• Tous les prix incluent la TVA.
Il ne reste plus que 1 exemplaire(s) en stock (d'autres exemplaires sont en cours d'acheminement).
Expédié et vendu par Amazon. Emballage cadeau disponible.
Quantité :1
Five Chiefs: A Supreme Co... a été ajouté à votre Panier
+ EUR 2,99 (livraison)
D'occasion: Bon | Détails
État: D'occasion: Bon
Commentaire: Ships from the USA; Allow 15-20 business days for delivery. May take as long as 25 days. Sail the seas of value. Book shows a small amount of wear to cover and binding. Some pages show signs of use.
Vous l'avez déjà ?
Repliez vers l'arrière Repliez vers l'avant
Ecoutez Lecture en cours... Interrompu   Vous écoutez un extrait de l'édition audio Audible
En savoir plus
Voir les 2 images

Five Chiefs: A Supreme Court Memoir (Anglais) Broché – 2 octobre 2012

Voir les formats et éditions Masquer les autres formats et éditions
Prix Amazon
Neuf à partir de Occasion à partir de
Format Kindle
"Veuillez réessayer"
"Veuillez réessayer"
EUR 15,28
EUR 8,61 EUR 3,39
Note: Cet article est éligible à la livraison en points de collecte. Détails
Récupérer votre colis où vous voulez quand vous voulez.
  • Choisissez parmi 17 000 points de collecte en France
  • Les membres du programme Amazon Premium bénéficient de livraison gratuites illimitées
Comment commander vers un point de collecte ?
  1. Trouvez votre point de collecte et ajoutez-le à votre carnet d’adresses
  2. Sélectionnez cette adresse lors de votre commande
Plus d’informations
click to open popover

Offres spéciales et liens associés

Descriptions du produit

Revue de presse

"Five Chiefs is a 248-page bow-tie; like its dignified author, and his famous sartorial flourish, an unpretentious but important addition to American history...At its core, the book is not just another memoir from yet another judge. It marks instead the end of an era on the Supreme Court and in the broader swath of American law and politics...Stevens' focused eye gives way to a hundred or so smaller points, some densely legal, some historical, some even funny...Five Chiefs is the right book at the right time. It's a brief and largely defanged reminder of some of what we have lost in public life with the demise of the "moderate Republican" on Capitol Hill and the "practical conservative" on the federal bench...A fine new book."―Andrew Cohen, The Atlantic

"An informative and very appealing new memoir of life on the Supreme Court...Justice Stevens not only shows extraordinary respect for the Court as an institution, but does the same for his former colleagues-even ones with whom he often disagreed...[It's] classic Justice Stevens: understated and generous to those he differs with, but absolutely clear on where he believes justice lies."―Adam Cohen, Time

"A gentle memoir by a decent and accomplished public servant. Stevens opts not for jabs or evening scores but rather for reminiscences...Laced with observations on the court's architecture, traditions and even its seating arrangements, it is the collected ruminations of a man who has served his country in war and peace, across the decades... His memoir is as gracious as its author and a reminder that Stevens is more than a longtime member of the nation's highest court. He is a national treasure."―Jim Newton, Los Angeles Times

Présentation de l'éditeur

When he resigned in June 2010, Justice John Paul Stevens was the third-longest-serving Supreme Court justice in American history. As a lawyer and on the court, he worked with five chief justices: as a law clerk during Fred Vinson's tenure, a practicing lawyer when Earl Warren was chief, a circuit judge and junior justice during Warren Burger's term, a contemporary colleague of William Rehnquist, and a colleague of current Chief Justice John Roberts. FIVE CHIEFS is his personal account of the workings of the court from his personal experiences with these men, and the controversial cases they deliberated over, from freedom of speech and affirmative action to capital punishment and sovereign immunity.

Written with humility and grace, and packed with interesting anecdotes, FIVE CHIEFS is an unprecedented and historically significant look at the highest court in the United States.

Aucun appareil Kindle n'est requis. Téléchargez l'une des applis Kindle gratuites et commencez à lire les livres Kindle sur votre smartphone, tablette ou ordinateur.

  • Apple
  • Android
  • Windows Phone
  • Android

Pour obtenir l'appli gratuite, saisissez votre ou numéro de téléphone mobile.

