Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong take us inside the U.S. Supreme Court in The Brethren.

I’ve been on a Supreme Court reading kick recently, having read and enjoyed Joe Mathewson’s work on the “indispensable conflict” between the court and the press and Seth Stern and Stephen Wermiel’s biography of legendary liberal justice William Brennan.

Part of the Brennan biography talked about the impact the publication of Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong’s The Brethren, which delivered on its promise to break the veil of secrecy surrounding the court’s deliberations.  While Brennan was not portrayed in nearly as unsympathetic light as Chief Justice Warren Burger, whose overtly political and heavy-handed actions repelled nearly all the other justices, the inclusion of several negative statements he made about the chief disturbed him.

I took out The Brethren from the library last night, and, while I may not finish it, do recommend it to those interested in learning more about how the nation’s highest court actually operates.

The book opens in 1969, shortly before then-President Richard M. Nixon appointed Burger to fill the court’s top spot, and then covers each of the following seven years until the end of the 1976 term.

I read the material about the first year.

Although the book understandably does not focus as intently or intimately on Brennan, it does give a panoptic view of life inside the chambers.

It is an often unattractive vision.

This was a year in which in which a number of the court’s leading liberals like Hugo Black and William Douglas and counterparts like John Marshall Harlan were dealing with the ravages of age and, the authors imply, increased ill temper. Thurgood Marshall, the nation’s first black justice, is portrayed as barely engaged in his work, save when a school desegregation course is taken by the court.

Yet, as mentioned above, Burger comes off the worst.

Beyond the portrayal of individual justices, the book also explains, and then takes the reader through, the extensive give and take of hearing, drafting and issuing an opinion.

Rather than the province of abstract ideas, this is very political territory in the “small p” sense of the word.  Legal reasoning, judicial philosophy, personality and individual relationships all play a role in what questions the court chooses to address, how they rule, who dissents and who concurs.

It’s a fascinating process thoroughly reported and ably written by the indefatigable and relentless Woodward, who, the authors of the Brennan biography note, somehow for close to 40 years has managed to get Washington sources who think they will be able to spin the story to reveal more than they anticipate and have less impact than what they imagined.

Joe Mathewson writes in his book about the continued push to open the court’s deliberations more widely to the public. If those efforts succeed, they will have built on the initial crack provided by Woodward and Armstrong’s pioneering and demystifying work.

Justice Brennan made a major impact on the nation during his 34 years on the Supreme Court.

This morning I finished Seth Stern and Stephen Wermiel’s engaging biography of liberal champion William Brennan and felt a little sad when it ended.

I powered through the remaining 200 pages last night and earlier today, reading the authors’ description of Brennan’s efforts to hold back the increasingly conservative tide and direction of the nation’s highest court he served on for more than a third of a century.

Stern and Wermiel write about the discomfort the publication of Scott Armstrong and Bob Woodward’s The Brethren caused Brennan, who prided himself on maintaining positive relations with his colleagues and was mortified to read some of the derogatory statements he had made about then-Chief Justice Warren Burger published for the world to read.

This part of the book also covered Brennan’s unfailing care of his beloved first wife Marjorie, even as he continued not to confront her alcoholism, the marriage he found in his surprising marriage to Mary Fowler, his secretary of 27 years, and his own physical and mental decline.

Beyond the discussion of Brennan’s personal life, the latter part of the book also contains a lengthy discussion of his failings and partial growth in his professional conception of, and dealings with, women, his often strident and acidic dissents that had the effect at times of repelling his colleagues and his tendency to assign key writing assignments to himself rather than to other justices like Thurgood Marshall, who appeared at moments to resent Brennan’s choices.

The tension with Marshall beneath the surface admiration and professional harmony the two men held toward each other is another notable aspect of the book’s ending part.  While he admired Marshall no end as a litigator, Brennan found his lack of consistent focus disappointing as a justice.

These imperfections in many ways serve to illustrate Brennan’s enormous impact on the country, both through the nature of the decisions he helped cobble together after extensive and delicate negotiations as well as his vision of the Constitution as a living document that needs to be viewed in light of the present.

The book’s final pages assesses the justice’s legacy, and shows Brennan, in a rare moment, shedding his unassuming demeanor to talk frankly about the changes he and other on the bench had wrought during the heyday of the Warren Court.

They were substantial, and, he hoped, unlikely to be permanently reversed.  Specifically, the rulings around voter access, defendants’ rights and a woman’s right to choose have, thus far at least, been borne out.   Brennan also is seen toward the end of the book as fomenting a similar kind of judicial activism at the state level when he recognized that his odds of success were continuing to dwindle as the court’s composition became more and more opposed to his judicial and social philosophy.

