The Warren Court and American Politics

Powe's introduction proclaims a dual purpose: first, ""to help revive a valuable tradition of discussing the Supreme Court in the context of American politics""; second, ""to replace stereotypes with information"" that he has synthesized from a wide range of sources on the Warren court. The book's structure--four chronological parts divided into thematic chapters (civil rights, domestic security, democratic representation, church/state, press freedom, obscenity, police and criminal justice procedures, wealth and poverty)--is intelligently conceived to deal with the more than 200 decisions discussed, but the results fall short of both goals. The bulk of the book consists of too-short case summaries, including background, appeals process, decisions, concurrences and dissents, with little attempt (until the final chapter) at providing analytic unity to the material; accounts of political context are only occasionally striking, more usually superficial. Despite his proclaimed neutrality on the court's decisions (aside from Brown), University of Texas law professor Powe fails to offer satisfying analysis of either Warren's supporters or his critics (and those to the justice's left barely register at all). The result is a contradictory portrait of the court as arbitrary, arrogant and dogmatic, even though Powe offers examples showing that the nine justices did not march in lockstep. The additional failure to consider much earlier cases (Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson) that were far-reaching in their effects further reinforces the highly debatable picture of the Warren court as uniquely arbitrary, rather than simply uniquely liberal. Photos not seen by PW. (Mar.)