Détails sur le produit

Commentaires en ligne

Il n'y a pas encore de commentaires clients sur Amazon.fr
5 étoiles
4 étoiles
3 étoiles
2 étoiles
1 étoile

Commentaires client les plus utiles sur Amazon.com (beta)

Amazon.com: HASH(0x947e13b4) étoiles sur 5 59 commentaires
91 internautes sur 101 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
HASH(0x948ebf9c) étoiles sur 5 Great Insight From A Great Mind 2 octobre 2011
Par D.L. - Publié sur Amazon.com
Format: Relié
Five Chiefs: A Supreme Court Memoir by retired associate justice of the Supreme Court, John Paul Stevens, is not your typical memoir or autobiography. While it can hardly be called "comprehensive," since it provides a narrow view of Justice Stevens' life, the book is still chock full of wisdom, wit, and insight.

I have always admired Justice Stevens' mastery of the plain English language while he was on the bench and this book is a fine example. While some may be wary about reading a book by a Supreme Court justice for fear that they might not understand it, this book is written in a clear, eloquent and at times folksy language. The only parts that may pose slight problems to the reader is when Justice Stevens discusses a complex case or constitutional issue in little more than a paragraph or two. However, these should not detract from your enjoyment of the book because they serve more as anecdotes rather than central plot points. Furthermore, Justice Stevens includes a copy of the Constitution in the appendix to the book so that those who are not familiar with the part of the Constitution he sometimes quotes may look it up for themselves.

In addition to the language being easily readable and enjoyable, the book is also well organized. The book begins with an introduction to the book that like a good legal opinion serves as a road map for the book.
Next, Justice Stevens discusses the 12 previous chief justices that he had no interactions with. As he discusses, the first he interacted with was the 13th Chief Justice, Fred Vinson, who was the chief when he was a law clerk to Justice Wiley Rutledge. This part is very interesting as Justice Stevens opines on the strengths and weaknesses of the prior chief justices and covers two or three of the significant opinions during their terms. While the discussion of the opinions themselves might be difficult to follow for those without any knowledge of the cases, the important thing to remember is that the cases themselves don't matter as much the chief's role in that case. After his discussion of the prior 12 chiefs, Justice Stevens inexplicably states that the 5 greatest in his opinion are "John Jay, John Marshall, William Howard Taft, Charles Evans Hughes, and Harlan Fiske Stone." Although he discusses these 5, he gives little hint how he feels about them until at the very end of the chapter.
The third chapter discusses the importance and the role of the chief justice. This, coupled with the second chapter, provides a good overview of the position as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, which goes well beyond merely hearing cases and writing opinions.

The first chief that Justice Stevens discusses in any great length is Chief Justice Fred Vinson, whom Justice Stevens observed while clerking for Justice Rutledge in 1947. This chapter is most interesting, not for its discussion of the chief justice, but for its description of how the Supreme Court's processes have changed. For example, in 1947 the Court heard arguments 5 days a week instead of 3, arguments started at noon instead of 10am, and the method of discussing cases and writing opinions was different. It appears that Justice Stevens did not think very highly of Chief Justice Vinson, at least not compared to the justice he worked for or the other justices on the bench at the time (which included some of the greatest justices ever - Felix Frankfurter, Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, and Robert Jackson).

Next Justice Stevens discusses Chief Justice Earl Warren who was rapidly selected by President Eisenhower. (This was a selection that he was famously quoted as "the biggest damned mistake I ever made." At the time Earl Warren was the most popular governor in the United States (governor of California) and a potential political rival). Eisenhower regretted his decision in part because of the expansive new liberties created by the Warren Court. Justice Stevens only interacted with Chief Justice Warren once when he argued before him in his one and only oral argument before the Supreme Court in an antitrust case. Somewhat humorously, Justice Stevens takes this opportunity to criticize Chief Justice Warren's antitrust jurisprudence remarking that he would not have received a good grade in an antitrust course. The most interesting part of the chapter is at the beginning when Justice Stevens questions whether a president may make a recess appointment of a Supreme Court justice (he thinks not) - a question which arises because Chief Justice Warren was actually initially a recess appointment and was not confirmed until nearly 6 months later...something I was never aware of.
In addition to discussing his appearance before the Warren Court, he also discusses other aspects of his life in private practice, such as what led him to start his own firm, and several of the major Warren Court decisions, such as Baker v. Carr, Miranda, and Brown v. Board of Education. His insights into these cases are quite interesting, particularly his approval of the Brown decision that "separate but equal" violates the Fourteenth Amendment along with his criticism of the Court's chosen timetable for ending school segregation - "with all deliberate speed." Although he criticizes Chief Justice Warren's approach to antitrust law, it is clear that Justice Stevens thinks very highly of Chief Justice Warren, and rightfully so.