This moment of candor is a fitting summary because it shows Brennan’s intention and understanding of what he helped bring to the country.    The authors note with what one perceives is just a tad of wistfulness that Sonia Sotomayor in her confirmation hearing sought explicitly to distance herself from the type of judging that was Brennan’s trademark.

Be that as it may, Brennan was, as Stern and Wermiel write, the right man at the right moment to make a major impact on the nation through his actions and efforts during the 34 years he walked inside the chambers of the nation’s highest court.

Whether one agrees or disagrees fervently, as many do, with the substance and constitutional vision inherent in his decisions, one must acknowledge that he used his time on the planet to great effect.

Stewart died in 1986, so he never saw his friend George make it to the White House in 1989 – but Mauro finds that he did follow his friend’s 1980 Presidential run and VP nomination quite closely:

Stewart clearly had a keen interest in Bush’s electoral fortunes, collecting news clippings about Bush testing the waters for a 1980 run for the presidency, which turned into a campaign for vice president with Ronald Reagan at the top of the ticket. Stewart corresponded with Christopher Phillips, apparently a strategist who was urging Bush to stress his moderate views and not give in to pressure from the right that was fueling Reagan’s success. “My great fear is that even if the views stated in your memorandum are fully understood and completely accepted, the house may be irreparably late,” Stewart wrote. Stewart even shared his views with Powell, who wrote Stewart, “These are views you and I have shared. It may indeed be too late now.”

Indeed, for the Court, it was too late.  Under Reagan, Stewart and Powell’s moderate conservatism–political and jurisprudential–began its decline towards today’s near-extinction.

And from Stewart’s “Tribe” file:

In May 1969, after Nixon appointed Warren Burger as chief justice, Tribe wrote a letter to Stewart mourning the demise of a shared hope: that Stewart would be elevated to the position instead. “I had so hoped things would turn out differently,” Tribe wrote. “For you — and for the country — I am sorry.” Stewart’s reply note did not deny the ambition.

This note from Tribe seems at odds with The Brethren‘s prologue (see pp. 10-13), in which Woodward and Armstrong write that Stewart declined President Nixon’s overtures to elevate Stewart to Chief Justice.  Perhaps Stewart, now known as a significant source for The Brethren, fed Woodward and Armstrong this story for pride’s sake.  Perhaps Tribe did not know about this meeting.  Or perhaps Tribe was lamenting the underlying reasons why Stewart felt compelled to decline the President’s offer – “why”s that may have been lost forever in the fires Tribe told me about at the Kagan hearings and reiterated to Mauro:

Laurence Tribe remembers watching Potter Stewart, the U.S. Supreme Court justice for whom he clerked in 1967, feed his office fireplace around Christmas time.

Stewart was burning some of his Court papers, recalls Tribe, the Harvard law professor and now senior counselor at the Justice Department. “He told me that it was an annual affair.”

What papers did Stewart destroy that year? “I promised him I’d remain forever silent, and it’s a promise I feel bound to keep,” Tribe said.

Read the whole piece over at Law.com.

Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations.

Luke was the only gospel writer to include this statement

as being said by Jesus Christ at the Last Supper.

Luke was not at the Last Supper!

Where in the world did he get this from?

And who was doing the tempting?

Seems to me only the tempter and the accuser would know!

Luke 22:31

And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:

This particular verse (or statement or anything resembling it)

is not in the Gospel of John, neither the Gospel of Mark, nor the Gospel of Matthew.

I ask again….where did it come from?

How would Luke know what Satan desires, unless he is Satan?

REMEMBER

LUKE WAS NOT AN APOSTLE!

HE WAS NOT AT THE LAST SUPPER!

HE DID NOT EVEN KNOW JESUS CHRIST!

Luke 22:32

But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

The same thing goes for this particular verse.

THE BRETHREN ARE PAUL AND LUKE!

I believe that Luke is making this up for the benefit of Paul and himself.

Isaiah 14:12-13

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!13For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God:

I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

NEOCATECHUMENAL WAY OPENS A CHAPEL ON THE MOUNT

—————————————————–

Other Blogs of Mine:

Merangue’s Blog,    Blue Skies,    Eye of a Needle,    My Merlon

To quite a few people, when they hear that John Grisham has come out with a new novel, their first hasty generalization is that it is another “lawyer book.”  This may have been true with his first five novels, but the subsequent five had been entirely different.  Yes, each involved a lawyer or the court in some way, but they entailed an interesting story not to do with law and the courts, but with ordinary happenstances of life.  Once again, John Grisham has delivered with The Brethren, a unique story that keeps the reader hooked until the very end.

