The Brethren*
by Bob Woodward
- Before reading this book, were you familiar with the structure of the U.S. Supreme Court?
- The Chief Justice is not required to have been an Associate Justice prior to becoming the Chief, as was the case of Warren Burger and the current CJ John Roberts. Past CJ’s Earl Warren and John Marshall were not even judges. Does that make sense? Why or why not?
- Why do you think Woodward opened the book detailing newly appointed Chief Justice Burger’s changes to the courtroom, clerk communications, etc.? Were you surprised at how antiquated some of the Courts’ procedures were in 1969?
- Why were some of the Justices concerned about their portrayal in the media (e.g., Justice Marshall on page 51)
- Does it make sense why someone who is appointed by a “conservative” president or a “liberal” president may seem to make an about-face once on the Court. Do you think that is how C.J. Burger was perceived (for instance in his role regarding school desegregation, when he may have wanted to follow the Nixon administration’s policy of “reasonable delay” (page 56) but instead issued a two page per curiam (an opinion of the court with no designated author) ordering immediate desegregation (page 55)?
- In the past Supreme Court nominees were usually approved by the Senate; rarely were they rejected. In more recent years (since LBJ’s time) the Senate has seemed more willing to reject S.C. nominees. What do you think of this trend?
- Do you feel Woodward portrayed C.J. Burger fairly? What was your impression of Burger? Do you think it was a good strategy to almost always go along with the majority in order that he could assign who wrote the opinions? Do you agree that the C.J. should be concerned with how the media portrays him and how he is perceived by the public and to “view cases as purely political” as Stewart accused him of on page 72?
- Do you agree that Justices should be appointed for life? Why is or isn’t this a good idea? (Justice Hugo Black suffered a stroke but was still very influential in cases such as school desegregation (starting on page 36.))
- The Brethren is often assigned to first year law students. Why do you think that is? Do you think it is a good book for future lawyers to read? Why or why not?
- According to the authors much of the information presented in The Brethren was garnered through interviews with former clerks. How do you feel about the apparent breach of confidentiality? Do you think it’s good or bad for the Supreme Court to operate in relative secrecy?
- We timed the discussion of this book well with the George W. Bush’s recent nominations to the Court. Did you follow the nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito? Did reading this book make you feel differently about the importance of the Supreme Court nomination process?
- Interesting tidbits:
- The office is often but incorrectly referred to as "Chief Justice of the Supreme Court." Title 28, United States Code, Sec. 1 specifies the title as "Chief Justice of the United States," and thus, not just of the Court itself. The title changed at the suggestion of 6th Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, who wished to emphasize the Court's role as a coequal branch of government. By contrast, the other eight members of the Court are Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, not "Associate Justices of the United States."
- The salary of the Chief Justice is set by Congress, and it is slightly higher than that of the Associate Justices. It is $208,100 per annum as of 2006 (see 28 U.S.C. § 5)
- The Chief Justice is considered to be the justice with most seniority, independent of the number of years he or she has served. As a result, the Chief Justice chairs the conferences where cases are discussed and voted on by the justices. The Chief Justice normally speaks first, and so has great influence in framing the discussion.
- In 1998, Edward Lazarus wrote a book often compared to The Brethren, called Closed Chambers.
*Questions written by Mount Prospect Public Library Staff
Published 1979