The chapter on Chief Justice Warren Burger followed. I found this chapter most interesting for two reasons. First, Justice Stevens' recollections of Chief Justice Burger are much more sympathetic than the descriptions of Chief Justice Burger in Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong's The Brethren, which was mostly written before Justice Stevens joined the bench. While The Brethren makes Burger appear inept and conniving, Justice Stevens describes Burger as an advocate for improving the administration of justice throughout the United States and consistently sings his praises. That is not to say, however, that Justice Stevens does not criticize the chief justice for his shortcomings as well. He refers to some of these as the result of "self-inflicted wounds." Second, I had no idea that prior to Chief Justice Burger, advocates would get one hour each to argue instead of the 30 minutes they are given now.
Justice Stevens also discusses his brief tenure on the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, his confirmation hearings, and his early tenure on the Supreme Court. There are several brief, but humorous stories about Justice Stevens' experience as the most junior justice that are worth reading and I do not want to ruin them here.

The fourth chief justice that Justice Stevens writes about is the chief that Stevens served the longest with. Chief Justice Rehnquist was an associate justice for 14 years before being elevated to Chief Justice in 1986. As as a result of their long relationship, Justice Stevens writes with great admiration and fondness for Chief Justice Rehnquist. He writes that Chief Justice Rehnquist was the most efficient and impartial of the chiefs that he had known. While this chapter lacks the humor, wit, and anecdotes of the other chapters, it is a testament to the fact that, despite vast ideological differences in some areas of the law, the justices actually are very good friends with one another.
Conspicuously absent from this chapter (and the next) is any mention of Chief Justice Rehnquist's illness or death and his personal feelings about that. This would have been interesting to hear about since it likely substantially disrupted the work of the Court (not just because the Chief Justice passed away and Justice Stevens as the most senior justice had to perform his duties, but also because it left two seats empty with Justice Sandra Day O'Connor having stepped down earlier that term). Conspicuously present is that the chapter ends with Justice Stevens voicing his displeasure about Bush v. Gore with no mention of the role that the chief played in that case.

The penultimate chapter is about the current chief justice, John Roberts. Justice Stevens' interactions with Chief Justice Roberts occurred while he was a member of the Supreme Court, but also while Roberts was an advocate before the Court arguing 39 cases in both private practice and on behalf of the government. Justice Stevens' sings his praises both as a lawyer (he was excellent) and as a chief justice (he is better than both Rehnquist and Burger).
In this chapter Justice Stevens' wit again shines through with stories such as moving into the retired chiefs chambers upon his first arrival at the court, "dissenting" from the decision to move furniture around the justices' conference room, and pondering whether Chief Justice Roberts and him had ever crossed paths when Roberts was a boy (they lived very close to one another before Justice Stevens was appointed to the Supreme Court).
However, like Burger, he does have some criticisms of Chief Justice Roberts' jurisprudence, this time with regards to the First Amendment. Justice Stevens criticizes his decisions in both the Citizen United case as well as the Snyder v. Phelps case (concerning a church's protest at a dead soldier's funeral). Justice Stevens essentially says that Chief Justice Roberts needs to go back and re-read the First Amendment and brush up on its distinctions.
Two other notes about this chapter. Much of the press around this book and Justice Stevens has focused on his lament that if he could take back any vote it would be a vote he made that upheld the death penalty. If you are interested in his views on the subject or the death penalty in general then this is where you would find that information. The chapter ends with a discussion and criticism of original intent (the view espoused by Justice Scalia and formerly Chief Justice Rehnquist). While this part will be most interesting to lawyers and others with legal backgrounds, it may also be interesting to the layman who wants to read the Constitution and interpret it for himself - Justice Stevens presents the view of original intent and his criticism as well as provides the Constitution in the Appendix so the reader can decide for himself what is the proper view.