The Brethren are three judges doing time in a prison in Florida.  All three have committed somewhat serious crimes, nothing as major as murder or manslaughter, but enough that they are doing ten years at Trundle, a minimum-security prison.  What separates them from the rest of the inmates is the elaborate scheme they have concocted.

They enter personal ads in gay magazines, and then reply to those interested who seem to be rich and stable.  They created a fictitious yet perfect setting: a young boy in rehab, getting off his drug addiction, trying to get accepted back into the real world, and needing someone to comfort him.  Then, when the right moment is reached, they launch their attack, revealing their identities and their plot, demanding large amounts of money.  The people who have been had have no choice but to comply, unless they want their hidden sexual leanings reveled to their friends and families.

Juxtaposed with this is the election for President of the United States.  There is a perfect candidate, backed and controlled by the CIA, guaranteed to win; except he has answered one of the personal ads and currently has a “rich” correspondence with “Ricky” in rehab.

And so begins the ongoing game where the Brethren scam and scam, bringing in the dollars, while the CIA fight to preserve the secrets of the new president.  One cannot help but be sucked into the raging maelstrom Grisham has created with The Brethren, following the lives of the judges, the candidate, the CIA and its agents.  This tale is sure to delight any reader, whether they are a John Grisham fan or not.

If you liked this review and are interested in purchasing this book, click here.

Originally published on April 2nd 2001 ©Alex C. Telander.

Originally published in the Long Beach Union.

A Time to Kill

– book is in very good condition, some creases on the side
– miniscule fold on the upper right corner of the book as well as miniscule fold on 2-3 pages on the upper right corner of the book
– slightly yellow pages due to age
– with plastic cover
– no torn pages
– mass market paperback
– P120

The Brethren

– book is in good condition, some creases on the side, some small folds on the front
– some small spots on the pages due to age
– with plastic cover
– slightly yellow pages due to age, no torn or folded pages
– mass market paperback

– P120

The Pelican Brief

– book is in very good condition, some creases on the side
– very little, slight damage on the side of the back cover
– slightly yellow pages due to age, no torn or folded pages
– mass market paperback
– P120

Please refer to our Terms and Conditions before ordering via our Order Form.

You may also check out our main site for more pictures and details.

You may also refer to this page if you have any questions on how to reserve/buy/pay.

John told those who were followers of Yeshua (Jesus) that their love for other believers was the proof they loved God. Their love to God was the cause why they loved His children, and their keeping the commandments of God was the proof that they loved Him. True love for the brethren sprang from a love of God and keeping His commandments. John declared the love for their fellow believers depended on the love with which they loved God. They must love and obey God first before the love for the brethren followed. As their love for other believers was the sign and test of their love to God, John stated their love for God, tested by their keeping of His commandments, was conversely, the ground and only true basis of love for other believers. All born of God must love those who were children of God. The proof they had this love for other believers was that they so loved God as to obey His commandments.

Our love and obedience to God is proof of love to those in the body of Messiah. The reality test on whether or not we love God’s children is this: Do we love God? Do we obey His commands? This is truly how we know we love God’s children if we love God and obey His commands. This is the litmus test. How do we measure up? There should be no confusion on what John said here. It is cut and dry with no room for compromise. Believe in Yeshua(Jesus) and love other believers. This is it in a nutshell. This is what it is all about. Here is how we know we love God’s children when we love God and do what He commands. Is this what we are all about? If not we might want to reexamine our relationship with Messiah.

Conflagration

Blood Of A Cynic

Enough Said

Homerun (surprise set)

Excrecor

The Brethren

Words and photos by Victoria Morse

Click any photo to see all of the full sets from the night.

NOTE: Shows like this are the reason I love music publicity and concert photography so much. Without all the amazing staff who book, set up, tear down equipment, sound check, clean up, and keep everyone safe there would be no Alley. Thanks to all the people who put the work in to make these shows happen every Friday and special thanks to all of the great bands that come out.

Conflagration

Blood Of A Cynic

Enough Said

Homerun (surprise set)

Excrecor

The Brethren

Words and photos by Victoria Morse

Click any photo to see all of the full sets from the night.

NOTE: Shows like this are the reason I love music publicity and concert photography so much. Without all the amazing staff who book, set up, tear down equipment, sound check, clean up, and keep everyone safe there would be no Alley. Thanks to all the people who put the work in to make these shows happen every Friday and special thanks to all of the great bands that come out.

By

John Grisham

In John Grisham’s latest, The Brethren, two Western judges and a Southern justice of the peace have formed an unofficial law practice inside the Florida minimum-security federal prison where they’re incarcerated. Known collectively as the Brethren, Joe Spicer (grand theft), Finn Yarber (income-tax evasion), and Hatlee Beech (vehicular homicide while under the influence) spend most of their days advising other inmates for a fee. Once a week they hold court to settle prisoner disputes. And just recently the three bored and embittered old men have expanded their activities to include a by-mail extortion scheme. After identifying rich, closeted gay men who have responded to a bogus personal ad, the Brethren spring their trap, demanding tens of thousands of dollars from their horrified victims.

