING DISASTER

Prominent New York lawyer and television commentator Garbus (Tough Talk, 1998, etc.) lucidly examines the threat he sees developing from an increasingly conservative judicial system.

Since 1980, Republicans have controlled the legal system more and more, the author contends. Reagan's Supreme Court appointments and the ascendancy of the Federalist Society, founded in 1982 and now the country's most powerful legal organization, have succeeded in reversing the liberal Warren Court’s decisions. Although Miranda v. Arizona (1966) guaranteed constitutional protections to criminal suspects, 60 related cases have subsequently been decided with only two rulings benefiting the defendant. In Atwater v. City of Lago Vista (2001), Gail Atwater, driving with two infants in her car, was arrested, handcuffed, and jailed for a seatbelt violation. Bringing her suit to the high court, she lost on grounds that policemen cannot immediately tell whether a suspect is jailable. Chief Justice Rehnquist openly opposes the Court's decision in Roe v. Wade (1973), which granted women a legal right to an abortion, and in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989) and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Robert P. Casey (1992), he came only one vote short of denying women that right. Any nominee of George W. Bush will probably reverse the 5-4 decision. For 30 years, asserts Garbus, the religious right has successfully pressed to blur the separation of church and state. In Mitchell v. Holmes, argued in 1999, the Court voted 6-3 to uphold a Louisiana law that permitted the state to loan computers and books to parochial schools. Dissenters Souter, Stevens, and Ginsburg saw the implicit danger that religious schools could benefit from taxpayer money. Garbus reviews cases covering environmental issues, employee rights, affirmative action, and federal versus state sovereignty. His portraits of the nine justices are most scathing in the cases of hardhearted Rehnquist and incompetent Thomas. He concludes by urging his allies to fight the present prevailing powers.

An openly liberal polemic, but nevertheless a brilliant summary of the important legal trends of the last 20 years.