The final substantive chapter discusses Justice Stevens' role as the "second among equals," the senior most justice. While this chapter largely focuses on the 3 cases and assignments that Justice Stevens is most proud of, it is notable and interesting because it describes his approach to deciding whether to assign a case to someone else or himself.

Overall, Justice Stevens has written a fine book that gives a glimpse into his 60 year career as a law clerk, lawyer, judge, and justice. I think everyone who reads this book will be better for it and have a greater understanding of the Supreme Court and its chiefs. However, a word of caution: This book is not a biography of Justice Stevens' life. For that you will need to find another book or hope that Justice Stevens is currently writing one.
28 internautes sur 32 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
HASH(0x948ee108) étoiles sur 5 Justice Stevens Has His Say 3 octobre 2011
Par Ronald H. Clark - Publié sur Amazon.com
Format: Relié Achat vérifié
I think this interesting book by retired Justice John Paul Stevens will appeal to two groups. First, the general reader without much particular knowledge of the Court will find it a pleasant introduction to how the Court functions, the role of the Chief Justice, and some important decisions. Since Stevens served between 1975 and his retirement in 2010, almost the longest term of service in Court history, he has a remarkable perspective for painting a rich and full picture of the Court as an institution. The second group consists of folks like myself who are serious students of the Court and yearn for an insider's candid views of his former colleagues, how the Court operated, and how some important decisions were hammered out.

Stevens is full of some spicy opinions on various topics and not shy about articulating them. His initial chapter is a very quick run through the first 12 chief justices. This affords the reader with a context in which to put Stevens' views of his own period of service. But at 26 pages, it is pretty sketchy, but still helpful for the general reader. Next, he addresses the role of the Chief Justice, not just hearing arguments and writing opinions, but also the important administrative responsibilities he has, such as those involving the Judicial Conference and the temporary transfer of judges. Then he gets into the meat of the book--five chiefs with whom he interacted and/or served.

First up is Fred Vinson who was chief while Stevens was a clerk to Justice Rutledge in the 1947 term. Because his interaction was not great, his personal insights are limited, but he clearly was not impressed with Vinson as Chief. Next he discusses Earl Warren, but since he only interacted with Warren during one oral argument, his personal insights are limited. In both these opening chapters, Stevens discusses Court history, some decisions (Brown, Miranda, and Griswold v. Connecticut) and other insights to fill out the chapters. The longest chapter, and most intimate discussion, relates to Warren Burger, to whom Stevens (in a distinct minority) gives high marks both for some legal developments as well as administrative skills in running the Court. He also rates Rehnquist highly for his administratie skills and efficiency as Chief, as well as some of his decisions. Finally, he has some favorable things to say about Roberts, rating him as a chief superior to either Rehnquist or Burger.

An interesting concluding chapter is written from the standpoint of his long period as the senior associate justice, which imposed upon him some important administrative responsibilites. However, much is absent that one would expect to hear and want to hear. There is no discussion of Bush v. Gore, for example. Stevens makes it clear he is not a Justice Thomas fan, nor does he agree with Justice Scalia's interpretative philosophy, although he was a valuable colleague. His adverse reaction to Justice Douglas' opinion in Griswold is over the top. But for the most part, this 244 page book (with a number of helpful photographs) is pleasant to read, informative, but could have been much more.
33 internautes sur 40 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
HASH(0x948ee078) étoiles sur 5 Beautiful Elegant Narrative, Creatively Written, Master Wordsmith - 5 STARS 5 octobre 2011
Par Richard of Connecticut - Publié sur Amazon.com
Format: Relié
You can't possibly know if you want to read Five Chiefs unless you know who and what John Paul Stevens is and represents. Where did he come from? Why does he think the way he thinks? What are his political / judicial beliefs, and will this affect his objective thinking on his opinions of his fellow justices?

The first thing you need to know about reading any book by a former Supreme Court Justice is that these men and women know how to write. Regardless of the political side of the fence you reside on, or they reside on, these justices take writing to a whole new level. This is true in their opinions and in their daily lives. Justice John Paul Stevens is only the most recent in a long line of gifted writers and thinkers to occupy a seat on the court.