One of those victims turns out to be Aaron Lake, a 53-year-old Arizona congressman running for President. After the Brethren penetrate Lake’s pseudonym, they concoct an airtight blackmail plan. If Lake can manage to have their sentences commuted, they won’t demolish his campaign and his life. What the Brethren don’t know is that Aaron Lake’s run for the presidency has been financed from the beginning by the CIA — specifically, by its Machiavellian director, Teddy Maynard, as a part of his scheme to double the U.S. military budget.

The crisis (and most of the black comedy) comes when all the mighty covert power of the CIA is unleashed against the Brethren, in a seesaw of cons, negotiations, betrayal, and murder. It’s also a flat-out guilty pleasure, Grisham’s first real page-turner since 1997′s ”The Partner.” But for all its skilful execution, you do feel a little dirty in the company of such despicable characters.

Reviewed by

Mani Sankar

XB, Shift-I

Church leaders in the country say the situation is extremely unstable inside and urge North Korean Christians to become more united during this difficult time, according to Open Doors sources.

Not only is the country supposedly restarting its nuclear weapons program and threatening war against its neighbor, but North Korean authorities have reportedly intensified tactics to expose underground church members.

“Christians in North Korea are suffering terribly for their faith,” said Open Doors USA president/CEO Carl Moeller. “Of the estimated 200,000 in political prison camps, an estimated 40,000 to 60,000 are Christians.”

He added, “Now with the firing of several missiles and the on-going war footing, the scrutiny of believers has increased.”

“We thank God there are so many people who are praying for our country,” said a pastor inside North Korea to Open Doors. “Your prayers strengthen the Christians in North Korea.”

Read full article below:

CPost: N. Korean Christians Pray amid Gov’t Military Aggression

I’ve been finally tackling the task of making sure every surface of literature I own has been conquered and read. In a box I found “The Firm” and “The Brethern” gathering dust. After breezing through “the Firm” I was certain I may have read it in the past, but the Brethern I knew I had not. Years ago, I was always quick to pick up the newest John Grisham novel right when it hit paperback, I have read them all straight through to “The Partner”, but thereafter have for some reason not purchased one, so my curiosity was perked. What was Grishams more recent writing like? What suspenseful twisted legal thrillers had he congered? The result was fairly disappointing.

The Brethern’s setting involved three judges that had been sentenced in a Federal Prison for enough time to have simply lost hope at having a respectable or normal life after their release. In their prison they conspired together a scam that extorted money out of people from the outside. While they all had a long time before their releases, it gave them motivation and hope of a life after prison. The first portion of the book deals with much foreshadowing to what seems an uncertain future. With the secoondary plotline it seems very implausable that the two plotlines will eventually mesh and explode.

The second plotline involved a concerned CIA director who needed a Zest fully clean candidate to run for President. NOt only that, one who would reinforce the military and calm the directers concerns of Russian military power. When he found the man Aaron Lake, it seemed that there were no skeletons, the man was, who the man was. The story goes on with great lengths of how his campaign is ran and why he suddenly becomes an important candiatate and why he is suddenly a threat to the other career politicians who are running for President as well. But for the most part makes no allusions to any connection with the first plotline.

It’s my opinion the connection between the two plotlines develops way too late in the book and lacks the suspense and believability it needs to push the to the climax. The connection and likelihood of the events is paper thin and it runs over the line of suspension of disbelief. In fact it’s downright outrageous. The CIA’s involvement was actually annoying and it made them seem powerless and weak. It’s obvious is prior books Grisham has no love for the Feds or Langley, but he always impresses the power they do have. In this novel that sense of dread and fear did not exist or intimidate. The Judge charecters weren’t likeable other than Yarber, and even he was stretching it. The only charecter that was likeable was Aaron Lake and he was boring, even though he was supposed to be, if running for President I would assume him to be very charismatic. If you are attempting to make the badguys be your heros, you need to give them some redeeming or interesting qualities.

I pushed hard to the final pages of the book hoping for something. There isn’t usually a huge shocking twist in a Grisham novel, but the way things pan out is usually interesting in themselves, because he is not a predictable writer in the good guy always winning. The final chapters were at best flat.

I’m going to pick up The Street Lawyer next time I’m out with the hopes that some of his other newer novels don’t have the same deadpan storytelling, because he is really a genius of a writer, but this book I wouldn’t recommend to anyone.