'Supreme Conflict'

How presidents tried to influence decisions through their appointments.
By GINA BARTON
MILWAUKEE JOURNAL SENTINEL
Mention the U.S. Supreme Court to most Americans, and they'll conjure up the same image: powerful, black-robed justices appointed for life, and remaining somewhat anonymous.
Jan Crawford Greenburg's new book, "Supreme Conflict," changes all that. The book takes justices down from the bench and reveals them as individuals. Sandra Day O'Connor the cowgirl. Stephen Breyer the absent-minded professor. Clarence Thomas the young whippersnapper.
The story begins with O'Connor's retirement. Everyone knows where it will end: William Rehnquist dies, and George W. Bush ultimately nominates two conservative and confirmable nominees, John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Amazingly, although the plot line is well-known, Greenburg manages to keep the reader in suspense. You never would have guessed precisely how things happened.
True to its promise, Greenburg's book details the way that presidents aimed to influence decades of decisions through their appointments. But it is also an insider's view of much more. Greenburg takes the reader behind closed doors as justices discuss historic cases such as Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, the case conservatives expected the court would use to overturn Roe v. Wade. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who had earlier sided with the conservatives, changed his mind two days after Rehnquist circulated the majority opinion.
Inner workings
Insights abound. The author, a correspondent for ABC News who spent 19 years covering legal affairs for the Chicago Tribune, details, for example, Clarence Thomas' feud with O'Connor, which began almost immediately after Thomas took the bench, and which many believe pushed the moderate O'Connor further to the left.
"Supreme Conflict" is filled with details that transform the business of Washington politics into a gripping narrative. The book is a must-read for court watchers and political junkies alike.