When he retired midyear 2010 he was the third-longest service justice in the 200 year history of the court, having served more than 30 continuous years. His predecessor William O' Douglas, whose seat Stevens took, served a year or so longer. President Ford put Stevens on the court and when he did so, he believed that he was creating a conservative seat. This was especially important because Stevens would be replacing the liberal William O. Douglas, one of the most interesting men ever to serve the court. The justice quickly surprised everyone and came in on the center of the court.

It is thought by many that the more interesting and varied a background that one brings to the court; the more successful you are as a seating justice. If this is true than Stevens' background suits the bill perfectly. Here's a man who served during World War II, enlisting the day before Pearl Harbor. He is a participant in the team that breaks the Japanese code that results in the shoot-down of Japanese Admiral Yamamoto's plane in 1943. He is awarded the Bronze Star for this action.

He is one of three brothers, all of whom become lawyers, and they are products of the Great Depression. His family is reasonably well-off (hotel owners), and this enables the future justice to sit in the stands and watch Babe Ruth make his famous call as to where he was about to hit a home run. Stevens therefore becomes a living witness to one of the great moments in sports history. He meets Charles Lindbergh and Amelia Earhart as a teenager. In many respects Stevens is living the American dream.

Like so many he comes back from the war and utilizes the benefits of a grateful country to attend the Northwestern University School of Law through the GI Bill. It must be noted that many believe that the finest class of students to attend America's universities during the 20th century, the group that came back from the war must be put at the top of the list. They brought experiences and maturity with them, and they had fought Hitler and totalitarianism. They were not passive students. They had done something, and so Stevens hit the books and graduated with the highest GPA score in the history of the Northwestern University School of Law. The JD would come next and he would be magna cum laude.

He achieved the rare distinction of becoming a Supreme Court clerk serving during the 1947-1948 term for Justice Rutledge. He then moves freely between the law and government serving as Associate Counsel to a US House subcommittee. He begins his own law firm in the 1950's in Illinois and becomes known as the go to guy on anti-trust legislation. There are five qualities that everybody recognizes in this man. They are:

* Extraordinarily capable

* A memory without equal

* Rigorous analytical ability

* A gifted writer on antitrust law

* A top litigator

The turning point in his life is when he is appointed as a special prosecutor to go after former Illinois State Chief Justice Ray Lingbiel and the then current Chief Justice Roy Solfisburg for corruption. The people were expecting a white wash but Stevens takes the corrupt judges to the wall and forces them out of office. Ultimately Richard Nixon recognizes Stevens by appointing him to the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in 1970. President Ford follows with the US Supreme Court appointment Christmas time 1975. How many justices get confirmed 98 to 0?

How Stevens Thinks

If there is one word that denotes who John Paul Stevens is as a justice, the word would be GROWTH. Some justices are predictable, and reliable in their opinions. You know where they are going to come out on an issue. Stevens was not in this category. When he was on the Seventh Circuit he leaned towards the conservative side on issues. He was a moderate for the first few years of his tenure on the Supreme Court. He was for reinstating capital punishment, and was against race-based admissions programs on a college level. When the court became the Rehnquist Court, Stevens went liberal on abortions, federalism, and gay rights. Many considered him a centrist, while others thought him highly liberal.

Now here's the wild thing about Stevens. If you ask him what he is, which he was asked in 2007, he would respond a judicial conservative. So the liberals think him liberal, he thinks of himself as a conservative and when it came to pornography rulings, he found himself a libertarian. I have always felt it was great when you were incapable of putting labels on someone, and Stevens is such a person.

What he has achieved with FIVE CHIEFS?

This is a beautifully written book done in an elegant fashion. You do not have to be a lawyer to love this book, but if you are a lawyer, your understanding will be much different than the rest of us. Stevens can come at you in a down home common style and it's effective. He covers the first 12 Chief Justices with whom he had no interactions but he does have opinions. Those opinions are reserved until later in the book. He does not want to prejudice you early in the reading. You do not need to understand the issues that were and are before the Supreme Court to enjoy this book. It is more than likely that you will have an understanding because very few without a feel for the Court's work would enjoy this book.

What Stevens wants you to take away from his narrative is an appreciation for the work of the CJ or Chief Justice as he and others call the leader of the Court. We also get to see firsthand how the various Chief Justices have interacted with the great issues before the Court of their time. How legal opinion can be altered by who is given the opinion to be written. Some justices were much better writers than others, and some chose to have their clerks draft much of the opinion as opposed to themselves. It's all here, and it's unvarnished in its realism.

It is Justice Stevens' opinion that the five greatest Chief Justices in our nation's history were:

* John Jay

* John Marshall

* William Howard Taft

* Charles Evans Hughes

* Harlan Fiske Stone

The Justice goes on to tell us in detail about the Five Chief Justices he has personally known. These include Fred Vinson, Earl Warren, Warren Burger, William Rehnquist, and John Roberts. He seems to have a fondness for John Roberts which is certainly not based on ideological kinship. He thinks highly of the current CJ's mind and his skills as Chief Justice. By the way, you will love the anecdotes in this book, and you are not about to read them anywhere else. Stevens clearly brings a unique perspective to Supreme Court history.

This book is not without its so called juicy parts, nothing scandalous however, which any observer of the Court appreciates. You do get to know the human side of the justices, and perhaps what they are really like when not enshrouded in their black robes. In this 244 page narrative, you will discover a whole different side to the Court, and your understanding of court history will never be the same.

Perhaps most importantly you will gain an appreciation for the extraordinary work, and financial sacrifice that each member of the Court makes to earnestly provide this country with the rule of law which separates us from every other society on earth. This is truly an extraordinary topic we are covering and thank you for reading this review.

Richard Stoyeck
10 internautes sur 12 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
HASH(0x948ebf54) étoiles sur 5 A Supreme Court memoir for non-Law students 5 novembre 2011
Par The Paperback Pursuer - Publié sur Amazon.com
Format: Relié
Five Chiefs is memoir detailing John Paul Stevens' life and career as a Supreme Court Justice, which includes sections about the Chief Justices he served under.

I have never been a "politics-junky", but as I have gotten older I've realized the importance of politics in today's society. So when I read the blurb, I decided to try reading it. Thankfully, John Paul Stevens writing style and organization wasn't as dry and boring as I thought it would be. Sure, some sections seemed to drone on, but many times it was because I was not associated with the cases and legal terms described. It took me longer to read because I had to look up several law definitions, which could have been avoided if there was some kind of side-note for those of us without background in law studies. I liked the inclusion of the photos, comics, and the copy of the Constitution of the United States; they made the material a little bit more enjoyable. I am glad that it was written like more of a down-to-Earth conversation than a full-blown law textbook, minus those few definitions. It is obvious that John Paul Stevens is very passionate about what he wrote, and he definitely knows what he is talking about. The length was also desirable for a person who isn't a political studies or law major; I would have expected a much lengthier memoir for all that I learned he, and his colleagues, accomplished. Overall, I would recommend Five Chiefs if you are really interested in The Supreme Court and politics because it is filled with facts, stories, and gossip about many of the past Supreme Court Justices.

Rating: Bounty's Out (3/5)

*** I received this book from Little, Brown and Company, (Hachette Book Group), in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.
13 internautes sur 16 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
HASH(0x948ee834) étoiles sur 5 Disappointing, but potentially redeemable 4 mars 2012
Par E. Fallon - Publié sur Amazon.com
Format: Relié
Unfortunately, there really isn't anything new or novel about this book. I was hoping for a more candid and honest review of Justice Stevens' experience on the court. Most of the narratives were already common knowledge or available from other sources. There are moments, and a couple that were quite entertaining, where Stevens gives us a little glimpse of an actual, raw opinion. But, just as quickly as they appeared, he returns to a shrouded and formalistic writing style that is overly deferential and quite boring. Given his obvious writing ability, I was disappointed.

The one saving grace would be this: if you're not a lawyer, law student, or judge, you might enjoy it. It's an easy read and would probably be interesting to those with minimal legal history knowledge.
Ces commentaires ont-ils été utiles ? Dites-le-nous


Souhaitez-vous compléter ou améliorer les informations sur ce produit ? Ou faire modifier les images?